WATCH: Buckley and Scott rip into Robbo on AFL 360 over illicit drug issue

Yep, that's where I think Robbo was out of line putting the story out there... not only did he not know exact numbers, but the 'one-of-three' clubs thing wasn't professional either. And then to have it released right on the eve of the game was totally irresponsible. I really don't know what they had to gain out of running that story so urgently that it couldn't wait to verify the info On Ryan's point about the multiplicity of some journos it really does look bad, and worse it takes us for idiots.

Robbo wasn't looking Buckley in the eye at the start of the interview. Robbo replied to Bucks by saying that the HS is a daily which means taking extra time to check his facts and sources comes second or third and the damage his opinions may cause are largely irrelevant so long as he gets his article into print. Robbo copped a similar whack from Bomber Thompson last year. The Herald Sun ran the piece from Daniel Chick in the lead-up to last years GF. I have no respect for the man or his employer. 70% of Australians get their printed news from Murdoch.

That was definitely a squirm. Sure, it was only one squirm...but it went the length of the discussion.

The issue is obvious there, Bob. Ahmed Saad should not have got 2 years (wasn't it one?). If reporters report footy and adults did not bring it to kids' attention when players make social errors, footy would remain on the agenda.

It's as simple as illicit drugs are not performance enhancing. The general population seems to struggle with this fact. The fact that the AFL has an illicit drug policy, is in fact already a harder approach than most other sports take. Definitely harder than the approach taken on Olympic athletes.

You're making yourself perfectly clear Ryan. I just don't agree with you, simple as that.

I don't want to get into a spiral with you, so let's leave it here. I mustn't be making myself clear.

I'm with Ryan on this. I think it was more than not knowing the exact number. When Robinson explained how he arrived at 'up to 11', that it was based on him floating a figure of 23 and being told the real number was 'less than half of that', I'd imagine eyebrows were raised everywhere. He has inferred a figure from a vague response and blithely plastered it on the front (back? I don't read it) of the nation's highest-selling newspaper. That is unbelievably bad practice. I'm interested in the source as well, because to listen to him talk it sounded like it might well have been from someone connected with the Collingwood Football Club. And given the other numbers circulating - like 23 and 30 - that puts something of a different complexion on the outrage from the Pies.

Ryan - I think it's totally appropriate that he justifies and is challenged over what he wrote, both in substance and the integrity of publishing at all. What is the structure of Australian sporting media anyway?? How do you want it structured?? I think you are over complicating a simple process. Do you want it regulated so that people are shut up if they step outside their asigned structure?

Maybe its as simple as the person who leaked it hates Collingwood.

What I'm still wondering is why no one is asking who the 2 other clubs are. Why was Collingwood 11 named, but a vague reference to two other clubs with higher numbers went unsaid? Could it possibly be that the two other clubs are darlings of the media not the big bad awful Collingwood. Typical grubby dirt from a hack reporter.

I don't know about that, I reckon you can tell when Robinson gets a bit uncomfortable. Yeah I agree Buckley was hitting that point a bit too much, but he raised genuine concerns about the way the story was reported - the precise number was a symptom of that.

It's a pretty big jump from journalistic division of reporting apparent fact and promoting an opinion to Stalinism. Robbo can certainly have his opinions but it blurs the cases where he 'breaks news' because it tends to cast it all in the same light (i.e. As opinion or for a particular purpose, rather than because it's news). Clamping free speech would suggest one or both of these types of article is not ok, which clarifying roles within the media doesn't do.

Woah, ummm, no, that's not what I'm saying at all. Of course he can say what he wants - it is very clear that that is what he does. What I'm saying is that we have a structural issue in the Australian sporting media landscape where the newsbreakers become part of the story by virtue of their status as the key voices on the game. It creates this vicious cycle where this kind of exchange - fighting over whether it was appropriate for him to break the news - becomes the debate, rather than the substance of the matter at hand. That is because there is an absolute dearth of non-journalist writers and analysts that have a platform.

I didn't think Robbo was squirming at all. Didn't get flustered at any point IMO. Buckley was getting weighed down about the fact that Robbo didn't know the exact number, which wasn't really the point.

That's a ridiculous notion Ryan. So you're going to put these blokes in their specific little compartment 's so they can't speak outside their box? That's Stalinist stuff. It's a free world, Robbo can say what he want's when he want's where he wants. That's what you call free speech in a democratic society.

I think this is a bit more complicated than Bucks v Robbo, although I will admit it was ridiculously entertaining watching Robinson squirm like he did. It actually goes to the heart of some of the problems in Australia's sporting media, namely that the newsbreakers are also the pundits, who are also the opinion makers. There is no delineation, both within the outlets themselves and in the general public. Elsewhere around the world, you have guys that exist only to break news, and a whole other class of writers that do the opining and analysis. What I'm saying is Robbo shouldn't be responding to his own stories, that should be the job for the likes of Gerard Whately. He should just be breaking the news. It's a dangerous game, and one that results in him being in this sort of position of defending the very notion of it being right or wrong to have broken a story. Robinson can defend himself and say he's just breaking news and that's his job, which is fine. But he can't have his cake and eat it by trying to shape the agenda in a setting like AFL360. That's my two cents.

This may sound too simple, if the players don't do drugs, no scandal. Abit like the Essendon players, the you feel sorry for aretheone not involved. Collingwood, and no doubt the other clubs involved may well scream from the rafter "breach of trust", why don't they and all clubs have a crack at their players for "breach of trust". Think back to the St. Kilda player, drank a sports drink innocently / accidently and got 2 years, fast forward Collingwood players and others from other clubs take drugs deliberatly with no penalty. Go figure that one. Jump up & down all you want, the AFL & clubs are on the decline unless something drastic happens with this problem. You can't have it where collectively Australians "judge" every other country whose sports stars are found to have taken drugs as cheats, then have the wishy washy processess we have here in the AFL. Your either serious or your not, and I am afraid to say the AFL are not. They may like to say they are, it's obvious to blind freedie that is not the case.

What do you think Eddie would do if he found out it was Pert?

Regardless, Robbo did not have all the figures and even said so himself so who is he and the Herald sun to name and shame Collingwood.