Chris

The flood gates aren't quite open, this admission has the water spilling from the dam but the gates wont truly open until players are found guilty, get the popcorn ready for that one!

I don't think she did any of it, the info is coming from an Essendon nutter that I don't have a lot of time for or value their opinion. Just reporting what has been put out there.

Crameri's mum apparently did check with ASADA using the permission form he bought home and it all checked out. I call BS on that as if you put in thymomodulin it asks you for more detail as this may mean a few things, some of which are banned. ASADA also give you a receipt number for your check for use in your defence yet there has been no mention of this. Either Crameri's mum didn't use the portal properly, didn't understand the results it spat out, or it never happened. You can choose which it is, not knowing Crameri's mum I would say pick 3 as pick 1 and 2 don't look good for her and I don't want to besmirch the name of a women I have never met.

Or the draftees are rubbing their hands together at the prospect of a lengthy period where the senior players wont be able to play which will mean the new draftee gets more game time.

Interesting in that this points to this case being somewhat of a test case and that WADA feel the way the AFL dealt with it didn't line up with any precedent set. Sounds like WADA went in and said here is a precedent under which the players are done, it is up to you CAS to decide if the precedent is right or if it needs changing because to find them not guilty then you are changing the precedent. Can't see CAS doing that. I think the players will get around 12 months on the sidelines and that is due to the AFL. Their ban would be two years of it were not for the AFL training that said the players need to check with the club, not ASADA. The players checked with the club as they were instructed wrongly to do by the AFL, that gives them the no reasonable negligence to me.

Thanks for the correction, could live without the passive aggressive response though, a simple not quite right would have done, especially as I said it was only my understanding and not a definitive answer.

From my understanding the pre season draft is for players who have already played who can then be drafted onto the senior list, not the rookie list. The national draft is only open to players who haven't been signed to a club before.

I don't think it is as simple as basing it on the future performance of the player, there are far too many variables to make it just that. for instance, what happens if the player gets a bad injury and never fully recovers, what if the development of the player is not up to scratch (as ours wasn't), what if there is a massive go home factor like with Nic Nat? It is far too simple to just say lets wait and see how the players perform.

A bit of a quandary really, You will be happy either way as either you win or Jack plays well, but you will also be disappointed either way as you lost or Jack didn't play well and would probably be career over. I guess the outcomes depends on whether you are a glass half full or half empty kind of person!

In Jack not letting you down wouldn't he actually be letting you down?

The report said the will get everything that mentions his name, enough to fill several folders. The one thing that was mentioned that the AFL may appeal to withhold for confidentiality and legal reasons was the transcript of the Hird interview. There is plenty more to come out, including the manifestly inadequate records!

Reported in the Hun that Hal Hunter has had a win in getting a ruling sayingthe AFL must share their information pertaining to their investigation into the EFC debacle. The door to multiple players suing the club just opened a little further.

Just a smart asre shot at you saying the first flag in 40 years, that was 11 years ago.

I think the work ethic is there it is just the skill we lack. It looks like we have no work ethic as players are out of position due to the stuff ups and turn overs.

Not so sure I would call what we have been doing 'rebuilding', up until a couple of years ago that is, What we did before then is more like stagnating, or even demolition, not sure any real building was actually ever done.

Sylvia was never overweight, he made sure he looked great on the beach and was shredded for stereo every year!

Have my reservations on this one. The highlights clip is seriously impressive but it really appeared he was playing a grade below where he should have been or an age group below. He seems big, strong, and had heaps of time to do what he liked. If it has been that way for him for his junior life then he is in for a rude shock at AFL level where he will be small (at least initially). Hopefully he comes through and delivers the goods but I will wait and see before getting too exited.

The Journos love having their accreditation though, it is a bit hard to report on the AFL when the AFL wont let you in!

Beacuse the AFL have learnt to keep the circus to a minimum, and the Journos have nothing with out the AFL or EFC telling them what to write.

Not sure about Scotty but Skype may well do it.

Or equally from WADA going down the lines of 'we didn't try this angle last time, lets give a go now and see what happens' (i.e. wasting everyone's time)

Rule 57 bb. "The Panel has discretion to exclude evidence presented by the parties if it was available to them or could reasonably have been discovered by them before the challenged decision was rendered. This covers it. It basically says that the panel can exclude anything that was available or could reasonably be known at the last hearing, but it doesn't say they must.

I think there are two types of new evidence being spoken about and it would help to clear it up. From my understanding the two types are: 1 - Evidence which was not presented at the last hearing as it was not available, or could not be reasonably known at the last hearing. This could be results of tests performed since the hearing etc. 2 - Evidence that was not presented at the last hearing but could have been reasonably known (so would be new evidence to the hearing but not new in that it was not known). This could be emails or documents that were not presented. The rules treat these differently.New evidence type 1 is admissible no matter what, new evidence type two is not automatically admissible but can be presented if the panel choose to hear it, they may also choose not to, it is up to them.

They can introduce what they want that is new but they introduce evidence that wasn't previously presented but was available at the last hearing hen the judges can choose not to accept, but they can also choose to accept it.

They may have something, they also may have nothing new. They don't need anything new although it wouldn't hurt.