Leaderboard

We beat Adelaide who beat Collingwood, who beat Essendon, who beat North Melbourne, who beat .................................. PORT ADELAIDE...... Who beat ......... GEELONG who beat HAWTHORN!!!!! Straight to the grand final for us!!!!!!!

And I will throw this spanner in the works - we were playing a game of chicken with GC and GWS over the Viney bidding. They could have made us use Pick 3 on him. Our involvement in the Hogan deal allowed us to use Pick 26. And to those who still say that 'he wasn't top 3 in that draft class' - it doesn't matter. The entire footy world knew we were taking him wherever - GC or GWS could have forced our hand, they didn't because of the deal we made with them for Hogan.

The news this week of the impending issue of show cause notices has once again raised concerns about the fairness or otherwise of possible sanctions against players accused of ingesting prohibited substances. There is a concern that this occurred without a deliberate decision on their part and it's therefore unfair that they should be charged, especially after a long drawn out investigation, but this is almost completely irrelevant under the World Anti-Doping Code and furthermore, if the length of the investigation is determined partly or wholly by the actions of the parties involved they don't deserve any consideration for that either. The principle of "strict liability" applies to the WADA Code meaning that athletes are ultimately responsible for any substances found in their bodies regardless of how they came to be there (the one exception being the case of a substance administered in a hospital to an unconscious athlete) - see AFL (WADA) Drug Code This would seem to eliminate the arguments put in defence of the players involved in the Essendon situation. They claim they don't know what was injected but strict liability means athletes have a responsibility to know what they ingest - see hereThe rationale for the strict liability principle was set out in a Court of Arbitration for Sport case, Quigley v UIT: The strict liability principle does not cater for the careless or ill-informed player, it does not cater for the unwitting consumption of contaminated supplements or the use of a banned substance not intended to enhance performance.Another area where there is confusion about Anti-Doping Rule Violations is that many think a positive doping test is essential to prove a violation took place but this is not the case - see here Doping, as defined by the Code, is the occurrence of one or more of the following anti-doping rule violations: * The Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athletes Sample. * Use or attempted use by an athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method. * Refusing or failing without compelling justification to submit to Sample collection after notification as authorized in applicable anti-doping rules or otherwise evading Sample collection. * Violation of applicable requirements regarding Athlete availability for Out-of-Competition Testing including failure to file required whereabouts information and missed tests which are declared based on rules which comply with the International Standard for Testing. Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures within an eighteen-month period as determined by Anti-Doping Organizations with jurisdiction over the Athlete shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation. * Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any part of Doping Control. * Possession of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods. * Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method. * Administration or attempted administration to any athlete In-Competition of any Prohibited Method or Prohibited Substance, or administration or attempted administration to any athlete Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance that is prohibited Out-of-Competition, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation or any Attempted anti-doping rule violation. Article 10 of the Code affords the athlete with the possibility of avoiding or having reduced sanctions if he or she can establish how the substance entered his or her system, demonstrate that he or she was not at fault or significant fault or in certain circumstances did not intend to enhance his or her sport performance - the burden of proof is on the athlete. No Fault or Negligence means the player needing to establish that he did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution, that he or she had used or been administered a prohibited substance. One of these form of violation relates to "attempted administration" and this naturally requires proof of intent. In the case of the claims against Essendon players:- * they signed "waiver" forms that listed prohibited substances; * the club purchased banned substances; * it has been suggested that there is evidence of attempts to tamper with purchase invoices; and * one player (Watson) has publicly stated that he believed he might have ingested AOD9604. The players need to prove they checked for themselves that the listed drugs were approved for their use. However, there had not been a single suggestion that any one player actually carried out an independent check to ascertain whether this was the case (despite the fact that they regularly attend education sessions on doping organised by the AFL). Checking with their own club personnel (doctors, trainers etc.) does not count - see here. [NOTE: I haven't even started with TB4] A google search on the drugs listed on the waiver forms alone would have raised alarm but apparently in this case, neither the players, the medical staff, coaches or club officials took the trouble to research the matter further or get a proper determination. Instead, they relied on Dank who claimed he got approval for the use of one of the drugs (AOD9604) from the "bowels" of ASADA. Dank has had the opportunity to produce the evidence sought which, if he's telling the truth, would have cleared the matter up without the need for such pain and concern among the players, the club and its supporters. But Dank has refused to take up the opportunity and ASADA will now act against him, the club and the players. It should be noted that virtually no athlete has had sanctions removed. Some very rarely have had sanctions reduced (ignoring reductions to 6 months for incriminating other cheating athletes which Essendon players have not done). The WADA Code is a voluntary behavioral code. People are investigated, prosecuted and judged under sovereign law merely by being a citizen, or by being in the particular jurisdiction when a crime was committed. The AFL, by voluntarily signing up to the WADA Code, accepted the provisions of the Code which are specifically different to those in sovereign law. The argument put against ASADA is that it bungled the investigation as evidenced by the length of time taken to deliver a final report. Given the resources available, the lack of co-operation of many of the parties and the complexity of the matter, does time matter that much if time is what's needed to get the truth? And if delay is what leads to "abuse of process" which should absolve offenders then the message being sent by this camp is that all you need to do to avoid being sprung for doping violations is to ensure the evidence is destroyed, that no co-operation whatsoever is afforded to the investigators and that the public be treated to a glittering display of smoke and mirrors.

Bob Murphy is easily my favourite player outside the MFC. He has a lot of the qualities of Robbie Flower. He's also a fantastic journalist up the in the class of Flanagan. He's written a great article in the Age today about the incident with JKH which is well worth a read. It will be a sad day when Murph hangs up the boots.

For the interstate or overseas posters, there is no need to thank me every time I post a training report, I know it is appreciated I have gained the trust of the players over time and if I ask a question I usually get an honest answer, of course checking that I can 'publish' There are things that I have been told over time that I made my own decision not to 'publish' so you have to bear with me If there is a question on any player that you want answering, then just let me know, they will be having next week off, but will still be getting to training at least twice a month till end of season

Sue - the investigator's lack of funding as part of the reason for delays is still not a valid argument. The test is whether the delay is so extreme as to impair the investigating body's capacity to assess the subject matter and circumstances of its enquiry? I think not. The only time you could maintain it IMO would be if the investigator(s) are completely remiss in carrying out their duties in such a way that it constitutes an abuse. Here, whilst the players might have cooperated with the investigation. Dank, a former employee of EFC, certainly didn't and hasn't co-operated, Essendon hasn't (missing records?) and the AFL has carried on in self preservation mode rather than in the spirit of co-operation. It's hindered the enquiry. If you accept Galbally's argument you would ensure that the cheats in a club environment would almost always get away - they would need only to follow the Essendon blueprint. Hide or lose the evidence and blame everybody but yourself.

Agree with your comparisons except for these. 1) Davey played his best game of the 2013 year against Richmond kicking 3, so JKH would have to have an excellent game to match Davey's output in the corresponding fixture. 2) Riley is unproven at AFL level so I'm not sure how you can be so adamant that he is a better player than Strauss. 3) Tyson's general output of 2014 is far greater than Trengove's general output of 2013, so I would swing this easily in Tyson's favour.

Vince has had a solid year, but needs to push harder. I think Bernie could be elite, so I might judge him harder than most. As a straight swap for Sylvia, we are miles ahead in this trade.

He's the designated driver.

When he got the gig as a forward and he played well, he actually made a point of asking me what I thought, (of course with a laugh), I told him he was crap and needed to go back, which he found amusing...said he loved the fact that he was making defenders miserable after putting up with the same for a couple of years

Back on topic re his injury can I again remind everyone that a young Nick Riewoldt injured his knee pre season in his first year. He debuted in round 16 and played 6 games of the remaining 8 in his debut season. If his back comes good and he can get some games and experience under his belt I would hope that he is not put out to pasture this year. Oh and Riewoldt was constantly linked to a return to Qld which never happened so lets give the kid a chance

I'm struggling to find where in that thread that you warned us that he'd suffer a season threatening back injury in his first season on the senior list.

You guys are all missing the big issue here. The air raid siren before the game. How long have they been doing this? It makes the trumpeter look like an ingenious idea.

The point is, he gets the bloody pill , and moves it towards our goal. A skill, apart from one N Jones, we have been sadly lacking in.

It upsets me how inevitable this is.

they said that about kreuzer after he had a couple of good games. all players are a waiting game until theyve played 70 games.

I wonder if h_h thinks that our 'incompetent medical and fitness staff' have over or under-reacted here. Whichever, I think he will say it was the wrong choice.

I'm ambivalent about his writing. It has improved but still is a little try hard HSC style, with over use of metaphor and a grating flowery style. C'mon BB he couldn't fill Flanagan's ink well. Those two are playing in way different leagues

Have you not seen the flaw in your argument ?? You have just picked up names that you would like to have drafted in hindsight - like Wines. Please show me anywhere - any commentator, expert, talent spotter who rated Wines higher than O'Rourke and Plowman. On ratings alone one of these two would have been drafted by us with pick 3 before Wines. And so the question is - have either of these two set the world on fire ? As to pick 13 given up - Lonergan, Corr, Garner, Thurlow and Simpson went before Grundy - if we had picked up one these and not Grundy ? What would your view been. It never ceases to amaze how everyone becomes experts AFTER the draft, two years down the track. On Jesse Hogans extension - I get antsy when a player comes into his last season with no contract extension. Hogan is not in his last season and he hasn't played a game yet ! Edit - I have no problem with the opinion that it is a risk taking a 17 year old - one year less development than other TAC footballers - I have problems with rewriting how history may have turned out differently and inserting footballers we may have got but in all likelyhood and on existing ratings at the time would not have taken.

This season I care less about beating bottom sides then I do challenging good sides. No point beating Brisbane if we get done by 100 points v Hawthorn. That said Id be happy with a few wins against any side as long as the difference btw our bet and worse continues to improve.

We got belted by Meth Coast who lost to Carlton but belted GWS who beat us. Every game is different

You're labouring under a serious delusion. It's an impossibility that we could have had those 4 in the same draft. Yet alone then trading pick 20 (or similar) for Chris Dawes. Been thrashed out here before, but you seem to be one of the few who still doesn't get it. Under your scenario, our original picks 3, 4 and 14 might have got us Viney, Wines or Toumpas and then Grundy … but then pick 26 was never going to be enough to get us Dawes. We could have used pick 26 on … I don't know, how about the player who went one pick before our 26, at pick 25 - Spencer White, KPF. Name ring a bell? Taken by St Kilda. Yet to play a game. Or pick 27? James Stewart. One match last year for GWS, 2 disposals. So, in the real world, instead of: Viney, Toumpas, Hogan, Dawes plus Dom Barry we could have had Viney, Toumpas, Grundy …. then … someone else.

Release the pigdog.

I could not help myself so bear with me. Just went onto the MFC auction site. Believe it or not they are auctioning MFC Blazers!! At my age I thought I had seen it all and nothing surprises me these days. However I am surprised

I doubt that the passing of Tommy will have any effect on the game at all, once the players get out there it's just another football march.

I don't think it's a nothing stat but actually often underrated. He's been a real asset this season, young Bernard.

Bloody hell though - imagine if he had billed us for his time and advice!

Barista starts with b, or maybe DF likes breve or black eye coffee .... Then again, this does remind me a bit of that old skit about the silly bunt from Bing's Bollege Bambridge ...

I'm ok now ........... Statute of Limitations.

Careful. I don't think sports betting was legal in those days.

He had his second best season I thought immediately after signing that deal (2010). Then he had injuries for the next two and then it was 2013 and a long career had taken its toll. I don't feel any ill-will toward him or that deal.

I'm used to you making some exaggerated posts, but come on! The kid left us. Yes, it left a bitter taste in my mouth too. But honestly, this sort of OTT character assassination is embarrassing. He might not be a great leader, and he may not have fixed some of his deficiencies, but the rest is beyond ridiculous.

I'm really excited to see Pigdog play - Especially when he's in the middle with hardnuts Pitbull (Viney), Jonesy, Crossy and for class Tyson and Vince!

Methinks Matt Jones will be the sub this week, use his run towards the end, give Salem the 'full' game (probably sub him out), and have Riley bashing and crashing, at training the forward line up, put this in the training report as well was Gawn, Dawes, Pedersen, Watts, Bail and Salem

welcome back Max Gawn Hopefully he stays fit, he is easily a starting 18 players when healthy, Absolute gun and underrated around here and congrats to PIG DOG, well deserved

FMD please tell me again how good and injury free was Nick Reiwoldt in his first year, Dangerfield, Goodes, Hanneberry and more recently Talia. I think you lost credibility when you mentioned "Neeld could have kept his job" By the way have you actually seen Hogan play live

i thought Tex was fantastic. Very mobile and gave them a great target/option in the 50 and up the ground. Didn't snag any but added a lot of other things. We played with heart and spirit over there, we are still learning to play like that every week. At the moment it comes and goes in patches. Adelaide and Collingwood are both better sides than us, but can be beaten with determination and commitment to the team, style of play and game-plan.

Were you expecting Nostradamus predictions of back injures? Dates and times too? Giving up top picks "ready-to-go in 2013 (and beyond)" for a "highly risky prospect in 2014" is what I was obviously against.

Boomer would need the whole graveyard working for him to come up with that.

1. Roos doesn't carry the burden of a Bailey or Neeld because he has cemented his reputation. Even if it doesn't work out they will say "Melbourne were a basket case what could he have done" He is not going to trash his reputation being here. 2. He knows what it takes to succeed. Neeld and Bailey had seen it close but never done it as coach. There is a huge difference. 3. He has supreme confidence in his man management skills and his ability to get the best out of players. The players are loving the atmosphere at the club and it is showing. They 'care' for each other on the field and you can see that clearly by their actions - running the length of the field to congratulate Salem after his firrst goal. That stuff hasn't been seem at melbourne for a long time. Its great.

one of my ex wives ( is it any wonder I can't hold onto them)

Be very careful when correcting grammar. Is that too much to ask?

who the puck cares

WJ, my friend's sister has a week-by-week scrapbook of the Demons 1964 season. The inside cover has signatures of all the players. I asked her a couple of weeks ago if I could borrow it, will then post on here.

Oh.... I thought every game was the same.!!!...Significantly, it was on the same ground, after Coll. had a week's rest. I'm not saying it suggests we're premiership favourites , but perhaps the Adelaide effort was more important than we think.

re OP.......Escherian argument at best

Where's Freak when you need him?

What are you going on about? He's a popular guy. FMD there is some insane comment on here.

Saw that on 360, was nice that Murph saw the humour in it. Compare what JKH did to the unnamed GWS [censored] who was berating a Swans player before their derby match, mocking them for missing out on a premiership medal in 2012 due to injury. Think it's become very clear the egos in that team, as led by king of all flogs Tom $cully, have gotten more than a little ahead of themselves.

I read it on here. ( must be the truth then...)