ManDee

DM it doesn't matter what they actually took. If they intended to take it they are guilty. PS: Welcome to the nut house.

I have been to a few matches at Brunswick Street and judging by the age of the supporters at the players race I would think they are the parents of your friends. They love their team. http://www.fitzroyfc.com.au/ Worth a read, specially the section on the AFL's most successful side.

OD, I have a two ex Fitzroy supporter friends, one now supports Bulldogs the other Brisbane, both have an interest in Fitzroy in the VAFA.

Your compassion is to be commended. So if we accept that individuals accept long-term/lifetime bans what is an acceptable punishment for the organisation that stood to derive the benefits of the scheme? Financial penalty? Would have to be means tested, rich clubs to receive a bigger penalty. Draft choice removal? Would also have to be scaled, Hawthorn losing their 1st 2 picks for 2 years would be less harsh than StKilda for the same period. Banning from finals for a period? Would not be a penalty to StKilda. So how do we structure a suitable penalty? I am not sure if there is a suitable penalty, I am just glad I am not an Essendon supporter.

Fair point, my reply above was written prior to reading your point. As to the view of damage to weaker clubs from excising the boil of Essendon from the competition, I think the competition will be better for it. South & Fitzroy supporters have not all been lost to football. Sometimes short term pain is needed in order to go ahead. Tassie Bombers would be a positive outcome and it would show others that the cost of seriously transgressing the rules can be massive.

Sorry, but a comparison was made. However I do accept what you say with regard to the general public and the EFC. The spin doctors from Essendon have been working feverishly to get the great uninformed onside. I think they have been largely successful to date, so I agree that they do not care as much as us. But that is no reason to compare us to them. I feel sullied to have my team compared with Essendon. We may not play the best footy but we don't risk the futures of our players using illegal substances.

LaDee, we were not found guilty of tanking. Admittedly our on field performances have been poor, but to compare our transgressions with those of Essendon is a step too far. What we did was pretty much what others were doing, the difference being we got caught. There was no systemic use of drugs unapproved for human consumption. There was no destroying or failing to keep evidence. There was no drawn out campaign of obfuscation. There was no drawn out legal challenge. There was no risk of permanently and irreparably damaging the health of young men under our care. We may be many things but we are not the cheats and liars that Essendon are nor do we perform unethical illegal human experimentation. No we cannot be compared to Essendon.

Undergoing some life changes, first new profile logo. Plus signature icons gone. Apparently those massive signature icons clogged up mobile version users. They are gone. Sorry.

Beeb, perhaps Eddie is conflicted, you know, stones and glass houses. There maybe an odd skeleton in the closet. Best not rock the boat, if you know what I mean.

Maybe you could add Demonpk as a signature or favorite player? Then it is attached to all posts. Thanks for reports Saty

Another AFL season tainted by the Essendon scandal

Image courtesy of DeestroyAll

Live coverage http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2015-02-19/live-coverage-intraclub

Pre match entertainment comprising of a 1 VFL match involving our 2nds. Casey. 2 Silence 1/2 time entertainment comprising of 1 Replays of 1st half highlights 2 Silence Post match 1 Playing its a grand old flag 2 Play it again & again until my voice gives out.

Again I had to read it twice to catch your meaning. Well played Mr Tabasco.

Wanchors, is that a navy term for weigh anchor? Any way its about 5 kilos.

Its a bit [censored]tatorial really, like Stalin or Hitler. Not sure on the spelling had to look it up in a [censored]tionary.

As well as a like button should we have a dislike button? And if you get too many dislikes you are sin binned for a period, a form of peer review system.

After several years of injuries to players during the pre-season the club thought this may help. Unfortunately a few players experienced bad punctures and will be out 4-2-6 weeks.

Fair point, should have said.... more reasoned source.. I think they all have a barrow to push, when I have a choice I prefer biases based on intellectual differences rather than fiscal needs. I have a deep seated mistrust of all media, but we have to get information from somewhere.

Even the auto censor didn't like Essendons coach

From :- http://www.inbrief.co.uk/sports-law/doping-in-team-sports.htm Doping in Team Sports If a member of a team is found guilty of a doping offence does this affect the whole team or just the individual player? There have been many instances within sport where individual athletes have been found guilty of a doping offence and so have received an automatic ban in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code. If an individual athlete is found to be in breach of this code then they face a strict liability punishment of a two year ban for their first offence and life for the second offence. The fact that the offence of doping is strictly liable means that it will apply regardless of whether that person was aware of taking that banned substance or whether they intended to enhance their performance by taking the substance. Two of the most renowned sports for problems with doping are track events in the world of athletics and cycling. Both of these sports are perceived as individual sports but it is often the case that the individuals enter the events as part of a team. It has been in this area that we have seen examples of teams being disqualified for the failure of a doping test by one of the members of that team.The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code Article 11 of the WADA Code states the following: Where more than one team member in a team sport has been notified of a possible anti-doping rule violation the team shall be subject to target testing for the event. If more than one team member in a team sport is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation during the event, the team may be subject to disqualification or other disciplinary action.Article 11 further qualifies this above provision by stating the following:In sports which are not team sports but where awards are given to teams, disqualification or other disciplinary action against the team when one or more team members have committed an anti-doping rule violation shall be provided for in the rules of the requisite International Federation.Thus following article 11 we can see that in sports such as athletics or cycling whereby the athletes compete as individuals but in some cases as part of a team it is up to the International Federation of that particular sport to make the final decision on punishment. Example of when Article 11 came into play The second part of Article 11 was cited as the reason that the British mens 4 x 100m relay squad was stripped of their gold medals following the positive doping test submitted by team member Dwain Chambers. Chambers was subsequently banned but the only punishment his teammates suffered was in being disqualified from the event and therefore losing their medals. What is the case in traditional team sports such as football? More often than not in sports such as football as it is a team game involving a large number of players as squad members throughout a prolonged season it is not necessary to disqualify or provide disciplinary action against the team involved. Often being without the services of that player for a prolonged period of time will be deemed enough punishment. Similarly if more than one player is found guilty of doping the team may face such disciplinary action in the form of a fine but it is unlikely they will face disqualification from a particular competition. There has, however, been one particular case which went as far as the Court of Arbitration for Sport where it was argued that a team should be disqualified from a competition due to the failure of a drugs test by one team member. Wales vs. UEFA In the case of Wales vs. UEFA the Welsh football team lost out to Russia in a play off for the European Championships of 2004. Subsequently one of the Russian team failed a doping test which he took after the first leg of the encounter of which he was an unused substitute. He then played 60 minutes of the second leg encounter before the news of his failed test was apparent. Wales argued that not only should the player be banned but Russia should also be disqualified from the tournament meaning that Wales would take their place. UEFA dismissed the claim saying that Wales were unable to prove that the player was under the influence of the performance enhancer during the second match and that the doping controls contained within the UEFA code of conduct were directed at the player and not the team. The case was taken before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) despite UEFAs claim that the CAS has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on such matters.What was the decision of the CAS? The CAS also held that Russia should be able to compete in the tournament as the Football Association of Wales were unable to prove that the Russian Federation were actually implicated in their player taking the drug.So what can we draw from this case? The fact that the Football Association of Wales were able to get this case before the CAS showing that the CAS does have in fact have authority to adjudicate over the doping laws laid down by sporting International Governing Bodies means that the governing bodies will have to align their rules to those of international codes such as the WADA Code or face continual appeal to the CAS. Furthermore this means that we are a step closer to achieving consistency across the board in relation to doping controls within sport. ------ It is not clear from this source if a team penalty applies. No reference is made to the team initiating the breach. I am sure that a team initiated offence would carry the greatest penalty.

And they will change the channel numbers around. You will have to watch Pro Bull Riding or Synchronized Swimming for eternity.

OD I hope you are wrong although your logic is impeccable. I will see the next flag, I refuse to die until it happens. Another 50 years may be pushing it, nah I'll only be 107.

When you consider the trouble that Faifax are in it is little wonder that they run around beating up stories. As quoted by the Fairfax press, an emailed statement from John Klepec chief development officer of Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting said: “A series of bad decisions made by the leadership team has instead increased the number of publication errors and reduced the company’s performance to cover news to standards expected to maintain the credibility of some of the oldest and finest newspaper mastheads in the country… Should the Fairfax Media leadership change, we may consider a future role in the company.” Fairfax the owner of 3AW and The Age need to increase revenue. In a media company that means advertising, adverting is driven by numbers of viewers, listeners and readers. They need exclusive stories, if you don't have one make one up or stretch the truth. This is a shameful and ultimately self defeating practice. I for one am sick of the inaccuracies in the media, further I distrust all commercial media and choose the ABC as a reasoned source of information. Edit:- last part of sentence should read.... I distrust all commercial media and choose the ABC as a more reasoned source of information.