Chris

Great news. Probably the biggest and most important trade we have done in the whole period.

Why don't you just tell them to bugg-er off?

Apologies, misread it, even misread it after having it pointed out. Has been one of those days.

Link to the article in the Hun saying GWS will be using pick 8 for the points, probably for Hopper. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-trades-2015-why-essendon-will-be-able-to-turn-picks-23-and-25-into-pick-8-in-this-years-draft/story-fnp04d70-1227572077558?sv=966736154b3b5cbb90a00226d2656d34

It was definitely GWS reported on. Talk of two picks int eh 20's from the dons to GWS for pick 8.

How about Bugg for pick 50 and picks 6 and 29 to GC for pick 3 and no player back. We lose 160 points that we don't need and GC gain them. Still get the two players we want but no more steak knives.

Then why the reports of people going after GWS top picks with multiple lower picks in order to give GWS points, which they apparently wanted? That was my basis for them wanting points, may well be completely incorrect as it did come from the media.

How about this for a deal, Pick 50, 46, and 6 to GWS for Bugg, pick 8 and 27. GWS lose Bugg for a 103 point gain, equivalent of about pick 60 (may be a little low). We then trade pick 8,29, and 27 to GC for Pick 3 and a player worth about pick 30. We gain Parish in the draft, which we want, and GC get an extra 673 points minus a player worth about 673 points (pick 30ish). leaves us with few draft picks but we get the two players we want and some steak knives from GC.

It may eventuate that what ever Essendon get to help them if they are missing a big chunk of their list will also be offered to clubs with EFC players on their list. i.e. we get to replace him for the suspended period with a VFL player or the like. Welcome back Magner!

Our new player may be banned from playing any AFL, not matter the level or team. That includes local comps, VFL, or AFL. It is not a sanction on the club, yet, it is a sanction on the player. They may also be banned from training or having meaningful contact with the club, i.e having training routines put in place. The possible sanctions are not mickey mouse stuff, as much as the AFL would like that to be so.

I missed a word, it is meant to say 'not entirely to blame'. Whoops.

This sounds like light punishments on the way right up until he mentions they are like the cyclists. He admits they were not to blame as the docs all but forced them to use, didn't stop the riders getting lengthy periods off. That would point to softening up the public, who have fed crap by our media about these poor boys, to the very real possibility they will have lengthy sentences in line with international precedents.

Not surprising the media don't mention it. All the reporters rely on AFL endorsement to get access to players and the clubs, if they annoy the AFL enough the endorsement doesn't get renewed, kind of like a North Korean Journo really!

The AFL will take into account all non game days if they can get away with it. I can't believe I am saying this but if only the AFL had the same attitude to drugs in sport that the NRL has.

Understood, there was no real punishment though, they went about their business as usual. It was also a provisional punishment, although you could say remand is provisional as well.

All the players still playing provisionally suspended themselves during the off season last year, no news if they have, or can do the same this year. You are right that they need to inform the AFL/ASADA that they are doing this. This suspension is available to the player during their trial so that they can come back sooner, the condition of the suspension is that they can not play but they can train. This is so if they are found to be not guilty then they resume playing without any loss of condition on training. Essentially they are suspended without loosing anything other than competition time. It makes sense. I can't see how this could possibly be included in any suspension coming from the appeal. Their provisional suspension cost them nothing the first time as they were found not guilty and to count it now goes against the intent of suspending people. If they can count it then they could in essence keep appealing so the timing means they serve 2 years in the off season, while still training, and then claim it all and play on. I could be wrong but am fairly sure I read somewhere when WADA appealed that the provisional suspension is off the table.

Have they actually served any time though? A voluntary reduction that was only in place as the start of a subsequent penalty surely cant be included, especially when there was no actual penalty during that time. I wonder if the players have put themselves on the same now the season is over so they can claim it if they are found guilty? Would be the smart move if it is available. I have no doubt the AFL will do everything in their power to dilute any sentence and it will be a balancing act between no punishment as the players have done enough BS that they peddle and doing enough to satisfy WADA so they don't appeal the sentence. I think 12 months may get the job done.

Do they get the 4.5 months? I don't think they do, and they shouldn't. It was a voluntary suspension during the initial trial and they were serving it in order to back date any suspension from that trial. Surely they can't claim it from the new trial as the period is not continuous.

Is that the case if it is not continuous? My understanding is that it isn't. The appeal re set the whole thing to zero so any ban would be from the last day they played. My tip is if they are found guilty they will get a reduction due to the no significant fault clause of 50% meaning it will be a 12 month ban from round 23 2015.

I would put Salem ahead of Brayshaw for his silky skills.

You could say the same about teh consistency of about 40 of the 44 players on our list.

Depth is a highly valuable commodity. bringing in players to provide competition and a back up plan can only be bettered by bringing in stars, but we can't have 44 stars on the list.

The suspensions they served only make sense if followed by being cleared or being suspended. They are still allowed to train etc so if they are cleared they have not lost condition etc due to the hearing being underway. It actually does make sense and isn't a farce as long as you can't then count it for suspensions after the appeal is heard, if you could then you would time appeals so you serve a whole lot of voluntary suspensions in the off season.

Can they deduct it if the time period is not continuous? My understanding is they can't but am certainly not sure of it.

That may be 2018!