Chris

once again Saty you are pointing blame the wrong way on that. ASADA can not make a ruling on Whitfield as the AFL have not supplied all the info as yet, even though it has been requested. It is the AFL who are incompetent and obstructionist, unless you would like ASADA to start making rulings with incomplete information.

There have been a few other meetings since the guilty verdict was handed down, surely a bit of forward planning wouldn't go astray.

Didn't they cheat the salary cap in the 90's int eh year the won a flag? Pretty sure they still hold that flag!

Judd would be the most likely I would think

That was only one of the things they were injected with. Dank had all sorts of stuff going on including horse drugs, no one knows what went where and which players had what!

Comfortably satisfied, which is rather fluid in its application. The AFL tribunal had no real experience in applying it to doping cases. Various comments were that it was set way too high to the point is was almost beyond reasonable doubt. CAS stepped in and lowered it back to where it has been used internationally in doping cases and bam, guilty!

Thanks, but I thought they meant the findings from the Swiss appeals court, not CAS.

Simple, the burden of proof was not applied by the AFL Tribunal as precedence would prescribe.

Where can we find it?

They are asked to give ASADA a list of everything they take whether they think it is legal or not. They are asked this for their own protection. For example, a player says yes I have had asprin, their test comes back positive for steroids, the player has no idea what is going on as he doesn't take steroids. ASADA go back to this form and look to see what he has taken, as it turns out asprin made a mistake and didn't clean their machinery well enough and some of their asprins contains steroids, bingo, player gets a massive discount (potentially no ban) as they are not at fault. This is obviously completely made up but it is one of the reasons the players are asked to fill out the forms with EVERYTHING they have taken. Why did not one player mention the injections?

I think you may have just written the speech for Dill!

Yet we expect 12 year gymnasts to not do as the coach says or there are the same consequences, included the loss of an Olympic medal in Sydney. These are all adults, yes there is pressure but if you do your check and find it is banned then the club and your team mates would either be happy you found out so they could stop it, or they could continue on their happy way complicit in giving players banned substances. There is no excuse and no leeway. I don't care about the culture as if this is stopping the players taking responsibility then it is a culture that must be changed.

That is the crux of the issue Saty. If the players had of followed their training and done the checks they are trained to do, instead of trusting the people you are trained not to with regard to PED's, then none of this would have happened. Others are to blame but a big chunk of that falls on the players. ASADA also didn't handle this badly, they folloed their procedures and had to deal with the AFL and EFC leaking every thing under the sun and trying to make life difficult for them. Once they stopped talking to the AFL the leaks stopped and the process moved on.

Agree with this except for the difference between rec drugs and PEDS. Under the current AFL rules you are right but the AFL rules are a joke. Most of the rec drugs are in fact banned by WADA, if not all. The AFL do not share their test results with ASADA as they know full well that the players would be banned under the WADA code, instead they give them a strike, or let them avoid it by self reporting, and then they keep playing. The AFL rules are a diabolical mess and should be scrapped.

Is that Robbo trying to write an article or Little coming up with his next marvelous ferry plan?

Bombers cooperating? They lied on their forms, they left things out in their interviews, the club blocked at every chance possible, records went missing, not sure I would call that cooperating. And Dank, he was charged and banned from all WADA affiliated sports for life. He is appealing it. Not sure on criminal charges, but also why have the club or players never sued him in order for him to tell them what he gave them?

This is only the first lot cut. They normally announce them in a few batches. There is normally one between the trade period and draft as well so I would be very surprised if there weren't more changes to come. Especially as we must use 3 draft picks and with Hibberd coming we only have 2 spots on the list.

Hogan wasn't on the list as such in 2013 as he couldn't actually play for us. Haven't split it to best 22 as I don't know their list well enough but the saints have retained 20 players from 2013, some of them great experienced heads.

With the news yesterday it means there are now only 13 players on the list who were at the club during the last Neeld year. They are: N. Jones J. Watts C. Dawes J. Viney J. Trengove L. Dunn C. Garland C. Pedersen T. McDonald D. Kent M. Gawn N. Jetta J. Spencer Those in bold have without question improved their games during the Roos years and are best 22, the others have been struggling with injury, have seen the game gone past them, or remain required depth. That means 7 of our 2016 best 22 were at the club in 2013. Puts into perspective what Roos had to work with and the changes he has made to this club. I dare say by the end of the trade period this year a couple more of these players may well be off the list as it wouldn't surprise me if Dawes isn't around next year due to ongoing injuries and Dunn may seek a trade, who knows. By the end of next year this list may be down to not much more that the players in bold. I do feel bad for Grimes and thank him from the bottom of my heart for his unwavering service to this club.

Obviously. As of right this minute we are ahead though, that is the point. Having a younger more inexperienced team would indicate we have more potential for improvement than those teams below us, which is great. The key word though is potential. If we do not realise that potential then we go backwards, at the minute we have more margin for error on that than the teams below us. That can change very quickly though and by about round 15 next year (give Goodwin some time to settle in) we will see which way it is going. Lets hope it is up.

So who do we have with this wealth of experience who can take their place? Even with Harmes, Garlett and Pedo back in we are still one of if not the most inexperienced side out there each week, and we have won 10 games with that. Would you prefer we play a little more experienced side and be where Brisbane, GC, Carlton, Richmond, Collingwood, etc are? We are ahead of every one of them and with a younger less experienced side.

When was the last time we went into round 21 still a mathematical chance of making the finals (although it is a very slim chance)! It is nice to have not been discussing the trade period for the last 2 months.

The only issue I see with your argument is that the 2 Adelaide premierships were in Goodwins first 2 years on the list so I am not sure you could say he was their best. Blight may still have had the impact on Goodwin you are arguing though, especially as he was his first AFL coach and his most successful.

That is where we must do what we can to keep them around. I am hoping that because we have such a big bunch of kids coming through together that even if lose some experience in the mean time we will have a big bunch of experience at the same time that should be having some success. That will deminished the effect of loosing some players and may make us a destination. Optimistic I know but the alternative is to get depressed about it.

Tell The Age while you are at it as well.