Goodwin was must be comfortably satisfied that the bombers are going to get off. Obviously knows more than us.

Cronulla Sharks players accepted their ban for doping. It was a backdated 12 month ban, to which WADA said they were "comfortable" with the backdating of the ban.

In saying this, IF the Bombers are handed the full 2 year ban and IF WADA play the same card as the Sharks and allow a backdated ban, then how long will 'Milkshake' be out?

I honestly do not know how long this has gone on for, but it feels as though the 2 years has either passed or its coming very close.

Highlights of 2013 - hopefully the form he can return to. I doubt he will ever be an elite midfielder, I'm just hoping he can bring some aggression/passion and consistently be in our best 22 for the next four years.

Welcome aboard. He will bring more pace to the midfield.

He was probably Essendon's best player in the second-half of 2013.

Stood up at a time when many others buckled. Says a lot about his character.

I wonder why the 34 EFC players haven't taken another 'voluntary' suspension, just in case.

Added to the 6 months already it means a 1 year 'voluntary' suspension would have been served pre rnd 1 2016.

(Maybe they have/will and EFC/AFL will make it public after the GF).

Note: players can still train with their club while in 'voluntary' suspension.

Those on here that assume the 'worst possible case' ie all 34 will get (the same) 2 years with no backdating and no credit for any 'voluntary' suspension are unrealistic. Here is my rationale as to why:-

- 2 of 34 players were found to have 'abnormal' levels of TB4.

- I can see these 2 players getting a 1 or 2 year ban and the others getting a lighter 6mnth/1 year ban.

- Any ban may include backdating and will include credit for 'voluntary' suspension served.

People may not like that suspensions are served in the off-season but those are the rules.

I trust MFC to know if JM is 1 of the 2 with 'abnormal' TB4...safe to think he is not.

So if my rationale is correct he would get a lighter penalty (if any at all).

The backdating and credits would see him available for rnd 1 2016.

If he comes to us I hope MFC encourage him to take another 6 month 'voluntary'.

Even so, IMHO there is a miniscule risk that he will not be available to line up in round 1 2016.

If you think otherwise, please read this post again.

Edited September 29, 20159 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Highlights of 2013 - hopefully the form he can return to. I doubt he will ever be an elite midfielder, I'm just hoping he can bring some aggression/passion and consistently be in our best 22 for the next four years.

The Demonlanders who have immediately rejected the idea of drafting Melksham should consider how many players who got a game for us this year would be completely incapable of kicking some of those goals: eg 60m out, or off the non-preferred from 50. His more recent form means we shouldn't pay a lot for him, but if we get to point where this bloke is a depth player (rather than guys like Bail/McKenzie/M Jones/Riley etc) it will be a sign we are a MUCH better side.

Cronulla Sharks players accepted their ban for doping. It was a backdated 12 month ban, to which WADA said they were "comfortable" with the backdating of the ban.

In saying this, IF the Bombers are handed the full 2 year ban and IF WADA play the same card as the Sharks and allow a backdated ban, then how long will 'Milkshake' be out?

I honestly do not know how long this has gone on for, but it feels as though the 2 years has either passed or its coming very close.

Please don't rewrite history. I can't be bothered going through the EFC/WADA thread for you but WADA were not happy. They accepted it because if mitigating circumstances. EFC won't have that luxury.

I wouldn't even put Watts in the same category as Johnstone in terms of elite disposers of the ball. Watts can actually be hit and miss at times where Trapper was simply sublime. He could run down the wing 4 or 5 bounces and drill a low pin point 50m kick on the chest of David Neitz.

Johnstone along with Jurrah is the most naturally gifted footballer i have ever seen during my time supporting this club.

my memory is a bit different

sure johnstone was a superb kick of the ball but i also remember plenty of kicking clangers

like steviej he would often try to do too much with some of his kicks

The Demonlanders who have immediately rejected the idea of drafting Melksham should consider how many players who got a game for us this year would be completely incapable of kicking some of those goals: eg 60m out, or off the non-preferred from 50. His more recent form means we shouldn't pay a lot for him, but if we get to point where this bloke is a depth player (rather than guys like Bail/McKenzie/M Jones/Riley etc) it will be a sign we are a MUCH better side.

Anyone comparing him to our VFL level Z grades like Bail and M Jones are clueless... he is Bernie Vince like the way he can kick off both feet and get penetration on his opposite foot.

He will be a great pick up for us (WADA permitting).

Edited September 29, 20159 yr by hogans_heroes

Not sure Watts and Johnstone should be uttered in the same sentence as Melksham when it comes to disposal. Both elite disposers of the ball. Melksham is not.

As for Vince having 3 a game, that's because he averages about 5-10 more disposals a game than Melksham and therefore more likely to make a mistake.

If Melksham is in the door I'll back the FD, but I'm not expecting much. Every time I've ever watched him he's butchered the ball. I hope getting him in the red and blue changes things.

Just to be clear I used Watts and Johnstone as examples of players who were good kicks (like Melksham) who often turned the ball over because they attempted to executive more difficult kicks. I've watched a fair bit of Melksham and think he's a good kick who makes some bad decisions and attempts to thread the eye of the needle too often. Matt Jones, Riley, Bail and McKenzie are simply bad kicks. Melksham will hit easy targets but needs to stick to his limitations. I don't think he's as quick as some here are making out but he does have burst speed in a Jack Viney kind of way. He will run hard all day. When he was playing at his best (2013) he publicly acknowledge the positive influence of Goodwin. We'll probably give up our second rounder but like everyone, would hope we use our third.

Please don't rewrite history. I can't be bothered going through the EFC/WADA thread for you but WADA were not happy. They accepted it because if mitigating circumstances. EFC won't have that luxury.

It was stated in the smh article below that... "It is understood the players made the decision after being told WADA was "comfortable" with the backdated bans"

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/cronulla-sharks-players-accept-doping-bans-20140822-10728y.html

Edited September 29, 20159 yr by Felix

Can anyone name a young player at the Dons who has developed as a player during the ASADA saga? Its understandable that they havent kicked on in that environment

There is hope for Jake yet. Think he will realize his potential at the Dees. Get behind him folks, its Mlikshake time.

My God you are painful

Can anyone name a young player at the Dons who has developed as a player during the ASADA saga? Its understandable that they havent kicked on in that environment

There is hope for Jake yet. Think he will realize his potential at the Dees. Get behind him folks, its Mlikshake time.

Heppell and Hurley for a start.

I wonder why the 34 EFC players haven't taken another 'voluntary' suspension, just in case.

Added to the 6 months already it means a 1 year 'voluntary' suspension would have been served pre rnd 1 2016.

(Maybe they have/will and EFC/AFL will make it public after the GF).

Note: players can still train with their club while in 'voluntary' suspension.

Those on here that assume the 'worst possible case' ie all 34 will get (the same) 2 years with no backdating and no credit for any 'voluntary' suspension are unrealistic. Here is my rationale as to why:-

- 2 of 34 players were found to have 'abnormal' levels of TB4.

- I can see these 2 players getting a 1 or 2 year ban and the others getting a lighter 6mnth/1 year ban.

- Any ban may include backdating and will include credit for 'voluntary' suspension served.

People may not like that suspensions are served in the off-season but those are the rules.

I trust MFC to know if JM is 1 of the 2 with 'abnormal' TB4...safe to think he is not.

So if my rationale is correct he would get a lighter penalty (if any at all).

The backdating and credits would see him available for rnd 1 2016.

If he comes to us I hope MFC encourage him to take another 6 month 'voluntary'.

Even so, IMHO there is a miniscule risk that he will not be available to line up in round 1 2016.

If you think otherwise, please read this post again.

Reading speculation multiple times does not make it fact.

Edited September 30, 20159 yr by ManDee

The Demonlanders who have immediately rejected the idea of drafting Melksham should consider how many players who got a game for us this year would be completely incapable of kicking some of those goals: eg 60m out, or off the non-preferred from 50. His more recent form means we shouldn't pay a lot for him, but if we get to point where this bloke is a depth player (rather than guys like Bail/McKenzie/M Jones/Riley etc) it will be a sign we are a MUCH better side.

Yeah, but he might get banned and what do we have to give up for him?

my memory is a bit different

sure johnstone was a superb kick of the ball but i also remember plenty of kicking clangers

like steviej he would often try to do too much with some of his kicks

Who doesn't have them? A bit harsh. Your first comment about him being a superb kick of the ball was right.

Anyone comparing him to our VFL level Z grades like Bail and M Jones are clueless... he is Bernie Vince like the way he can kick off both feet and get penetration on his opposite foot.

He will be a great pick up for us (WADA permitting).

Biggest clutch at straws i have seen in a player comparrison for a while, players can kick off both feet and he sure can kick from distance with both, but his passing around the ground leaves much to be desired and his kicking would be in the below average - average category as opposed to Bernie who is elite

My God you are painful

thank you

Cronulla Sharks players accepted their ban for doping. It was a backdated 12 month ban, to which WADA said they were "comfortable" with the backdating of the ban.

In saying this, IF the Bombers are handed the full 2 year ban and IF WADA play the same card as the Sharks and allow a backdated ban, then how long will 'Milkshake' be out?

I honestly do not know how long this has gone on for, but it feels as though the 2 years has either passed or its coming very close.

WADA have previously stated that all bets are off now re the AFL. Theres no Backdating. Only an allowance for the voluntary suspensions already undertaken. People get confused its not backdating..Thats what the efc brigade keep pumping into the media. Thats what EFC WANT !!

EFC and any club with a "34" will need to prepare for pain Its coming.

This comfort or otherwise that many at clubs are exhibiting regarding the toxicity of having any of the 34 is quite frankly amazing....amazingly stupid really. Theres still this ideal of ...we're AFL ...we'll be right etc etc.

No Ones getting a Xmas present other than WADA/ASADA

Any comparison to the NRL fiasco os foolhardy. A different set of circumstances.. Different level of transgressions and culpability , not to mention they co-operated and didnt hold things up every 5 mins.. WADA were NOT happy..let alone comfortable with all of this. The use of comfort will be by some one pushiing a player/club barrow. WADA were decidedly disappointed with how events ran but decided to put a line through it all and call it a day.

They have done entirely the opposite with the case of the 34 as the hearing on Nov 16 will attest. Even then they will not have finished and will be coming after the scoundrels who implemented it all

If anyone in AFL land thinks they can afford any comfort they are in la-la land !!

Notwithstanding your personal views of Melksham, surely you realise that if Goodwin wants him on a 4 year deal he doesn't expect him to be a fringe player ?

I do absolutely understand that. Just as I understood that Mark Neeld didn't expect Matt Jones or Dean Terlich to be fringe 22 players when they were signed on three year deals. That doesn't change the fact that the contracts they were offered were an error because of their duration and it is possible that this will prove to be also.

As I said, most players do not get offered four year deals let alone known quantities who are mediocre at best. By all means recruit the guy if it is perceived he will add to the 22, bolster depth or improve training standards. I just don't see the rationale for locking the club into an unnecessary long term deal for a player of this calibre.

I just don't see the rationale for locking the club into an unnecessary long term deal for a player of this calibre.

The four year deal is the carrot needed for him to change clubs... the rest is just a subjective assessment of how we rate the player.

Im actually surprised 4 years is at all necessary...to get him to change clubs.

Youd have thought anyone who had enough of that environment would jump at any half way reasonable offer. 4 years seems excessive ...to me.

Reading speculation multiple times does not make it fact.

A good throwaway line 'ManDee'...obviously its not possible to make a future event fact.

My hypothesis was: there is a miniscule chance JM will not be available for rnd 1, 2016 because:

- Not all 34 players will get the same ban...some will get a lighter ban eg 6/12 mnths

- JM is one with a lighter ban (MFC would have checked if he was one of the 2 with 'abnormal' TB4)

- He has served 6 months already.

- He can serve 6 more months if he takes another 'voluntary' suspension thru this off-season.

Where is the fault in the rationale?

The point really is that the CAS related risk of taking JM is very low.

Not saying it applies to you but lots of generalisations on here about player suspensions often based on wishful thinking and are looking at time banned rather than games missed.

Out of interest, how many games do you think JM will miss?

Edited September 30, 20159 yr by Lucifer's Hero

I do absolutely understand that. Just as I understood that Mark Neeld didn't expect Matt Jones or Dean Terlich to be fringe 22 players when they were signed on three year deals. That doesn't change the fact that the contracts they were offered were an error because of their duration and it is possible that this will prove to be also.

As I said, most players do not get offered four year deals let alone known quantities who are mediocre at best. By all means recruit the guy if it is perceived he will add to the 22, bolster depth or improve training standards. I just don't see the rationale for locking the club into an unnecessary long term deal for a player of this calibre.

You've changed your argument.