AFL icon casts doubts over video amid suggestions Bulldogs players aren't happy
AFL legend James Hird and commentator Eddie McGuire have cast doubts over footage shared by Jamarra Ugle-Hagan.
The Bulldogs star is still training privately away from the football club after he was granted an indefinite leave of absence to deal with personal issues.
It was reported last month the former No. 1 draft pick had checked himself into a health retreat in a key step towards reviving his AFL career.
FOX FOOTY, available on Kayo Sports, is the only place to watch every match of every round in the 2025 Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE in 4K, with no ad-breaks during play. New to Kayo? Get your first month for just $1. Limited-time offer.
Now the 23-year-old appears to have further signalled his intent to return to top-level football after taking to social media to share videos of himself running and boxing.
The clips — published on Instagram and TikTok in black and white with professional editing and soundtrack — appear to have been taken from Byron Bay where Ugle-Hagan has reportedly been spending time.
The promoted footage dropped just hours before it was first reported by leading football reporter Tom Morris that Ugle-Hagan has ambitions to play for the Sydney Swans next year.
'The Western Bulldogs are weighing up what they do next with him,' Morris told Channel 9's Footy Classified.
'My understanding is Jamarra has told those close to him he would like to play for the Sydney Swans next year, in a perfect world.
'Whether that takes place, whether the Swans are keen or not, I'm not sure. The Dogs would have to trade him, because of course, he's contracted.'
Essendon icon Hird and McGuire suggested on Tuesday night AFL clubs would want to see more than a glamourised fitness video from Ugle-Hagan before they would consider recruiting him.
'I'd like to see him training with his football club,' Hird said bluntly.
'And commit to a big block of training. I can't imagine any club would look at that and say that's enough for us to think he's draftable. It's the first step, but it's a long way from being anywhere near what a football team needs.'
McGuire said on Nine's Footy Classified he saw nothing in the footage — that was produced by Byron Bay-based personal trainer business, Byron Boxing — that suggested Ugle-Hagan was ready to come back.
'Let's be honest. It's an edit that's been put together,' McGuire said.
'It's been chopped by somebody. Some nice tight cuts of a couple of things. I mean, I could get up and do that at the moment and look like I'm running a marathon.'
Hird quipped: 'I've seen you box too. You'd be better than that'.
Morris questioned if McGuire was 'suspect' on the footage. The former Collingwood president responded: 'No. You know what it is. It says I'm getting my mind right.
I don't think it went over well with a few of his Western Bulldogs teammates today who are preparing for a game tomorrow. They're tight edits. There's nothing in that that says he's ready.'
Ugle-Hagan, who is contracted until the end of 2026 at Whitten Oval, has not played any senior footy this year due to his personal off-field issues.
He had trained sparingly with AFL — and at times VFL — teammates before his official leave of absence began in late April.
The Bulldogs have told Code sports there has been no change to the conditions of Ugle-Hagan's indefinite leave.
If the Bulldogs grant Ugle-Hagan permission to leave, the football club will still be in a position to negotiate a potential trade for any suitors that come calling with contract offers for Ugle-Hagan.
The Bulldogs next face Hawthorn in a Thursday night blockbuster at the MCG.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Anthony Albanese faces a novel challenge in Sussan Ley
Anthony Albanese loves a trophy, especially a human one. He prides himself on his various "captain's pick" candidates — good campaigners he has steered into seats. Way back in the Gillard days, he was key in persuading discontented Liberal Peter Slipper to defect. Slipper became an independent and Labor's speaker. The exercise helped the government's numbers, but the bold play didn't end well for Labor or for Slipper. The government was tarnished, and Slipper, relentlessly pursued by the Coalition and mired in controversy, eventually had to quit the speakership. The affair did produce Julia Gillard's famous misogyny speech, however. Now Albanese has another gee-whiz prize — Western Australian Senator Dorinda Cox, who has defected from the Greens. Cox, after being defeated in a bid for Greens deputy leader, approached Labor and the PM drove her course to being accepted into the party. The manoeuvre makes a marginal but insignificant difference to Senate numbers — Labor will still need the Greens to pass legislation opposed by the Coalition. Taking in Cox is a risk, and some in Labor are looking at it askance. The prime minister's embrace of Cox contradicts Labor's argument when its Western Australian senator Fatima Payman defected to become an independent. It said then hers was a Labor seat and she should therefore resign. But this wouldn't be the first time expediency trumped consistency in politics. Cox, who is Indigenous and was spokesperson for First Nations and resources in the last parliament, has been a fierce critic of the extending the North West Shelf gas project, which the government has just announced. Albanese says he is confident she "understands that being a member of the Labor Party means that she will support positions that are made by the Labor Party". She has also faced allegations of treating staff badly. Labor discounts the claims against her, saying they are overblown and a product of Greens factionalism and toxicity. Certainly, she was given a tough time by the hard-left faction represented by deputy leader Mehreen Faruqi. Labor would be wise to ensure Cox feels supported in her new party home. Albanese perhaps calculates that the worst that can happen is there's a blow up and she defects to the crossbench. Labor could shrug and say, she was never really one of us. Snatching a senator from the Greens is particularly satisfying to Albanese because he hates the party so much. Last term, lower house Greens MP Max Chandler-Mather (defeated at the election) really got under his skin. More generally, the Greens held up important legislation, most notably on housing. In the new Senate, Labor will need only the Greens to pass legislation opposed by the Coalition. How new Greens leader Larissa Waters — who replaced Adam Bandt after he lost his seat — handles the party's relationship with the government will be crucial for the more contentious parts of Labor's legislative program. The usually low-key Waters will be under a lot of pressure. The Greens had a bad election, losing three lower house seats. Now they have lost a senator at the start of Waters's watch. Waters conceded on the Serious Danger podcast in late May that Labor had successfully run the narrative of the Greens as blockers. "So, I do think we're going to need to be quite deft in how we handle balance of power in this term, […] People want us to be constructive. They don't just want us to roll over and tick off on any old shit. They want meaningful reforms." Waters will want to pick her fights carefully and also find ways of pursuing the Greens' agenda where the party co-operates. The first deal is likely to be on the government's legislation to increase the tax on those with large superannuation balances, which contains the controversial provision to tax unrealised capital gains. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and her team will confront some of the same problems as the Greens — when to oppose and when to seek to negotiate with the government. For his part, Albanese will have a novel challenge with Ley — what stance to adopt against the first female opposition leader, especially but not only in parliamentary clashes. After facing two alpha-male Liberal leaders, Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton, a new approach will obviously be necessary. As one Labor man succinctly puts it, "Labor can't monster a woman". There can be no repeat of Albanese, a frontbencher a decade ago in the Shorten opposition, interjecting to urge a female colleague engaged in a stoush with Ley to "smash her". For Ley, trying to deal with the Liberals' multiple difficulties in attracting women voters and candidates must be high on her agenda. Former Liberal federal president Alan Stockdale, one of the three-person group currently running the NSW division of the party, showed himself part of the problem when this week he told the NSW Liberal Women's Council, "The women in this party are so assertive now that we may need some special rules for men to get them pre-selected." Stockdale said later he was being "light-hearted". Tone deaf might be a better term. Ley jumped on him. "There is nothing wrong with being an assertive woman. In fact, I encourage assertive women to join the Liberal Party." The jury is out on whether Ley will be able to make any sort of fist of her near-impossible job. But in the short time she's been leader, she has shown she is willing to be assertive. She emerged from the brief split in the Coalition looking much steadier than Nationals leader David Littleproud, even though she had to persuade her party room to accept the minor party's policy demands. In her frontbench reshuffle, she was willing to wear the inevitable criticism that came with dropping a couple of senior women who had under-performed. As deputy leader, Ley adjusted her style a while before the election, toning down the aggression and sometimes wild attacks, that had characterised her performance earlier in the term. A Liberal source said she found her "line and length". As leader, she will have others, notably deputy Ted O'Brien, to do the head-kicking, giving her room to attempt to develop a positive political persona. Labor leaned into attacking Dutton — never afraid to name him. With Ley, Albanese might adopt the Bob Carr approach of avoiding using his opponent's name. At least until he finds his line and length in dealing with her. Michelle Grattan is a professorial fellow at the University of Canberra and chief political correspondent at The Conversation, where this article first appeared.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Erin Patterson's responses to five prosecution accusations in mushroom murder trial
On Thursday, crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC launched her cross-examination of Erin Patterson, who is accused of murdering three of her relatives after they ate a beef Wellington she prepared and served. During her questioning, Dr Rogers put several propositions to Ms Patterson, who has pleaded not guilty to charges of murder and attempted murder and maintains the deaths were a tragic accident. Here are some of those accusations and how Ms Patterson responded. During her cross-examination, Dr Rogers targeted Ms Patterson's health, particularly a cancer diagnosis the court has previously heard was fake. Ms Patterson agreed she had wanted the lunch guests to believe she was having treatment for cancer, but disagreed she had told them she had been diagnosed with cancer. "Did you tell people at the lunch that you had cancer?" Dr Rogers asked. "No," Ms Patterson responded. Dr Rogers continued to question Ms Patterson about whether she had told her guests she had cancer, which Ms Patterson continued to deny. The prosecution said the sole surviving guest of the lunch, Ian Wilkinson, had earlier testified that Ms Patterson told the group she had cancer. Dr Rogers then brought Ms Patterson back to her evidence on Wednesday, where she had been questioned by her own defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, about a conversation she had with her guests about cancer. This is part of the transcript: Colin Mandy: And what happened with that conversation about cancer, did it move on to other topics? Erin Patterson: Um, it stayed at that topic at that point. Um, I … Colin Mandy: What did you say about your health? Erin Patterson: So, it was right at the end of the meal and I mentioned that I'd had a - maybe not 'scare' is the right word, but I had an issue a year or two earlier where I thought I had ovarian cancer and had various scans about and related to that. And then, um, I'm not proud of this, but I led them to believe that I might be needing some treatment in regards to that in the next few weeks or months. When asked by Dr Rogers if she told her guests she had upcoming treatment for cancer, Ms Patterson said she could not remember the precise words. "But I do know what I was trying to communicate was that … that I was undergoing investigations around ovarian cancer and might need treatment in that regard in the future," she said. Dr Rogers also put to the accused that she had researched different types of cancer on the internet to "tell a more convincing lie about having cancer". "I mean, theoretically, that's true, but that's not what I did," Ms Patterson said. During the questioning, Dr Rogers put the following statement to Ms Patterson: "I suggest that you never thought you would have to account for this lie of having cancer, because you thought that the lunch guests would die and your lie would never be found out." Ms Patterson denied this accusation, saying "that's not true". Ms Patterson admitted she did not have a lump on her elbow or an appointment at St Vincent's hospital in the weeks before the July lunch in 2023, despite telling her mother-in-law Gail Patterson both of those things. "You didn't have any medical issues to discuss with Gail Patterson at the lunch, did you?" Dr Rogers asked. "I didn't have a legitimate medical reason, no, that's true," Ms Patterson said. When she was asked why she told Gail about these things, Ms Patterson said she didn't want the care Don and Gail had been showing her to stop. "I had initially thought I had an issue with my elbow, I'd had a lot of pain for a number of weeks," she said. "I probably whinged a bit too much to Don and Gail about it, and felt a bit embarrassed by that. "I suggest that you told Gail Patterson that you had a lump in your elbow and had to go to St Vincent's Hospital to plant the seed of you having a serious health issue," Dr Rogers said to Ms Patterson during the hearing. "I'd say no, I don't think that's right, no," Ms Patterson responded. On Thursday, the court was again shown a series of Facebook messages between Ms Patterson and her online friends. In the messages, Ms Patterson vented to her friends about her parents-in-law being reluctant to take sides in a financial disagreement she was having with their son, Simon. In her messages, she recounted her in-laws suggesting prayer and conversation between Ms Patterson and her husband to resolve the matters. Dr Rogers referred to "eye-roll emojis" used in one of the messages and another emoji that Ms Patterson said showed a straight-line smile underneath. Dr Rogers noted that emojis were a deliberate choice made by a user, and asked Ms Patterson what she would call the emojis. "All I can say about it, it's a face with a straight line for a mouth," she replied. "I don't know what I'd call it." "Even though you used it?" Dr Rogers asked. "Yeah," Ms Patterson replied. Dr Rogers takes her to another emoji after a reference to prayer again in the message. They disagreed about whether it was an eye-roll emoji. "There's a better eye-roll emoji than these … I can't see anything about eyes rolling in there," Ms Patterson said. Dr Rogers suggested Ms Patterson was "mocking" the advice from her in-laws in some of these messages, including the religious aspects of that advice. "I wasn't mocking, I was frustrated," Ms Patterson said. Dr Rogers took Ms Patterson to evidence given by one of her Facebook friends, who told the court the accused had told them she was an atheist and found her husband's religious background difficult. Ms Patterson denied this. "So, your evidence is that you did not say or post that you were an atheist?" Dr Rogers asked. "No, I didn't do that," Ms Patterson replied. During the prosecution's cross-examination on Thursday, Ms Patterson was shown several photos of mushrooms sitting on a dehydrator rack, including some balanced on scales. When asked about the images, Ms Patterson said she "probably" took them but had no memory of doing so. Dr Rogers told the court fungi expert Tom May's evidence was that the mushrooms depicted on a tray in one of the photos were "consistent with Amanita phalloides [death cap mushrooms]". "I suggest that you were weighing these death cap mushrooms so that you could calculate the weight required for the administration of a fatal dose for one person. Agree or disagree?" Dr Rogers asked Ms Patterson. "Disagree," Ms Patterson replied. Dr Rogers suggested to Ms Patterson that the mushrooms depicted in the photo were death cap mushrooms that the accused had foraged in Loch after seeing a post on iNaturalist. Ms Patterson replied, "that's not correct". Nanette Rogers: You deny that these are death cap mushrooms? Erin Patterson: That's correct, I don't think they are. Dr Rogers also put to Ms Patterson that the reason she had lied to police about never owning a dehydrator was because she knew she had used it to prepare death cap mushrooms for the lunch. Ms Patterson denied this. Dr Rogers then suggested that Ms Patterson was "very keen to dispose of any evidence that might connect you with the possession of death cap mushrooms". "No, I didn't know they'd been in it," Ms Patterson said. Dr Rogers put to Ms Patterson that she had deliberately used foraged mushrooms in the beef Wellington and that those foraged mushrooms were death cap mushrooms. "I did not deliberately put death cap mushrooms in the meal," Ms Patterson said. During the questioning, the prosecution put to Ms Patterson a suggested reason for her lying to police about owning a dehydrator. "You lied, because you knew if you'd told the police the truth, it would implicate you in the deliberate poisoning of your four lunch guests," Dr Rogers said. "No, no, it's not true," Ms Patterson responded. Dr Rogers also put to the accused that she had lied about owning a food dehydrator because "you knew you had used the dehydrator to prepare death cap mushrooms to include in the lunch". Ms Patterson also denied that, saying "I didn't know that". She was then asked if she agreed or disagreed that she lied about dehydrating mushrooms because she knew if she "told police the truth then that would implicate you in the poisoned lunch". "I agree that I lied because I was afraid I would be held responsible," Ms Patterson replied. Ms Patterson later agreed if she had told the truth to police she would have been a suspect. "You knew that if you told police the truth then you would be immediately suspected by police of being involved in a poisoning event?" Dr Rogers asked. "That's probably true, yes," Ms Patterson said. The trial continues.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
My to-do list for the man about to become football's Mr Fix It
As difficult as it was for The Fonz to say 's ... s ... s ... s ... sor ... sorry' in TV's Happy Days, some critics of the AFL might be equally reluctant to say 'w ... w ... w ... wel ... well done' to the AFL on the appointment of Greg Swann. But the league deserves plaudits for appointing Swann. He has an incredible track record wherever he has gone. Not only did he lead two of the biggest clubs in footy heartland – Carlton and Collingwood – but the job he did steering the turnaround of the Brisbane Lions was remarkable. The Lions today are a stable club, with healthy attendance at games, on-field success, elite training facilities, and are considered a destination club for many players. That's a far cry from the position the club was in when Swann arrived in 2014. Just like your columnist in his playing days, the AFL is never be accused of being fast. But Swann was lured to league headquarters just days after the role of head of football performance was created. The speed and quality of that appointment has been widely applauded, even by the league's harshest critics. But the AFL's glacial response to a raft of issues needing serious attention has left a legacy. After taking nearly two years to appoint Andrew Dillon as CEO to replace Gillon McLachlan, the league has continued to lack urgency, particularly in the development of a new drugs policy, and addressing concerns about the football department soft cap. Let's hope the events of the past week herald an era of greater vigour and energy from the AFL, spearheaded by Swann, a man who is both pragmatic and decisive – just what they need at footy's City Hall. As he prepares to step into his new job next month, I, like many others, have some ideas on what his priorities should be. This is my to-do list for the AFL's new footy supremo:
