Revelations from Neil Balme late in the week that football “journalist” Mark Robinson had manufactured his story about Barcode players testing positive for illicit drugs in off-season didn't surprise AussieRulesBlog. But it’s good to see a move toward holding journalists to account for their stories.

Following Balme's statement, it emerged that the Barcodes’ playing group had decided to “ban” Robinson. On SEN radio’s Crunch Time preview show on Saturday morning, Robinson was required to not participate when the rest of the SEN panel interviewed Taylor Adams.

The evening before, again on SEN’s Crunch Time, Saints coach Alan Richardson emphatically denied a media report that recruit Jake Carlisle’s hip injury was much worse that the Saints had understood when recruiting him.

What has emerged from these two instances is that some “journalists” are deciding the stories they will write and then looking for ways to support their position. And it's about time this sort of grubby behaviour was exposed.

Last week’s story by Mark Robinson on out-of-season hair testing for illicit drug use is, unwittingly, shining the spotlight on the AFL’s confidentiality problem.

Under the agreement struck between the AFL and the AFLPA, the results of the testing are treated as confidential individual health information. As such, the results, and presumably names, are available to club doctors, and, presumably de-identified, to club CEOs. How these officers treat the information within their club is their decision.

Robinson’s story claims that “up to eleven” Collingwood players tested positive to illicit drug use in out-of-season testing.

How would that information have found its way to the Herald-Sun? It’s reasonable to assume that Collingwood didn't pass it on, notwithstanding that they are probably angry at “up to eleven” of their players. It’s also reasonable to assume that Collingwood’s results wouldn't have been passed on to other club CEOs who could then leak them for competitive advantage. So, there are only two possible sources remaining: the organisation doing the actual testing, and the AFL.

Robinson has been copping flak on social media and from clubs, and so he should. Having access to the information doesn’t mean a story has to be written. In yet another indication of mainstream media’s clickbait mentality, Robinson and his editors demonstrate their amoral approach to news. But that’s not where the real blame resides.

This leaking of confidential information from the AFL, or a closely-linked organisation, isn't an isolated case. Anyone who cast a disinterested eye over the Essendon supplements furore will recall consistent, sustained leaking of confidential information to journalists.

This is Gillon McLachlan’s problem.

We watched the Richmond-Port Adelaide pre-season practice game on Foxtel last night and couldn't believe our ears near the end.

It was a spirited affair throughout, with the Tigers’ abysmal skills — and, it must be said, a mounting in-game injury toll — contributing to their inability to compete with Port.

Halfway through the last quarter, with Port well ahead, Tigers coach Damien Hardwick began ushering his best players from the field. It wasn't immediately clear whether he feared injury or exhaustion, but at the end of the game the Tigers only had about 15 players on the field. Apparently, Richmond asked for the game to be called off during the last quarter.

There's plenty of grist for controversy in what’s been described, but that wasn't what stunned us.

As AFL football operations chief Mark Evans consulted with Richmond officials on the sidelines, Foxtel caller Eddie “Everywhere” Maguire remarked that Hardwick’s actions could have wider implications, including the betting markets.

There was also a question to Carlton coach Brendan Bolton after the Blues fielded an inexperienced line-up against the Bombers. The questioner implied that Bolton should have considered the betting markets in choosing his squad for the game.

We had been aware that online bookmakers were framing markets on the pre-season “challenge” games. Maguire’s comment  brought the issue to our attention again.

People are wagering money on practice games? That’s tragic on so many levels. Despite the hyper-inflated hyperbole of callers like Dwayne Russell, these are practice games. The football public has only the barest idea of what each club’s objectives for each practice game may be. In these circumstances, does the AFL condone betting markets being framed on these “contests”?

AussieRulesBlog can imagine a relatively-sane rationale for gambling on home and away matches, or finals. At the very least, on most occasions, both teams go onto the field with a scoreboard victory as a primary motivation. Particularly down-trodden teams might go into games against more-fancied opponents with the objective of limiting the scoreboard humiliation, but there’s a genuine contest.

As we’ve seen in recent weeks, practice games are quite another matter. West Coast, for instance, fielded a veritable ‘seconds’ team in their first pre-season hitout and were trounced by the Crows — on the scoreboard. In their second game, against the Suns, West Coast fielded a far more experienced lineup, running out three-point ‘winners’ over a similarly experienced Suns group. Even on these basic facts, it’s abundantly clear that West Coast’s objectives in these two games were, at the very least, dissimilar.

The tissue of respectability the gambling industry hides behind is the now-ubiquitous “gamble responsibly” message that accompanies gambling advertising. Do Mike Fitzpatrick, Gill McLachlan and Mark Evans know how many children will go without this week because a parent gambled on an AFL practice game? And to what extent would consideration of betting markets influence a decision to suspend a game?

The link between the AFL competition and gambling is troubling.

We're watching the Cats and Barcodes going around on the second weekend of preseason, and it just occurred to us that something is missing.

The concept of having every scoring decision correct  isn't a bad one, but when it means a minute or more of slow motion replay it becomes a needless distraction.

It has been noticeable (eventually) that the game is not being interrupted to check every close goal line decision. It took time to notice it was missing because it's rarely really necessary through the home and away season.

Let's just get rid of the distraction and let the goal umpires make their decision.

According to The Age's chief football writer, "The embarrassing oversight that has seen Alastair Clarkson not once named the AFL's coach of the year has led to a policy change by the games's coaching body."

Why is it embarrassing? Sure, his team has won three AFL Premierships on the trot — a not insignificant achievement — but should a premiership automatically qualify Clarkson to win the award? Should Clarkson get the gong if the Hawks finish ninth this year, as some sort of compensation?

We checked on the AFLCA website and here is the current basis for coaches voting on their peers for this award:

Allan Jeans Senior Coach of the Year AwardThis award is in recognition of the best performed Senior Coach throughout the home and away season, having regard for current season's performance, available resources, player talent and team management.

AussieRulesBlog has been lucky enough to see all but one of this first week's games via our pay-TV service. Our initial view that the game had changed has been vindicated.

These are practice games and most teams will be holding something in reserve. Nevertheless, the standard has been good mostly with all teams giving fans something to look forward to. For some it was a competitive quarter by a young group, for others a commanding win.

The key takeout is the change in tackling mentioned in a previous post. Interestingly, while catching the replay of the Brisbane–Gold Coast game tonight, Jonathan Brown and Cameron Mooney made the same point in commentary. In the past, they said, players were taught to try to hurt an opponent, by driving a shoulder into their ribs, or driving their opponent's shoulder into the turf. So far in 2016, we've noticed one fairly gentle 'sling'-type tackle. The tacklers' objectives seem to be simply to hold the ball carrier up and to try to win the holding the ball or incorrect disposal free kick. Old players are wistful for those 'harder' times, but we think this is an especially good development.

The other key thing we've taken note of is the attacking nature of the games, generally from both sides. There's nothing more than pride riding on the result, so there's no incentive for coaches to close these games up to stem scoreboard bleeding. It will be interesting to review the style of play in the first home and away round and see if the attacking style remains in vogue.

It's tough to look too closely at this week's games and extrapolate to a full season, but AussieRulesBlog thought the Tigers were the least impressive team. Their disposal was poor for a club that has aspirations to go deep into finals. They'll look better against teams less well-drilled than the Hawks, but our view of Richmond has long been that they reward mediocrity. This week's game did nothing to suggest they won't be afflicted with the same problem in 2016.

All in all, though, isn't it great to have some footy back?

Much bleating on social media and elsewhere about the week’s holiday being offered to Docker giant, Aaron Sandilands, but the MRP are following a well-established practice.

Sandilands can’t be blamed for being head and shoulders above the rest of the competition, at least in stature, but he erred on two counts. Firstly, Griffiths wasn’t his ruck opponent, and second, having chosen to bump, he (Sandilands) bears the responsibility for even coincidental high contact or injury.

It must be hard being that tall. There are probably less than a handful of opponents he can legitimately decide to bump without being in danger of high contact.

It goes without saying that there will be MRP decisions that will perplex and mystify, but this isn't one of them. Enjoy your week off, Aaron.

Watching the opening game of the 2016 pre-season tonight, one thing stood out — the change in tackling intention. It might be that the umpiring department have got onto something that will improve the game we watch every week.

In the lead-up to the game, it was made quite clear, though the media, that the umpires would strictly police slinging tackles. AussieRulesBlog sees that as a real plus, but we were prepared to be disappointed.

In recent years, the objective of tackling has seemed to be to force the opponent into the ground with as much force as could be mustered. Almost inevitably, we saw sling tackles and players, unable to protect or brace themselves, being slammed into the ground. A few concussions resulted in a so-called 'double movement' sling tackle becoming a reportable offence — but that didn't stop the intent to slam players into the turf.

Tonight's first pre-season game was played at a pretty good pace for a the first competitive practice game, with plenty of physical clashes. For all of that, the intention when tackling seemed to be to win a free kick for holding the ball or incorrect disposal, rather than to knock the opponent into next week. There were no sling-type tackles that we saw.

It was a refreshing change, and one that we hope to see repeated as we see more games.

There’s plenty for Blues fans to like from Brendan Bolton’s first outing as head coach, while Sam Mitchell looked not to have missed a beat from the Grand Final. It’s great to have footy back!