Chris

On another point, the AFL have announced that compensation picks will stay for free agents leaving. Who wants to bet that these picks vanish next year and the AFL twist the rules so Essendon get compo picks for what should be delisted free agents this year (who usually don't qualify for compo picks)? If it was a betting market I think you would get a 99cent return on your dollar as punishment for being dumb enough to not see what they are doing!

I am not confident about this game at all. It seems that we come up against teams that really need a win and build themselves up massively a few times a year. We had one two weeks ago and have one this week and may have another next week. We don't seem to that situation very well at all. If we play the way we did last week I think that would beat the best Collingwood could throw at us. If we are off by 5% then we will lose. If Collingwood lose to us we will get no credit and the story will be all about how bad Collingwood are and how they are in crisis, same goes for Richmond the week after. It will only be if we win the next three games that people may realise we are 3-2 and not the push overs we once were. Her is hoping.

We clearly are not respected and I don't think many people actually watched the game in Hobart. If you did you would surely say that if we bring that game again then we are a chance in almost every game we play.

That too. He was actually clever to set up the company to contract to Essendon instead of being employed as he dodged all of that. He probably did it for tax reasons though and didn't even think of it.

They were given powers to get people to turn up to an interview, it didn't come with powers to make them talk which is the issue. They have asked Dank many times to meetings and he has replied that he wont talk or he has already told them what he knows. There is no point forcing someone to a meeting when they aren't going to talk to you.

Makes me wonder if he is confused and is getting the advice from someone with the same acronym? Maybe he has registered the Australian Society Against Drug Abuse name and he just asks himself.

The biggest bit of info to me is the admission of where he got the CJC from. It is worth going to ask them what they know. Who knows, Dank might be playing games and the pharmacy may well have never had anything to do with him, it is worth looking at though.

Dank may well have sunk Bock with his statements, especially the name of the pharmacy as they may actually have kept real records. Dank doesn't probably realise he just sunk his appeal of the attempted traffic charge, although it may now be a traffic charge instead!

Apparently the sticking point is proving the CJC was actually CJC. They don't seem to actually put enough weight on Dank's word to even believe him when he is admitting a breach of the code! From what I have read my take is that they are comfortable Back got given something, he injected what ever it was, Dank and robinson both say it was the banned CJC, ASADA say they can't prove it was. Seems a little odd. Dank also said he asked ASADA if it was banned and they said it wasn't, no word from ASADA as to whether they have record of this query from Dank.

Wasn't he found guilty of attempting to supply though, not actual supply, big difference.

Biggest problem with that is that by him saying this it may actually make the Dons ruling look even more likely to be right as he then has form of supplying banned drugs without proper approval. Not sure he is cleaver enough to work that out.

Don't forget soon to be bankrupt!

Dank has come out and said he provided Bock with CJC and has said where he bought it. Surely the pharmacy has records and can confirm what it was and ASADA can then go after Bock. Then again it does raise the question of why Dank can remember that and is willing to say it yet can't provide any clarity in the EFC matter?

The fact the North player didn't even hold his throat, or rub it, or look in any discomfort says to me he was barely touched. You are right in saying that if it was a favourite son of the AFL then he wouldn't have even been fined. Insufficient force would have been the reason.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-04-11/vince-charged-by-match-review-panel

I agree that intent should have a large bearing on the punishment, the problem is that Bernie actually barely made contact, should we suspend people on intent alone because the contact was actually barely there. Surely a mix of the two would be best, if you intend to hit someone, and actually hit them then you are gone, and the harder you hit them or the worse the intent to hit the longer you are gone. If Bernie had connected with his chin I would be comfortable with him sitting on the sidelines for a few weeks, and it would be well deserved as it was a stupid sniper act.

I wouldn't be. The act was stupid and reckless, no argument there, the contact though was so minimal he has basically been suspended for his intent, not the actual act or the consequence. As we know the tribunal no days is all about the consequence and with there wasn't one, except for a bit of massive over acting. If this had been directed at Bernie and he did the same as the North player I would be more disappointed in him acting so much and not fussed by no suspension.

I thought one week was fair until i watched the video again. Does anyone else think that if you got elbowed in the jaw your head would move sideways? Seems the North player has some incedible neck muscles that mean he can be elbowed in the jaw and only have his head go back and his arms go up. Incredible! The sessions with NIDA through the week are paying dividends for North.

For someone who didn't see the game you were certainly very strong on how pathetic we were, especially when many many people who did see the game were telling you we actually played very good football but were beaten by a better side (just) and some appalling free kicks. As to who got us back in the game, we actually played fairly well int eh first, the intensity was there, we were winning many of the stats, we just couldn't work out the conditions, which was a thumping gale to one end of the ground. In the second it didn't look like we were playing much differently to the first, we just had the wind at our back and North couldn't work out playing into the wind just like we couldn't in the first. In essence it was the wind that took us out of the game and then got us back into it. In the second half both teams worked out playing into the wind and the game evened out somewhat with the wind advantage only being 3 goals or so for the last half, not 8 goals as it was int eh first half.

One of the biggest positives for mine was that the players looked like someone had shot their dog at the end of the game. They didn't seem content with their effort, they were not satisfied, they wanted that win. I am used to seeing the players all falorn after a loss but this seemed different, it seemed to hurt more for them. Hopefully will provide the impetuous for the next few weeks.

One of the biggest positives for mine was that the players looked like someone had shot their dog at the end of the game. They didn't seem content with their effort, they were not satisfied, they wanted that win. I am used to seeing the players all falorn after a loss but this seemed different, it seemed to hurt more for them. Hopefully will provide the impetuous for the next few weeks.

Ding, your use of the word retard says all i need to know about you. Have a good day.

Are you the type of person who while a building is being built isnt happy until it is finished no matter how good the foundations were while they were being built?

Was happy with the effort and intensity all day. We couldn't work out how to play into the wind in the first and they couldn't in the second. In terms of the umpiring I was not surprised, North always get the rub from the umps, have done so for years. Four decisions that for me changed the game. 1: when one of the tallest on the field clearly ducked into one of yhe shortest in Jetta and got a free and a shot on goal. 2: When Goldstein got a free because Gawn holding the same way every ruch does in every contest. Even the commentators were stumped. Again a shot on goal. 3: the diliberate paid against Vince when he handballed while being tacjled and missed two targets by going over their head by about a foot. He simply missed his target. Again a shot on goal. 4: Clear mark not paid to Harmes, missed shot on goal to us.

Sounds odd but I would be a little worried if we win, worried in the sense that we would obviously still be so far from a consistent side that any sort of sustained success is further from our grasp than I thought it was. I would be happy to be proved wrong and have them come out with the same effort it will take to beat the roos in the following rounds but we all know how unlikely that is.