SaberFang

It's hilarious that they play Hawthorn in round one. Could you possibly ask for a less timid, vocal and arrogant opposition crowd to "celebrate" the return of your guilty, convicted drug cheats against? They will be booing in full force. Let's not forget the Sam Mitchell incident, and the fact your drug cheating captain cost him a Brownlow! It will be ten times worse if he isn't stripped of it!

The fact that Jobe hasn't handed this in already is an indictment on whatever remnants of integrity the bloke had.

Let's analyze Jobe's Brownlow votes by each year of his career: 2015 7 2014 8 2013 17 2012 30 2011 15 2010 16 2009 10 2008 5 2007 5 So he polled almost twice as many Brownlow votes in the year he is accused of doping than any other year of his career. Of course, I'm sure that's just a stunning coincidence, right Gil? Likewise that his polling plummeted in half two years running once the doping program ceased.

I know, you can't expect the AFL to have considered this outcome in the 9 months they've had to consider this outcome. Especially when it was obvious this outcome was going to occur. I mean, let's be reasonable here.

Ah, yes, The Exorcist! A classic!

Just as well Gil's on $2.5 million a year to make such "heartbreaking," "difficult" decisions.

Why even allow a convicted drug cheat to make a presentation to defend themselves? Does Rory Sloane or any other suspended player get that opportunity? Why ask the other two relevant players why they deserve it instead? Why do they need an entire month to make a decision that, to me, is as black & white as Citizen Kane? Because, as with everything the AFL does, they manufacture outcomes to have the best effect on their bottom line.

Farcical, a whole month until a meeting to DECIDE if he should keep it. [censored] laughable.

The AFL article mentions that the Commission must choose between adhering to the WADA code or finding an "extenuating circumstances" clause to get him off. Seems very black and white to me, they either ignore the code and risk ASADA coming over the top again (which worked out really well last time, didn't it Gil?) or adhere to the bloody code they are signatories of!

Agreed, it is beyond insulting that Mitchell should have to present some kind of ludicrous PowerPoint presentation to justify why he deserves the medal over a drug cheat. Who the [censored] are the morons running the game??!

The AFL have flaunted a fragrant disregard for any moral compass or regard for ethics for well over a decade now. The only thing more transparent than their handling of this saga is Gil's utter disdain for making decisions on "difficult" issues. The fact this even requires a committee think-tank says it all. They are run like an inept government department, looking for any excuse to wriggle out of a decision that will negatively affect a "favourite son" (grab me a vomit bag), exactly like their laughable rigged outcomes at the MRP where they protect their best mates from losing match payments. Jab has probably been instructed of the plan, hence he hasn't handed the medal in yet (which any man of integrity would have done first thing this morning, if not months ago when the original finding came down).

Gil already looking for an out. "The weight of public opinion said that a large group of people feel Jobe should keep his medal, therefore we will let him keep it."

Essendon/the players won't touch Dank because they all know they were all complicit. Every shred of evidence points towards the players being either: a) willfully complicit b) willfully ignorant Neither are a defence for taking performance enhancing drugs. They've lied and obfuscated to ASADA and the AFL. They lied about their off-site injections. Every single one of them lied to testers when questioned by ASADA about having injections, so they were clearly instructed by the club what to tell them. The narrative that they were innocent players is false; this was all a highly clinical, and the lawyer strategy for all parties when they got caught was: act surprised, act ignorant, act confused and use the Essendon mouthpieces in the media to run an endless smear campaign against ASADA. All despite the fact that every shred of evidence points to the players being complicit in the program. I wouldn't be surprised if Dank has surveillance, audio or video evidence of conversations had with the players at his clinic while giving these injections. There are reasons the players have attacked every other party they possibly can, from the AFL to ASADA to WADA, but never against their own club, Hird or Dank. They all knew what was going on, and they know they can't go after those parties, because they were all in it together.

That is correct. The panel the AFL handpicked, the panel ASADA were warned by insiders was designed to get the players off and protect the AFL's commercial interests, hence the appeal. And lo and behold, every hearing since has thrown out Essendon's case with great haste.

You mean, exactly like the AFL setting up an "AFL Tribunal" to rig the outcome of their own kangaroo court and ensure all the players got off, purely because they were looking out for their own commercial interests? As for Slobbo? The half-drunk, compromised, biased Essendon mouthpiece, fed his "exclusives" by Essendon's media unit and instructed by the upper echelon of Limited News (whose senior partners are Essendon ticket holders) to defend the club no matter the stupidity of his arguments? Well, who can defend the indefensible? There's only one person being 'deluded' here.

It's disgusting they weren't sanctioned when the WADA findings came down, and yet again nothing will come of today's upholding of that decision by the highest court in the world. For all the damage Essendon have wrought about the image of the game, at the very least they should be punished for bringing the game into disrepute. But nope, can't hurt poor Essendon, don't want to hurt those gate takings for AFL HQ do we?

Don't the players nominate the team? Or was that the older system? I distinctly remember a year or two ago some kid had the choice between nominating St Kilda or Carlton due to the father son rule.

I'm guessing we'll miss him if we wait for pick 9 in the rookie draft, but would we have enough senior list spots vacant to take him late in the ND? It doesn't look like we're planning to upgrade any rookies this year.

And just about the average worker's yearly salary.

Pick 27/28 seems right to me.

Probably because we don't put our name out there in public attached to a player unless we know for sure we'll get them. Just look at how embarrassing the Richmond situation was last year with Treloar. We're trying to prevent having eggs on our face. Comparitively, this just makes St Kilda look desperate. They've said they're attached to Dangerfield, Hurley, Fyfe and countless others, and ended up with none of them. It actually just reflects poorly on their club and reiterates a perception that they aren't a destination club.

Isn't 3 enough for those bastards?

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-confidential-demon-follows-carlton-on-instagram-the-nonbreaking-news-jesse-the-giant/news-story/3a99e5ecbd52c0ed6b67543d1fdbd282 Noteworthy? Probably not, because he also follows Adelaide, Port & North and I only bothered scrolling through who he follows for 30 seconds.

Yeah, and only Barry Hall complimented the kid. The others all called it out for what it is. Let's hope the [censored] was watching.

#bitchmode