THE SAGA CONTINUES - WADA APPEALS

[darkhorse72 1,904]

When is the decision due? 

[Whispering_Jack 29,770]

49 minutes ago, DemonFrog said:

Just following the Drug Lords lead there WJ.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story or two.

Are you suggesting that we didn't know the risk involved in choosing an Essendon player who was among the 34 players facing charges?

Is that not the truth Mr Frog?

[beelzebub 23,313]

4 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Are you suggesting that we didn't know the risk involved in choosing an Essendon player who was among the 34 players facing charges?

Is that not the truth Mr Frog?

If we didn't know it we're fools. If we did know it and went ahead anyway....we're..... Hmm..still fools.

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

33 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Air Canada isn't that flash. They have very little competition within Canada. They regularly stuff up. Ask any Canadian..esp those servicing the industry. The shuttle driver just rolled eyes.."Air Canada eh....do it ALL the time" . There are worse airlines. United comes to mind lol.

I am a Canadian

Generally they're very good internationally, but domestic is hit and miss I guess. Anyway, at least you didn't have to deal with United!

[old dee 23,778]

30 minutes ago, Darkhorse72 said:

When is the decision due? 

An extremely good question

[beelzebub 23,313]

19 minutes ago, Good Times Grimes said:

I am a Canadian

Generally they're very good internationally, but domestic is hit and miss I guess. Anyway, at least you didn't have to deal with United!

Nice....lol

International OK/ not bad.  Domestic ??? Yeah ...can be roll the dice. The ticketing clerk tried to rebook 5 of us on r different flights via 2 different layovers on two different days. The manager I requested saw it differently... Eventually... 3 & half later.  If they had seen reason a bit quicker we might have made the hotel before the kitchen closed.

I like Canada. But wasn't impressed with AC.

Anyhow....how's them Dees

[bing181 9,193]

4 hours ago, Darkhorse72 said:

When is the decision due? 

Week of the 11th - next week.

Will come up here somewhere:  http://www.tas-cas.org/en/index.html

[Deecisive 1,709]

So it looks like essendon is allowed to use top up players, can we then do likewise should melksham have to sit out part of the season?

[bing181 9,193]

25 minutes ago, Deecisive said:

So it looks like essendon is allowed to use top up players, can we then do likewise should melksham have to sit out part of the season?

All will be revealed in the fullness of time I imagine. But not sure who we'd top up with ... give James Magner another run? Come back Mark Jamar, all is forgiven?

[jnrmac 20,053]

28 minutes ago, Deecisive said:

So it looks like essendon is allowed to use top up players, can we then do likewise should melksham have to sit out part of the season?

Interesting point. I guess the precedent has been set....

[Willmoy1947 4,081]

I reckon the AF logs better have a good think about this!!!!

[DemonFrog 1,354]

5 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Are you suggesting that we didn't know the risk involved in choosing an Essendon player who was among the 34 players facing charges?

Is that not the truth Mr Frog?

Not at all WJ.

My comment was purely based on my desire to see the Drug Lords pay for their actions and not on any legal opinion.

 

[Cards13 9,117]

1 hour ago, Deecisive said:

So it looks like essendon is allowed to use top up players, can we then do likewise should melksham have to sit out part of the season?

Bloody good question and I think we will find out too.

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

9 hours ago, Deecisive said:

So it looks like essendon is allowed to use top up players, can we then do likewise should melksham have to sit out part of the season?

Very interesting question. If we both are allowed top ups, who gets first choice?

[binman 42,631]

10 hours ago, Deecisive said:

So it looks like essendon is allowed to use top up players, can we then do likewise should melksham have to sit out part of the season?

I reckon they would just allow us to elevate a rookie. Which would mean michie. Not a bad replacement

[CBDees 3,167]

13 minutes ago, binman said:

I reckon they would just allow us to elevate a rookie. Which would mean michie. Not a bad replacement

What about White or Wagner, both rebounding defenders! Maybe the MFC FD had an emergency plan after all!

 

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

9 minutes ago, CBDees said:

What about White or Wagner, both rebounding defenders! Maybe the MFC FD had an emergency plan after all!

 

We're allowed one upgrade prior to round one anyway, so if the AFL were to allow us a bonus upgrade then two of White/Wagner/Michie/King would be on the senior list.

I'd still like a top up player to substitute for Melksham should he be suspended. It wouldn't be fair for the Bombers to be allowed to add players to complete their list while we are a man short (even with the rookie upgrade). All hypotheticals at this stage.

[Wells 11 5,377]

1 hour ago, Good Times Grimes said:

We're allowed one upgrade prior to round one anyway, so if the AFL were to allow us a bonus upgrade then two of White/Wagner/Michie/King would be on the senior list.

I'd still like a top up player to substitute for Melksham should he be suspended. It wouldn't be fair for the Bombers to be allowed to add players to complete their list while we are a man short (even with the rookie upgrade). All hypotheticals at this stage.

Heres where your point has its  fatal flaw. You're putting "fair" and the AFL into the same sentence and they're oxymorons

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

31 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

Heres where your point has its  fatal flaw. You're putting "fair" and the AFL into the same sentence and they're oxymorons

Touché. 

[CBDees 3,167]

On 7 January 2016 at 7:20 AM, Good Times Grimes said:

We're allowed one upgrade prior to round one anyway, so if the AFL were to allow us a bonus upgrade then two of White/Wagner/Michie/King would be on the senior list.

I'd still like a top up player to substitute for Melksham should he be suspended. It wouldn't be fair for the Bombers to be allowed to add players to complete their list while we are a man short (even with the rookie upgrade). All hypotheticals at this stage.

NO Clubs should be allowed players to complete their lists, particularly Essendon! They haven't got 34 to replace any longer (i.e. 12 only) so they still have enough players remaining on their list to field 22 plus still have emergencies! Further they have been beneficiaries of some very low draft picks last year plus they benefited from trading 5 of their affected played so effectively they have traded off the risk/penalty to opposition Clubs.                   

As for the five players who are now with other Clubs, the MFC FD knew the risk associated with Melksham (as did Port Adelaide and the other Clubs effected). A penalty is not a penalty if the parties get compensated for their misdeeds (or, in our case, for our calculated gamble in trading for Melksham)!

Edited January 9, 2016 by CBDees

[sue 9,096]

On 26/12/2015 at 4:49 PM, Chris said:

40 minutes ago, CBDees said:

NO Clubs should be allowed players to complete their lists, particularly Essendon! They haven't got 34 to replace any longer so they still have enough remaining on their list to field 22 plus still have emergencies! We knew the risks (as did Port Adelaide and other Clubs effected). A penalty is not a penalty if the parties get compensated for their deeds (or, in our case, for our calculated gamble in trading for Melksham)!

 

That depends entirely on what was agreed between the AFL and the MFC when we selected Melksham (which we don't know).  If it was agreed  we'd be compensated in some way by the AFL if we took him, then we'd rightly expect that compensation if required.  Just a part of the 'calculated gamble'.  Maybe we wouldn't have taken him without that assurance.

[FireInTheBennelly 4,072]

4 hours ago, Wells 11 said:

Heres where your point has its  fatal flaw. You're putting "fair" and the AFL into the same sentence and they're oxymorons

And, if you remove the word "fair", you also have to remove the "oxy" component of the last word.

[flamindees 16]

CAS verdict Tuesday morning, according to afl.com - hope everyone at bomberland wear their brown  trousers Tuesday! Can't wait to see the reactions from the Bomber faithful and the sycophants in the media - Slobbo , I'm looking at you!!!!

 

[Elwood 3184 1,298]

7 minutes ago, flamindees said:

CAS verdict Tuesday morning, according to afl.com - hope everyone at bomberland wear their brown  trousers Tuesday! Can't wait to see the reactions from the Bomber faithful and the sycophants in the media - Slobbo , I'm looking at you!!!!

Surely, Foxtel must put on a special edition of AFL360 for the final verdict?

[Sir Why You Little 36,963]

36 minutes ago, flamindees said:

CAS verdict Tuesday morning, according to afl.com - hope everyone at bomberland wear their brown  trousers Tuesday! Can't wait to see the reactions from the Bomber faithful and the sycophants in the media - Slobbo , I'm looking at you!!!!

 

I am tipping the entire 2016 season for all 34 players

Not sure what management should get. 

Doc Reid should be struck off i know that!!