deanox

I thought the argument about clutter on the jumpers is a valid reason against it. Did you see my post?

jmrmac Thanks for the info. I was not aware the players ever actually had names for the AFL to disallow it, would love to see old photos! Maybe Americanised is the wrong word. How about "dis-Australianise"? My problem is that the jumpers are two busy. No other sport has the combination of: - Size of ground - Number of players at or around the ball - Mixed positions around the ground (ie compared to rugby or NFL which have a clear out half / your half separating the players from each team) even soccer has a demarcation between teams. - Fast movement in close in all directions Which make identifying who is who difficult. We need jumpers with broad patterns, solid colours, and minimal details to enable identification. Numbers with outlines, club mascot/logos, investing size of sponsors logos and now player names all make this difficult.

Hate it. Americanised. No need for it. Jumpers are hard enough to distinguish in the modern era, this will just make it more of a blur from the back. It's hard enough to tell us apart from Essendon and dogs and blues even. If the red on our back is covered it will be worse.

In for my first game back post op. May be a bit tired... Edit: double checked calendar; I'm a morning only that day due to a birthday at 1230 pm. Depending on the start time I'm in.

I loved this mixed metaphor.

Was down with Rosso and bumped into Webber this morning, my first session for a while. Fantastic to see such a big cross and obviously a lot of demonlanders. Great notes from everyone above, I'll add my two cents: - Rosso was spot on about Jonesy whacking Hunt. We heard it from 70 m away! - the main stand out for me was the second and third efforts. There was a real focus on what the players did after disposal. Players were accelerating after hand balling or kicking. To give a shepherd or to provide support or just to get to the next contest and provide an option. It was really about running in waves. If that is how we play it'll be nice to watch. - I'm impressed with JKH. Does everything 100%, runs hard, very clean hands, and his hair is still perfect at the end of training. I think he is a good chance to get the starting forward pocket spot ahead of Kent or Blease. - I like the general look of Michie and Tyson. Will be great additions. - Salam needs time to come on but looks solid through the hips/glutes.

Given how much rubbish I read on here last season (and I'm not talking discussion, I'm talking about vitriol, personal attacks against club staff and supporters and unjustified insults that have nothing to do with a discussion on performance) combined with how much genuine discussion and debate I've read about a range of issues, I'm very authorised if anyone claims they have been censored on the back of personal opinion. Given this site is quite lenient towards member discussion, debate and argument most of the time, perhaps any posts that were deleted are a reflection on the way in which the posts in question were written rather than an attack on the actual topic or point of view. Some people on this site are very pro club hierarchy, but I've seen both sides of the coin argued regularly. I'm not sure what reasonably expressed and well substantiated views have been censored but I'm interested to know what you think is taboo on this site.

Princess Park is pretty flat, unsure if that has anything to do with it. Although surely if flat ideal conditions is what you want, you would measure out a known track around Gosch's Paddock, and run a set number of laps.

I've only been on match days. The staff were fantastic and pumped up my footy (that I didn't buy there, in fact I only looked, didn't buy anything). Might be a poor location but it sends we all know where it is? I also wanted to throw a positive in for the demon shop and staff!

WYL, this is why I'm sure a lot of the players will go as well. Attempted Use is such an open term that I think many in the media etc. have not picked up on it. How is it defined? I'm not sure, but I know that players who purchase substances are charged with 'attempted use', even if they never receive the drugs. I would think that signing a consent form detailing a substance and a regime could easily constitute 'attempted use'. But not sure that has ever been tested before.

Just to clarify a few things here, a) I don't think they need to prove intent of they can establish within the required burden of proof that players did take substances b) I understand that "intent" is a separate offence; if they can't prove actual substance use, "intending to use" is just as culpable under the code, and there have been many players at VFL (and second level Rugby league) in the past few years charged with "intent" who have paid to import illegal substances with the intent to use them.

I agree entirely with just one of those four, especially if we already have Frawley, Garland and McDonald down back. Add Watts and Dunn to the 22 and there is enough back up height too. With the cap on rotations the modifiers will need to learn to rest forward again (and small forwards rotate up the ground). Versatility will be needed in taller players. What I think we lack in our talls apart from Watts who is printed for the mid field, are talls who swing forward and back to cover requirements. It will be interesting to see if the bench is used primarily for rotations or for strategic match ups now there is a limitation on interchange. "Match ups" might not occur in the midfield as much anymore but they do in the backlines.

Good summary here: http://demonwiki.org/tiki-index.php?page=1992 Sounds like we had a pretty interrupted pre season!

I think you're pretty right about the charge sheet. Enjoy the WADA code, I found it enlightening! I agree that it is unlikely to be disinformation. I think the reasons the AFL didn't want it tested in court were so their current administration wasn't also put on trial and because they don't want to start a habit of the AFL rules being tested in the court system. The charge sheet was comprehensive; I'd love to see the evidence behind it.

Just a reminder, the AFL charge sheet is just that. A statement of charges which the AFL did not have to substantiate with evidence in court. If the version of events in that charge sheet can be established by ASADA from evidence and testimony gathered in the investigation then yes that's true, however only limited evidence was alluded to in the charge sheet (ie some convo's, sms's, etc.) (NB: I often don't believe a lot the AFL says but in inclined to think they have released what they actually think happened because I cannot see how releasing known false, or unsubstantiated, information in this case could have done anything other than hurt the AFLs image. If it isn't true, sweeping it all under the rug is the usual approach. I'm also surprised you lead with your first sentence given you haven't read the code. Honestly, reading the code doesn't take too long and it is pretty clear on a lot of stuff. You can flick through and find relevant stuff easily. Google it and have a look, it's worth a read when weighing into this debate with your Essendon friends.

wolfy has covered what I meant by illegal substances. If the substances listed are found to be illegal then surely that is intent sufficient to prove intent? That the players did receive injections but claim not to know what they were, despite having signed forms stating the contents then I feel that should be enough for an infringement. Claiming not to know what you were injected with to me should be equivalent to admitting guilt. They are responsible for everything that goes in their bodies. If I was asked to sign those forms the first thing I would do is call ASADA and check if they are Ok. If I was told I couldn't do that, or couldn't have a copy of the form for my records I would be pretty suspect about the whole thing. That is why you pay managers $x,000 per year, to handle signed forms and check legality of stuff for you.

It seems to me that there is surely enough circumstantial evidence and rumour that someone will be charged by ASADA at some point soon. In my opinion, signing a consent form to be injected with illegal substances is enough to establish "intent" to commit a doping violation, which is all that is needed. I feel sorry for the players because I think there is a peer and group pressure mentality at football clubs that would make it hard to say no, especially if club and AFL legends are involved. However, if any of them have taken anything against the rules they need to be suspended. Not knowing, or pressured into, should never ever be an accepted excuse in professional sport, else it will be the fall back position for all people purposely cheating. Zero tolerance is the only way this can be handled, as much as I feel for the players. At least they will have a financial claim through the courts against the club etc. I appreciate the info coming in here from posters like jazza, this is a good discussion. It will be interesting to see how it pans out. I suspect a combination of issues are at foot; the ACC investigation and the ASADA investigation being the two main ones. If the ACC had given information to ASADA, you can bet they two groups are cross checking testimony and witness accounts; any discrepancy will be further investigated and they final case will be thorough. As far as I can tell, it doesn't matter if it happens now or in May or next December, as long as it happens if it is deserved. If it takes 5 years well that may be too long for people to get the punishment they deserve.

Fair call. It is nice that we actually can pick 22 players who we'd like in the team and discuss those who miss out rather than picking 15 with 7 question marks. Not saying we have filled all the gaps and have a settled list but it does suggest we have improved the list compared to last year.

I thought Kent showed good promise last year. He seemed to read the ball well of packs and in play so would like to see him spend some time in a crumbing sort of role. He may be overtaken by JKH or other mids who start forward. RE Michie, I based his selection on the bench on the following: pure mid so we don't have many of, chased hard by Roos likely with the promise of expectation of game time, and reasonably highly rated prospect. Evans or McKenzie could both get a run ahead of him. Bit I think if we have all players fit for selection he may be the preferred starter. He doesn't have the runs on the board that those two do but he also doesn't have their previously exposed flaws.

Who would you drop from the 22 to put Terlich in? They are good stats btw, thanks for digging then up. I agree he always looked the goods and hos stays back that up. I loved his attack all season but when I watched replays and highlights I regularly observed simple errors in his defending that resulted in opposition goals. Lots of them. Whether it was turning away from his player at a contest, losing his player around a pack, joining a group tackle and letting the ball spill free to his now-loose opponent etc. Little mistakes that directly allowed opposition goals. If he can eradicate these mistakes I think he is a certain starter and think he has all the other tools to make it, but with a few new additions to our midfield, I think he may be squeezed out if every player on the list is available for selection.

Yeah I agree 100%. I did intend that for the early stages of the year; ie if Salem or Barry are in the mix round 1 they will have come on better than expected. As you said reports for JKH have been great but will be interesting to see how he goes on field in the pre season and early rounds. Do you have any thoughts on the 22 + named, or reckon it is about right?

It's in the other thread, may as well be here to: FF: Clark - Hogan - Kent HF: Trengove - Dawes - Howe C: Vince - N Jones - Watts HB: Grimes - McDonald - Toumpas FB: Dunn - Frawley - Garland R: Gawn - Cross - Viney I: Tyson, M Jones, Michie, Clisby E: (From) Jamar, Fitzpatrick, McKenzie, Terlich, Bail, Byrnes, Blease Others: Barry, Evans, Hunt, Kennedy-Harris, Nicholson, Pedersen, Riley, Salem, Spencer, Strauss, Tapscott,

To be honest, I found it hard to assess from the 22 alone, if the "left overs" aren't included it can be hard to realise who is missing. Anyway, here is my "best 22" dependent on injuries. Emergencies are also injury dependant and subject to change. FF: Clark - Hogan - Kent HF: Trengove - Dawes - Howe C: Vince - N Jones - Watts HB: Grimes - McDonald - Toumpas FB: Dunn - Frawley - Garland R: Gawn - Cross - Viney I: Tyson, M Jones, Michie, Clisby E: (From) Jamar, Fitzpatrick, McKenzie, Evans, Terlich, Bail, Byrnes, Blease Others: Barry, Hunt, Kennedy-Harris, Nicholson, Pedersen, Riley, Salem, Spencer, Strauss, Tapscott, Terlich is my smokey. Deserves a run but is loose and history says Roos doesn't like him. I think that is enough talls but some may like one more; I think one of Dunn or Howe will start on the bench but for the purpose of naming that's what I did. If any of the "others" play, either we are in massive [censored], have lots of injuries or they have come on better than anyone expects.

Most Essendon supporters I know seem completely oblivious, offering explanations like: But didn't they find out everyone was doing the same thing? But I thought no Essendon players were injected, it was all just planned. I thought it had been proven the players didn't take anything illegal? When told otherwise it quickly becomes apparent whether they are in the stand blind by Hird camp or genuinely mislead. The third option applies to very few people including one who is a good mate, a Hird idoliser and mad nut Essendon member. Since the information has come out he has been much less emotionally involved and supportive of his club. And thinks Hird is scumbag.

I'm similar RE the peat flavour, took a while to get back into them. The Arberg 10 is truly fantastic for the price (you can pick a bottle up for $80) you'd pay much more for older whiskeys to meet it in quality and balance. I'm relatively new to whiskey as well, so really only know what I have tried and what I've read but I have a few mates who know their stuff, sharing bottles is a good way to try lots and much cheaper than paying by the glass at a whiskey bar! Let me know what you think of the Ardberg when you get around to trying it!