September 23, 2024 • 26 mins
It's the debate that never seems to go away. The Brownlow Medal is the AFL's highest individual honour, awarded to the best and fairest player of the home and away season. But every year, the same question is asked by fans and pundits alike: should it just be awarded to the best player on the field? Should the "fairest" element be scrapped entirely, making suspended players eligible? Abbey is joined once again by Laura Spurway to try and settle the debate.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Here at two Good Sports, we would like to acknowledge
the traditional owners of the land on which we record
this podcast. The were Inerie people. This land was never seated,
always was, always will be.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Hello and welcome to two Good Sports.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
It's sports news.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Told differently on the greatest week of the calendar year. No,
I'm not talking about Christmas in New Year. It is
AFL Grand Final week. And joining us again this week
is Laura Spairway.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Laura, It's our Christmas, isn't it.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
It is our Christmas Yay, best time of the year.
It is the best time of the year.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
And something that punctuates this week is Monday Night's Brownlow
Medal and that is our main discussion. Our deep dive
for this week is a topic that it's surfaced its
head when Patrick Cripps got off at the tribunal and
it's going to be a discussion again with Isaac Keeney
being ruled out of this year's medal, is should the
fairest element be removed from the best and fairest That
(00:57):
is the Brownlow Medal and undeniably the best individual honor
that you can win in the AFL, huge honor, definitely
the most prestigious. Otherwise people wouldn't care about it as much.
And the interesting thing to me is that clubs pretend
and players pretend. I think sometimes that it's about the team. Oh,
come on, it's about the team.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
It is.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
It is clearly in the back of their minds, particularly
when they have players who are in the mix, and
particularly when it doesn't go the way they want. I
think that there are players and my brain immediately goes
to Nathan Buckley that said that he would trade his
Brownlow in a heartbeat for a Premiership medal. But that
is not what this part of the show is about.
(01:38):
This part of the show is about good sport and
bad sport. And I'm going to start us off with
my good sport and it is the goodest sport. And
by that I mean, you know the outage. Don't meet
your heroes. Everyone should meet Bruce mcaveny. Oh, everyone should
meet Bruce. And yes, this sounds like a seven beat up,
but the fact that he is bad for the last
(02:01):
couple of weeks in September in any capacity calling AFL
warms the cockles of my heart. I am just he
is the most delightful person and sports fans around Australia
of course, No, Bruce from not only Olympics and athletics
and horse racing that he's still a part of, but
he and Den just being the iconic voices that we've
(02:22):
had forever in AFL and to hear him back is
just something that I think is so it gives gravity,
doesn't it?
Speaker 1 (02:30):
It does? And I know you're a fangirl.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
No, I know you're a massive fangirl from way back,
and to be honest, we all are.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
He is a national treasure, this man.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
The way he continues to operate, his encyclopedic knowledge, his
preparation is unlike anything I've ever seen it. It is incredible.
It is so good to see him back in the mix.
And after being out of it, he'll just sidle back
in and still be like the best. Yes, and that's
what's so impressive about him. So it's so great to
(02:57):
have him involved. I don't know anyone who doesn't appreciate
what he's brought to sport. And he's just such a
lovely personality to go along with how talent and the
little peep behind the veil of course, the who's who
were part of our commentary team and they'll all be
there on the last Saturday in September to watch the
(03:18):
greats and the giants of the game, and how much
they almost genuflect when that man walks in, not only
because of how good he is it is craft, but
just how.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Kind and wonderful he is as a person.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
He's special.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Pardon the puna.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Who's your good sport? Bad sport? Who brings to the table.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
So my good sport is Nicole Piastre, She's the best.
Oscar Piastre's mum, purely for her tweet that she was
going to miss Pilarates after his recent Grand Prix win,
I thought, you know what, that's that's a legitimate excuse
to miss Pilardes, unlike mine, which is I'm.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
Just not up to it today. I'm just not feeling it.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Also, if he ever questioned whether or not Oscar Piastre
was from brighton the fact his mum is tweeting about Pilates, yes,
probably gives you enough of a message. But she has
gone game busses.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
She's global. She is she is, and I love that
she's leading into it. Yeah, I really do. Why not?
And she got to actually be at this one?
Speaker 3 (04:15):
Yeah, his second win at Aserbajan and got to have
the cuddle and everything else, which is great. Yeah, but
I just love the personality to her, and I think,
you know, he's going to be around for a while.
She's going to be riding this wave that he is on,
which is incredible. But I just thought, you know, I
love someone that can inject a bit of humor into
these situations totally.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
And yeah, it just.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Made me think, you know what, I need a legitimate
excuse and I just don't have one. Do you think
that any other male in their early twenties would be like, Mum,
do you reckon?
Speaker 1 (04:46):
You could lay off the Twitter?
Speaker 2 (04:48):
Do you reckon? You could do less. It's not about you.
I just want to I just want to gp leave
me alone.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
You know what.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
Maybe, but I have to say, if it was me,
I'd be like, this is my moment.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
For all those trime sacrifice that I drove you where
you need it to be, I'm taking my moment.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
I think his dad said as a family, they'd poured
more than five million dollars into his development.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
Yeah again, brighton, because I don't know.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
I don't know if many people have the money and
the funds and like to be able to actually support
their kid to get there like that. But in that case,
you miss your pilates and you're part of the story.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Nicolo love that.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
So speaking of injecting yourself into the story, we haven't
discussed our thoughts on this, and I'm so excited to
find out what you think about the Brown Law criteria
that's coming up. On Monday night, there will be a
(05:52):
red carpet rolled out of the Palladium. There will be
too many people in spanks, there will be shining lights
and glistening dresses and it is the most watched red
carpet in the country, which is just unbelievable when you
think that this is not the Arias, it's not the
Low Years, it is the Brownlow and it is the
(06:13):
most prestigious medal that we have in the AFL. And
while you might think that it's all about the glamour,
it really is about who is the best and fairest
of our game. And some of those names that have
been up in lights, you are really carved into history.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Particularly those who win more than one.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
And this year it is expected that Patrick Cripps, maybe
we'll find out. We're recording this before the night and
Patrick Cripps might go and become one of those double winners.
But the debate Laura that is raging and has been
raging for a few years now, given the way that
the game is officiated and how it's been changed, is
(06:51):
whether or not the Brownlow Medal needs to remove the
fairest element to stop players and it's going to happen
someone getting ruled out for an incident that was a
bit innocuous but resulted in a concussion and that they
got suspended and then they didn't get what is essentially
our MVP. I have very strong feelings about it, and
(07:13):
I am dying to know yours. So I think as
long as this award is an umpires award, and that's
what it is, it is the umpires who decide for
those who aren't aware. At the end of every game,
they award votes to the player that they deem the
best and fairest three two one votes per game. As
long as it is their award, this fairest component stays
(07:34):
because that's the award. It's about following the rules of
the game to the best of your ability as much
as it is about your on field performance. The thing
is when the penalties and the sanctions that are being
handed out to players become as strict as they have.
That hasn't been reflected in how players, for example, may
(07:58):
or may not be eligible at the end of the year.
So we are now in an environment where you can
be struck out because of a careless act, for example,
rather ball action that resulted in an unfortunate and particularly,
let's be honest, we're talking about ct We're talking about concussion,
and that is what the game is desperate and AFL
is desperate to stamp out, and understandably so, I think
(08:20):
we all want to see head knocks taken out of
the game as much as you possibly can while protecting
the integrity of the game. But we're seeing football acts
starting to incur one week, two week, even if they
weren't intentional, and that's where the problem arises.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
And this wasn't the case before. Now if you look back,
how you were lauded for a shirt front.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Correct, it's a sling tackle.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Courageous, what a hero.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Let's show the replay.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
So that's not the case.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
We grew up in the Perth. The derby was just
a melee. They'd just be swinging. If you were on
a pub scene, you'd be gone to jail. Yep, and
we loved it. There's just not anymore, just not anymore.
There's not a problem with the way the game is
played changing and that's happened countless times.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
It's not just recently.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
There's constant adaptations to the style of the game, but
it's not reflected in this award and how it's officiated.
It's not reflected in in there's no slack, there's no leeway, No,
there's no you know, you will hand you a strike.
If it's a one match suspension, for example, that's fair.
(09:31):
Or if it's a careless act, we're not going to
treat that the same way as we're going to treat
an intentional act where you can see that someone has
set out to cause damage or to hurt someone, or
the outcome as a result of their intentional action is
that that player is hurt or is concussed. And I
think part of the counter argument to anyone saying that
they want to see change is just how steeped in
(09:53):
history this medal is. It was first awarded in nineteen
twenty four for the fairest and best player in the
V and AFL. The fairest component is achieved by just
making anyone ineligible that suspended. We know that in the AFL,
but from nineteen thirty there was a countback system. This
I didn't know, so if two players tied, they'd count
back for who got the most votes over the season.
(10:15):
The winner was decided by who got the most three
vote games. And then in nineteen eighty was when they
decided in our stuff that if you get an equal
amount of votes, that's it, which is amazing. And we
have seen that a few times since where the votes
are actually split, but remarkably not as often as what
you would think, but there seems to be And in
my research for this, two schools of thought about this
(10:37):
one is its history. It ain't broke. It's something unique
about our game. And we were just saying, I can't
think of any other MVP or most Valuable player in
world sport that includes the fairest element. You couldn't in
some sports, No, you really couldn't. In soccer, it would
not fly, absolutely not, absolutely not. And in basketball, when
(10:59):
you think about it, it's always about the MVP. Like
it's in American sport. They don't really care what you
do so long as you're the best. So I think
that that element of its history and it's unique. Therefore
we need to protect it rather than change it is one.
And then this other argument is like, well, how far
do you go? Yes, the game has changed, but do
(11:20):
you make it that you know, the actions need to
be deemed to be careless instead of intentional? Or is
it you're only allowed to reach two matches as a ban.
And the other thing is too, is if you're ruled
out for two games, that's two games where you can't poll.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
So that's a handicap in itself.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
Yes, I tend to be in the camp of thinking
there needs to be a threshold, but then you know
what if you reach your threshold and then there's another
incident that you're like, oh, like it just it's not
going to solve the debate. It's a minefield once you
start to think about threshold, so you pull the thread
in it all unwrappeds However, you know, this wouldn't be
(12:02):
a discussion if it wasn't on the minds of players
and clubs who have certain people in their organizations who
were probably in line to get this award. Yes, and
then it's taken away from them, and there is a
very good example of that this season in Isaac Eney,
and I think it even goes back. Isaacen is definitely
someone that we need to discuss in light of twenty
(12:24):
twenty four, but it goes back to the twenty twenty
two winner in Patrick Cribbs and the fact that in
Laura's it's the Carlton lawyer that really should have got
the Brownlow medal. It is to get him to get
him off what was Let's be honest, it was definitely
a suspendable action, but he went on to win the
(12:45):
Brownlow and if you had have seen him ruled out,
I think the large AFL population would have thought that
it was disappointing rather than thinking it was fair.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
And that's where this debate really sparked up.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
I mean, the lawyer spent four plus hours at a
tribunal hearing arguing why Patrick Cripps should not receive the
two game suspension.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
And it worked four hours. Four hours.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
Imagine watching a piece of tape that goes for about
two seconds.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Do you know how many hours?
Speaker 3 (13:18):
Do you know how many years off your life you
lose when you listen to these tribunal hearings. Since what
you do in the news horrendous, horrendous.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
You're like, oh, just give me the grab. What is
the point anyway?
Speaker 3 (13:30):
So it's it worked in his favor and it does
help the Patrick crips. This is the light of it
is that he is arguably the best and the fairest
in the league as any such a likable person. But
then that's also problematic because you can't tell me there's
not a bias towards people. There actually is, Like we
know that Jeremy Cameron's got off things because he's been
(13:50):
like we want to use the good bloke card.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
Yep, they use that all the time. In these hearings.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
They talk about their records, they go in this length
of his career, these are the suspensions, these are the fines.
And this is the other interesting thing that we were discussing. Well,
you can be suspended for a match, but if you've
racked up ten grand in fines, yeah that's okay.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
You can still win the award. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
Your best example of that this year is Zach Buter's
sort of character where.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
He's got a lot of fines.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
He's got fines coming out of his ears or even
someone like a Toby Green who you know, the action
in some cases looks a hell of a lot more
sinister than what you actually get some suspensions for, but
they get away with a fine and then you're like, well,
can you.
Speaker 1 (14:30):
Argue that that's fairest.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
But the Isaac Kinney example, Laura will go back to
that because I think it's so poignant as to what
people will be discussing this week as you see his
name pop up in the count and it will because
his was a careless throwback of the arm that got
deemed intentional, that cleaned up Jimmy Webster and the fact
that Jimmy fell to the ground and everything else.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
But it was.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
The debate, raged, absolutely raged, no that it was going
to come to a climax this week, and it has.
And this is where I find it interesting that, like
I said, often you hear from the players and the
clubs where we're all about team success. But then in
the case of Isaac Keeney, his coach comes out and
(15:18):
speaks about the reasons that they challenged his suspension.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Let's have a listen to John Lormer.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
You can't help but have that in the back of
your mind. There's no question. No one knows what the
result of that's going to be. At the end of
the year, we feel obliged to be able to explore
every avenue we possibly can to support Isaac, whether it's
this week when I'd love to see him at the
first Center bounce, or it's maybe in September and you're
seeing there and you're watching the votes get caned out.
It's I played with Corey McKernon, and I just wonder
(15:45):
whether if there was a different process available then to Corey,
how he would have felt how the rest of his
life would have looked.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
So the reference there to Corey McKernon is in nineteen
ninety six, he actually polled twenty one votes, but he
was rubbed out for an action in which he was
sort of going with the momentum of the football and
happened to knee another player in the head and the
other player threw himself back, milking a free which he got.
But those twenty one vote votes would have put him
equal with Hurd and Boss, who little known names that
(16:15):
went on to do nothing in the game. Lo lo lol,
But he would have been a Brownlow medallist, and as
we well know, having something like a brownlow next to
your title. If you want to go on and do
speaking events, if you want to go on and do media,
there's a gravity to that that follows you for the
rest of your life. The brownlow is that prestigious and
that important. That to see good people or people that
(16:38):
should have won and had the best performance that year
scrubbed out is something that's not like a oh well,
it actually and it can change their immediate future in
their bargaining power with other clubs and what they can
be traded for. And I think in the case of
Isaac kene like, perhaps your motivation changes as the season
goes on. So at that point in the season, they're thinking, Okay,
(16:58):
he's had a red hot start to the year. He's
clearly one of the best players, if not the best player.
The markets were reflecting that he was one of the
favorites in the competition. As it goes through the season,
I think the motivation becomes more about losing the players
for the games. Yes, when you know you've got finals
on the line, but in his case, it was a
(17:18):
bit earlier in the season, so I think that's why
they were thinking more about the award.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
But I haven't heard.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
I think many coaches come out and speak like that
about making sure a player is still in contention for
this award at the end of the season, because too
often the rhetoric is, oh, you know, I don't think
about that.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
As about the premiership, yep.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
I'd trade my brown Low for a premiership any day
of the week, and most of them probably would. But
I still think, as you've mentioned, at the end of
the day, this award it is up there in lights.
And the issue is, though, there are still so many
good players in the competition who don't get suspended totally.
So maybe that's the if it ain't broke, don't fix it,
(18:01):
because it's not like there's going to be no one
available to win this award who isn't good enough to
win this award. There are still plenty of players in
the mix that haven't been suspended, So why should they
be at a disadvantage when they actually have been fairer
in the eyes of the eligibility criteria.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
Is that your argument or an argument is that how.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
You feel personally, I think the game has changed to
the point where there needs to be some riggle room
with the eligibility that's what I think. But I know
you've mentioned that. You know, one of the greats, Gary Lyon.
His argument is this is the way it is, yes,
(18:45):
and why should it be changed? It is a prestigious,
historic award. Why should it be changed? And there will
be purists who argue that, and Gary and we also argue,
I guess that there is going to have to.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
Eventually be changed. But how do we implement that?
Speaker 3 (19:01):
And the best case study is someone like Isaacini, because
is he someone you would say is an unfair player? No,
or that Charles Brownlow would see with a Brownlow around
his neck and go, he's bringing my metal or my
award into disrepute.
Speaker 1 (19:18):
No, And I think that's but how do.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
You do where do you draw a line in that?
Speaker 5 (19:23):
Well?
Speaker 3 (19:23):
This is I heard Patrick Cripps speak about Isaac KINI
he was asked about it given his almost experience in
twenty twenty two, when you know Isaacini was rubbed out,
and his comment was, I think it's a bit stiff
because the way he plays the game is fair, and
anyone who comes up against him knows he's tough to
(19:44):
play against, but he's fair. Fundamentally, he's fair, and that
particular week that was a bit unlucky, but his overarching
reputation is that of a fair player. And in history
of AFL, we've only seen three people become ineligible for
the Brownlow who actually polled the most votes. It was
Kory McKernon who we've heard his story, Chris Grant who
(20:05):
got twenty seven votes. That was in nineteen ninety seven.
And then Joe Watson of course for the Essendon drug
saga where he was retrospectively ineligible, which was.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
Just one of the more awful No.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
One one.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
And that's the thing.
Speaker 3 (20:18):
There were two Brownlow Medalists awarded that year when he
was taken off him, yes, Sam Mitchell and Trent Cootchin,
And I don't know whether they to this day would
still say, oh, Trent's really reluctant to call himself a
Brownlow Medalist, which of course he is, but it feels different.
And so the other argument to this is something that
(20:40):
we saw this year in that Harley Reid, who is
arguably the best first year player we've ever seen, let
alone the best first year player this year, was ineligible
for the Rising Star because he was suspended and so
much so. And then you also saw the likes of
Sam Darcy you get rubbed out because he was suspended
(21:00):
this year. So when Oli Dempsey got up to receive
his Rising Star, he said, I'd like to thank the
umpires for making dars and making Harley ineligible. And I
just went firstly lol, like it was great, and he
said basically again, Jeremy Cameron told me I need to
get up here and thank the umpires, and the whole
room laughed. But then do we want our medal to
(21:21):
become a laugh potentially? Is that what happens longer term
with the Brown Low? Do you see the best players
being ineligible because they've been suspended and someone has to
go up there and make a joke about the fact
they're not actually the best player, they just happen to
be the fairest. Yeah, I mean I don't think we've
seen a lot of examples of that at the Brownlow
(21:41):
in terms of someone actually getting up and saying I
shouldn't be here. I think that example we just talked
about in twenty twelve is quite unique.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
Yeah. But yeah, I mean clearly with the Rising.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
Star, But is this does the AFL need to jump
before the hurdle? As in do they need to make
the change before or this becomes problematic and makes one
year's Brownlow a fast Do they have to see the
writing on the wall and change it before we get there,
or do you need a Brownlow decision to be an
absolute howler in that someone like an Isaac Keeney has
(22:15):
five votes more than the next closest player and he's
ineligible for an incident that was again, it could have
been a.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
Tackle that their head just dolted.
Speaker 3 (22:27):
Unfortunately, I think we live in a world where a
howler will be the reason that something changes.
Speaker 1 (22:33):
It's so often the case. I know, it's so often
the case. I know you've.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
Got to wait for that year where it is so
clearly off the mark for people to start taking this seriously.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
I guess we're going to wait and.
Speaker 6 (22:50):
See, Laura, it's time for our fun fact.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
And this is one of my favorite fun facts or
favorite tidbits of AFL history in that what other awards
when you think of the Brownlow are handed out on
Brownlow night Mark and Goal of the Year. Of course,
and over history they've been really prestigious, big prizes, Like
you think the prize this year is not like two
million virgin points as well as fifty grand cash.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
Yeah, it's decent.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
That's a huge, huge prize.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
And you think of those specky marks, and the specky
much like the best and fairis is something very unique
to our game and something that we need to protect
at all costs. And in twenty fifteen the winner of
Mark of the Year was Nick Natanui and this is
my fun fact because the flying Fiji and as he's
well known in the West of course, the great number
(23:54):
nine for West Coast was then twenty five when he
won the Mark of the Year and he said, oh, beauty,
like I started to clear out the driveway because I
thought I'm winning a car.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Ashley Sampy won a car. This is my prize. No.
Speaker 5 (24:07):
No.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
In twenty fifteen it was the Wheatpix Mark of the Year.
Speaker 5 (24:12):
And he received fifty two boxes of Weeppix.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
That's outrageous fries.
Speaker 5 (24:19):
And he just said his manager rocked up with fifty
two boxes of Weetpix at his house when he was
expecting a Toyota high Lux of some variety.
Speaker 1 (24:30):
And he basically said, mate.
Speaker 5 (24:32):
I don't eat wheat picks and I never want to
see a wheat pick again because dude, where's my car?
Speaker 3 (24:39):
So my initial reaction was do players even eat wheat pix?
I mean, hey, the part of their thing was Brettley
and how many do you do with your weatps?
Speaker 1 (24:49):
Weepis?
Speaker 3 (24:51):
Just can you imagined you get announced from Mark of
the Year and you think of a recent teammate that
won a car and you I think you.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
Beauty and you get cereal. That's terrible.
Speaker 3 (25:04):
So shock it's been rectified because again, two million Virgin
points and fifty grand cash at least is a prize
that you want to win, but it doesn't help him
if you are watching the count and go, hey, guys,
fun fact. Do you know what Nick Nat won in
twenty fifteen some weeks? Did he even get a commercial
out of it?
Speaker 1 (25:23):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
He probably doesn't want money. He's doing the Google commercials lesbian. Honest,
Nicknat is fine. But that is how we're going to
end two Good Sports because I don't know if Nick
Nat will want that story recounted very often because it
is a terrible one.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
But thank you for listening.
Speaker 3 (25:39):
Happy Grand Final week. Please do hit us up with
any of your fun facts. Find us on Instagram at
two good Sports podcasts will catch you next week for
all the fall out, of course the Grand Final, but
we probably should talk about something other than footing. We've
just gone into Laura my safe zone, but until then,
be a good sport.
Speaker 6 (26:04):
The pic
Here at two Good Sports, we would like to acknowledge
the traditional owners of the land on which we record
this podcast. The were Inerie people. This land was never seated,
always was, always will be.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Hello and welcome to two Good Sports.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
It's sports news.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Told differently on the greatest week of the calendar year. No,
I'm not talking about Christmas in New Year. It is
AFL Grand Final week. And joining us again this week
is Laura Spairway.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Laura, It's our Christmas, isn't it.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
It is our Christmas Yay, best time of the year.
It is the best time of the year.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
And something that punctuates this week is Monday Night's Brownlow
Medal and that is our main discussion. Our deep dive
for this week is a topic that it's surfaced its
head when Patrick Cripps got off at the tribunal and
it's going to be a discussion again with Isaac Keeney
being ruled out of this year's medal, is should the
fairest element be removed from the best and fairest That
(00:57):
is the Brownlow Medal and undeniably the best individual honor
that you can win in the AFL, huge honor, definitely
the most prestigious. Otherwise people wouldn't care about it as much.
And the interesting thing to me is that clubs pretend
and players pretend. I think sometimes that it's about the team. Oh,
come on, it's about the team.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
It is.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
It is clearly in the back of their minds, particularly
when they have players who are in the mix, and
particularly when it doesn't go the way they want. I
think that there are players and my brain immediately goes
to Nathan Buckley that said that he would trade his
Brownlow in a heartbeat for a Premiership medal. But that
is not what this part of the show is about.
(01:38):
This part of the show is about good sport and
bad sport. And I'm going to start us off with
my good sport and it is the goodest sport. And
by that I mean, you know the outage. Don't meet
your heroes. Everyone should meet Bruce mcaveny. Oh, everyone should
meet Bruce. And yes, this sounds like a seven beat up,
but the fact that he is bad for the last
(02:01):
couple of weeks in September in any capacity calling AFL
warms the cockles of my heart. I am just he
is the most delightful person and sports fans around Australia
of course, No, Bruce from not only Olympics and athletics
and horse racing that he's still a part of, but
he and Den just being the iconic voices that we've
(02:22):
had forever in AFL and to hear him back is
just something that I think is so it gives gravity,
doesn't it?
Speaker 1 (02:30):
It does? And I know you're a fangirl.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
No, I know you're a massive fangirl from way back,
and to be honest, we all are.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
He is a national treasure, this man.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
The way he continues to operate, his encyclopedic knowledge, his
preparation is unlike anything I've ever seen it. It is incredible.
It is so good to see him back in the mix.
And after being out of it, he'll just sidle back
in and still be like the best. Yes, and that's
what's so impressive about him. So it's so great to
(02:57):
have him involved. I don't know anyone who doesn't appreciate
what he's brought to sport. And he's just such a
lovely personality to go along with how talent and the
little peep behind the veil of course, the who's who
were part of our commentary team and they'll all be
there on the last Saturday in September to watch the
(03:18):
greats and the giants of the game, and how much
they almost genuflect when that man walks in, not only
because of how good he is it is craft, but
just how.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Kind and wonderful he is as a person.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
He's special.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Pardon the puna.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Who's your good sport? Bad sport? Who brings to the table.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
So my good sport is Nicole Piastre, She's the best.
Oscar Piastre's mum, purely for her tweet that she was
going to miss Pilarates after his recent Grand Prix win,
I thought, you know what, that's that's a legitimate excuse
to miss Pilardes, unlike mine, which is I'm.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
Just not up to it today. I'm just not feeling it.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Also, if he ever questioned whether or not Oscar Piastre
was from brighton the fact his mum is tweeting about Pilates, yes,
probably gives you enough of a message. But she has
gone game busses.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
She's global. She is she is, and I love that
she's leading into it. Yeah, I really do. Why not?
And she got to actually be at this one?
Speaker 3 (04:15):
Yeah, his second win at Aserbajan and got to have
the cuddle and everything else, which is great. Yeah, but
I just love the personality to her, and I think,
you know, he's going to be around for a while.
She's going to be riding this wave that he is on,
which is incredible. But I just thought, you know, I
love someone that can inject a bit of humor into
these situations totally.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
And yeah, it just.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Made me think, you know what, I need a legitimate
excuse and I just don't have one. Do you think
that any other male in their early twenties would be like, Mum,
do you reckon?
Speaker 1 (04:46):
You could lay off the Twitter?
Speaker 2 (04:48):
Do you reckon? You could do less. It's not about you.
I just want to I just want to gp leave
me alone.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
You know what.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
Maybe, but I have to say, if it was me,
I'd be like, this is my moment.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
For all those trime sacrifice that I drove you where
you need it to be, I'm taking my moment.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
I think his dad said as a family, they'd poured
more than five million dollars into his development.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
Yeah again, brighton, because I don't know.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
I don't know if many people have the money and
the funds and like to be able to actually support
their kid to get there like that. But in that case,
you miss your pilates and you're part of the story.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Nicolo love that.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
So speaking of injecting yourself into the story, we haven't
discussed our thoughts on this, and I'm so excited to
find out what you think about the Brown Law criteria
that's coming up. On Monday night, there will be a
(05:52):
red carpet rolled out of the Palladium. There will be
too many people in spanks, there will be shining lights
and glistening dresses and it is the most watched red
carpet in the country, which is just unbelievable when you
think that this is not the Arias, it's not the
Low Years, it is the Brownlow and it is the
(06:13):
most prestigious medal that we have in the AFL. And
while you might think that it's all about the glamour,
it really is about who is the best and fairest
of our game. And some of those names that have
been up in lights, you are really carved into history.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Particularly those who win more than one.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
And this year it is expected that Patrick Cripps, maybe
we'll find out. We're recording this before the night and
Patrick Cripps might go and become one of those double winners.
But the debate Laura that is raging and has been
raging for a few years now, given the way that
the game is officiated and how it's been changed, is
(06:51):
whether or not the Brownlow Medal needs to remove the
fairest element to stop players and it's going to happen
someone getting ruled out for an incident that was a
bit innocuous but resulted in a concussion and that they
got suspended and then they didn't get what is essentially
our MVP. I have very strong feelings about it, and
(07:13):
I am dying to know yours. So I think as
long as this award is an umpires award, and that's
what it is, it is the umpires who decide for
those who aren't aware. At the end of every game,
they award votes to the player that they deem the
best and fairest three two one votes per game. As
long as it is their award, this fairest component stays
(07:34):
because that's the award. It's about following the rules of
the game to the best of your ability as much
as it is about your on field performance. The thing
is when the penalties and the sanctions that are being
handed out to players become as strict as they have.
That hasn't been reflected in how players, for example, may
(07:58):
or may not be eligible at the end of the year.
So we are now in an environment where you can
be struck out because of a careless act, for example,
rather ball action that resulted in an unfortunate and particularly,
let's be honest, we're talking about ct We're talking about concussion,
and that is what the game is desperate and AFL
is desperate to stamp out, and understandably so, I think
(08:20):
we all want to see head knocks taken out of
the game as much as you possibly can while protecting
the integrity of the game. But we're seeing football acts
starting to incur one week, two week, even if they
weren't intentional, and that's where the problem arises.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
And this wasn't the case before. Now if you look back,
how you were lauded for a shirt front.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Correct, it's a sling tackle.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Courageous, what a hero.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Let's show the replay.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
So that's not the case.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
We grew up in the Perth. The derby was just
a melee. They'd just be swinging. If you were on
a pub scene, you'd be gone to jail. Yep, and
we loved it. There's just not anymore, just not anymore.
There's not a problem with the way the game is
played changing and that's happened countless times.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
It's not just recently.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
There's constant adaptations to the style of the game, but
it's not reflected in this award and how it's officiated.
It's not reflected in in there's no slack, there's no leeway, No,
there's no you know, you will hand you a strike.
If it's a one match suspension, for example, that's fair.
(09:31):
Or if it's a careless act, we're not going to
treat that the same way as we're going to treat
an intentional act where you can see that someone has
set out to cause damage or to hurt someone, or
the outcome as a result of their intentional action is
that that player is hurt or is concussed. And I
think part of the counter argument to anyone saying that
they want to see change is just how steeped in
(09:53):
history this medal is. It was first awarded in nineteen
twenty four for the fairest and best player in the
V and AFL. The fairest component is achieved by just
making anyone ineligible that suspended. We know that in the AFL,
but from nineteen thirty there was a countback system. This
I didn't know, so if two players tied, they'd count
back for who got the most votes over the season.
(10:15):
The winner was decided by who got the most three
vote games. And then in nineteen eighty was when they
decided in our stuff that if you get an equal
amount of votes, that's it, which is amazing. And we
have seen that a few times since where the votes
are actually split, but remarkably not as often as what
you would think, but there seems to be And in
my research for this, two schools of thought about this
(10:37):
one is its history. It ain't broke. It's something unique
about our game. And we were just saying, I can't
think of any other MVP or most Valuable player in
world sport that includes the fairest element. You couldn't in
some sports, No, you really couldn't. In soccer, it would
not fly, absolutely not, absolutely not. And in basketball, when
(10:59):
you think about it, it's always about the MVP. Like
it's in American sport. They don't really care what you
do so long as you're the best. So I think
that that element of its history and it's unique. Therefore
we need to protect it rather than change it is one.
And then this other argument is like, well, how far
do you go? Yes, the game has changed, but do
(11:20):
you make it that you know, the actions need to
be deemed to be careless instead of intentional? Or is
it you're only allowed to reach two matches as a ban.
And the other thing is too, is if you're ruled
out for two games, that's two games where you can't poll.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
So that's a handicap in itself.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
Yes, I tend to be in the camp of thinking
there needs to be a threshold, but then you know
what if you reach your threshold and then there's another
incident that you're like, oh, like it just it's not
going to solve the debate. It's a minefield once you
start to think about threshold, so you pull the thread
in it all unwrappeds However, you know, this wouldn't be
(12:02):
a discussion if it wasn't on the minds of players
and clubs who have certain people in their organizations who
were probably in line to get this award. Yes, and
then it's taken away from them, and there is a
very good example of that this season in Isaac Eney,
and I think it even goes back. Isaacen is definitely
someone that we need to discuss in light of twenty
(12:24):
twenty four, but it goes back to the twenty twenty
two winner in Patrick Cribbs and the fact that in
Laura's it's the Carlton lawyer that really should have got
the Brownlow medal. It is to get him to get
him off what was Let's be honest, it was definitely
a suspendable action, but he went on to win the
(12:45):
Brownlow and if you had have seen him ruled out,
I think the large AFL population would have thought that
it was disappointing rather than thinking it was fair.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
And that's where this debate really sparked up.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
I mean, the lawyer spent four plus hours at a
tribunal hearing arguing why Patrick Cripps should not receive the
two game suspension.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
And it worked four hours. Four hours.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
Imagine watching a piece of tape that goes for about
two seconds.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Do you know how many hours?
Speaker 3 (13:18):
Do you know how many years off your life you
lose when you listen to these tribunal hearings. Since what
you do in the news horrendous, horrendous.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
You're like, oh, just give me the grab. What is
the point anyway?
Speaker 3 (13:30):
So it's it worked in his favor and it does
help the Patrick crips. This is the light of it
is that he is arguably the best and the fairest
in the league as any such a likable person. But
then that's also problematic because you can't tell me there's
not a bias towards people. There actually is, Like we
know that Jeremy Cameron's got off things because he's been
(13:50):
like we want to use the good bloke card.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
Yep, they use that all the time. In these hearings.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
They talk about their records, they go in this length
of his career, these are the suspensions, these are the fines.
And this is the other interesting thing that we were discussing. Well,
you can be suspended for a match, but if you've
racked up ten grand in fines, yeah that's okay.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
You can still win the award. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
Your best example of that this year is Zach Buter's
sort of character where.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
He's got a lot of fines.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
He's got fines coming out of his ears or even
someone like a Toby Green who you know, the action
in some cases looks a hell of a lot more
sinister than what you actually get some suspensions for, but
they get away with a fine and then you're like, well,
can you.
Speaker 1 (14:30):
Argue that that's fairest.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
But the Isaac Kinney example, Laura will go back to
that because I think it's so poignant as to what
people will be discussing this week as you see his
name pop up in the count and it will because
his was a careless throwback of the arm that got
deemed intentional, that cleaned up Jimmy Webster and the fact
that Jimmy fell to the ground and everything else.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
But it was.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
The debate, raged, absolutely raged, no that it was going
to come to a climax this week, and it has.
And this is where I find it interesting that, like
I said, often you hear from the players and the
clubs where we're all about team success. But then in
the case of Isaac Keeney, his coach comes out and
(15:18):
speaks about the reasons that they challenged his suspension.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Let's have a listen to John Lormer.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
You can't help but have that in the back of
your mind. There's no question. No one knows what the
result of that's going to be. At the end of
the year, we feel obliged to be able to explore
every avenue we possibly can to support Isaac, whether it's
this week when I'd love to see him at the
first Center bounce, or it's maybe in September and you're
seeing there and you're watching the votes get caned out.
It's I played with Corey McKernon, and I just wonder
(15:45):
whether if there was a different process available then to Corey,
how he would have felt how the rest of his
life would have looked.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
So the reference there to Corey McKernon is in nineteen
ninety six, he actually polled twenty one votes, but he
was rubbed out for an action in which he was
sort of going with the momentum of the football and
happened to knee another player in the head and the
other player threw himself back, milking a free which he got.
But those twenty one vote votes would have put him
equal with Hurd and Boss, who little known names that
(16:15):
went on to do nothing in the game. Lo lo lol,
But he would have been a Brownlow medallist, and as
we well know, having something like a brownlow next to
your title. If you want to go on and do
speaking events, if you want to go on and do media,
there's a gravity to that that follows you for the
rest of your life. The brownlow is that prestigious and
that important. That to see good people or people that
(16:38):
should have won and had the best performance that year
scrubbed out is something that's not like a oh well,
it actually and it can change their immediate future in
their bargaining power with other clubs and what they can
be traded for. And I think in the case of
Isaac kene like, perhaps your motivation changes as the season
goes on. So at that point in the season, they're thinking, Okay,
(16:58):
he's had a red hot start to the year. He's
clearly one of the best players, if not the best player.
The markets were reflecting that he was one of the
favorites in the competition. As it goes through the season,
I think the motivation becomes more about losing the players
for the games. Yes, when you know you've got finals
on the line, but in his case, it was a
(17:18):
bit earlier in the season, so I think that's why
they were thinking more about the award.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
But I haven't heard.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
I think many coaches come out and speak like that
about making sure a player is still in contention for
this award at the end of the season, because too
often the rhetoric is, oh, you know, I don't think
about that.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
As about the premiership, yep.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
I'd trade my brown Low for a premiership any day
of the week, and most of them probably would. But
I still think, as you've mentioned, at the end of
the day, this award it is up there in lights.
And the issue is, though, there are still so many
good players in the competition who don't get suspended totally.
So maybe that's the if it ain't broke, don't fix it,
(18:01):
because it's not like there's going to be no one
available to win this award who isn't good enough to
win this award. There are still plenty of players in
the mix that haven't been suspended, So why should they
be at a disadvantage when they actually have been fairer
in the eyes of the eligibility criteria.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
Is that your argument or an argument is that how.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
You feel personally, I think the game has changed to
the point where there needs to be some riggle room
with the eligibility that's what I think. But I know
you've mentioned that. You know, one of the greats, Gary Lyon.
His argument is this is the way it is, yes,
(18:45):
and why should it be changed? It is a prestigious,
historic award. Why should it be changed? And there will
be purists who argue that, and Gary and we also argue,
I guess that there is going to have to.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
Eventually be changed. But how do we implement that?
Speaker 3 (19:01):
And the best case study is someone like Isaacini, because
is he someone you would say is an unfair player? No,
or that Charles Brownlow would see with a Brownlow around
his neck and go, he's bringing my metal or my
award into disrepute.
Speaker 1 (19:18):
No, And I think that's but how do.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
You do where do you draw a line in that?
Speaker 5 (19:23):
Well?
Speaker 3 (19:23):
This is I heard Patrick Cripps speak about Isaac KINI
he was asked about it given his almost experience in
twenty twenty two, when you know Isaacini was rubbed out,
and his comment was, I think it's a bit stiff
because the way he plays the game is fair, and
anyone who comes up against him knows he's tough to
(19:44):
play against, but he's fair. Fundamentally, he's fair, and that
particular week that was a bit unlucky, but his overarching
reputation is that of a fair player. And in history
of AFL, we've only seen three people become ineligible for
the Brownlow who actually polled the most votes. It was
Kory McKernon who we've heard his story, Chris Grant who
(20:05):
got twenty seven votes. That was in nineteen ninety seven.
And then Joe Watson of course for the Essendon drug
saga where he was retrospectively ineligible, which was.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
Just one of the more awful No.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
One one.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
And that's the thing.
Speaker 3 (20:18):
There were two Brownlow Medalists awarded that year when he
was taken off him, yes, Sam Mitchell and Trent Cootchin,
And I don't know whether they to this day would
still say, oh, Trent's really reluctant to call himself a
Brownlow Medalist, which of course he is, but it feels different.
And so the other argument to this is something that
(20:40):
we saw this year in that Harley Reid, who is
arguably the best first year player we've ever seen, let
alone the best first year player this year, was ineligible
for the Rising Star because he was suspended and so
much so. And then you also saw the likes of
Sam Darcy you get rubbed out because he was suspended
(21:00):
this year. So when Oli Dempsey got up to receive
his Rising Star, he said, I'd like to thank the
umpires for making dars and making Harley ineligible. And I
just went firstly lol, like it was great, and he
said basically again, Jeremy Cameron told me I need to
get up here and thank the umpires, and the whole
room laughed. But then do we want our medal to
(21:21):
become a laugh potentially? Is that what happens longer term
with the Brown Low? Do you see the best players
being ineligible because they've been suspended and someone has to
go up there and make a joke about the fact
they're not actually the best player, they just happen to
be the fairest. Yeah, I mean I don't think we've
seen a lot of examples of that at the Brownlow
(21:41):
in terms of someone actually getting up and saying I
shouldn't be here. I think that example we just talked
about in twenty twelve is quite unique.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
Yeah. But yeah, I mean clearly with the Rising.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
Star, But is this does the AFL need to jump
before the hurdle? As in do they need to make
the change before or this becomes problematic and makes one
year's Brownlow a fast Do they have to see the
writing on the wall and change it before we get there,
or do you need a Brownlow decision to be an
absolute howler in that someone like an Isaac Keeney has
(22:15):
five votes more than the next closest player and he's
ineligible for an incident that was again, it could have
been a.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
Tackle that their head just dolted.
Speaker 3 (22:27):
Unfortunately, I think we live in a world where a
howler will be the reason that something changes.
Speaker 1 (22:33):
It's so often the case. I know, it's so often
the case. I know you've.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
Got to wait for that year where it is so
clearly off the mark for people to start taking this seriously.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
I guess we're going to wait and.
Speaker 6 (22:50):
See, Laura, it's time for our fun fact.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
And this is one of my favorite fun facts or
favorite tidbits of AFL history in that what other awards
when you think of the Brownlow are handed out on
Brownlow night Mark and Goal of the Year. Of course,
and over history they've been really prestigious, big prizes, Like
you think the prize this year is not like two
million virgin points as well as fifty grand cash.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
Yeah, it's decent.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
That's a huge, huge prize.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
And you think of those specky marks, and the specky
much like the best and fairis is something very unique
to our game and something that we need to protect
at all costs. And in twenty fifteen the winner of
Mark of the Year was Nick Natanui and this is
my fun fact because the flying Fiji and as he's
well known in the West of course, the great number
(23:54):
nine for West Coast was then twenty five when he
won the Mark of the Year and he said, oh, beauty,
like I started to clear out the driveway because I
thought I'm winning a car.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Ashley Sampy won a car. This is my prize. No.
Speaker 5 (24:07):
No.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
In twenty fifteen it was the Wheatpix Mark of the Year.
Speaker 5 (24:12):
And he received fifty two boxes of Weeppix.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
That's outrageous fries.
Speaker 5 (24:19):
And he just said his manager rocked up with fifty
two boxes of Weetpix at his house when he was
expecting a Toyota high Lux of some variety.
Speaker 1 (24:30):
And he basically said, mate.
Speaker 5 (24:32):
I don't eat wheat picks and I never want to
see a wheat pick again because dude, where's my car?
Speaker 3 (24:39):
So my initial reaction was do players even eat wheat pix?
I mean, hey, the part of their thing was Brettley
and how many do you do with your weatps?
Speaker 1 (24:49):
Weepis?
Speaker 3 (24:51):
Just can you imagined you get announced from Mark of
the Year and you think of a recent teammate that
won a car and you I think you.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
Beauty and you get cereal. That's terrible.
Speaker 3 (25:04):
So shock it's been rectified because again, two million Virgin
points and fifty grand cash at least is a prize
that you want to win, but it doesn't help him
if you are watching the count and go, hey, guys,
fun fact. Do you know what Nick Nat won in
twenty fifteen some weeks? Did he even get a commercial
out of it?
Speaker 1 (25:23):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
He probably doesn't want money. He's doing the Google commercials lesbian. Honest,
Nicknat is fine. But that is how we're going to
end two Good Sports because I don't know if Nick
Nat will want that story recounted very often because it
is a terrible one.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
But thank you for listening.
Speaker 3 (25:39):
Happy Grand Final week. Please do hit us up with
any of your fun facts. Find us on Instagram at
two good Sports podcasts will catch you next week for
all the fall out, of course the Grand Final, but
we probably should talk about something other than footing. We've
just gone into Laura my safe zone, but until then,
be a good sport.
Speaker 6 (26:04):
The pic
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.