Chris

There is no money to be made in most of the Olympic sports. Just ask those Olympians I know.

Forever the optimist, good to see you are true to form OD.

Sydney also have an extra mil or so to play with, so they effectively get Tippett for free.

Can I pocket the $146,000 left over?

That is quite possibly true, but that is true of all sport the world over. If I had to pick one event that was the cleanest, that had the best testing and the greatest commitment to catching people and not covering it up, it would be the Olympics. I know a few Olympians and the testing they went through was enormous, and that was in one of the low profile sports.

Sorry, I probably have said more than I should and I don't want to break the confidence of a good friend, and risk a friend of theirs job. Just know that there is more at play than what there appears. I will have to leave it at that.

That is an entirely different argument to the first one you made, and I agree, the IOC is nearly as bad as FIFA/F1, with the AFL not far behind in my book. That doesn't replace the fact the Olympics are actually very clean, which flies in the face of your first argument.

Robbo especially. Has lost all credibility over his constant fawning over Hird during this entire time. It is obvious what it is as it lacks any resemblance to balanced and measured journalism. There is a very good reason for it that I got from a very good source, not able to say though as I don't think it would make it through legal.

Olympics are actually one of the cleanest arenas for sport. The number caught out of the thousands competing is very small, especially when you take into account that every medallist at every event is tested immediately after the event, and there are many random tests outside of that as well.

That may well be where hair testing comes to the fore. Lets hope so.

Those figures were last updated in 2012, were we even playing up there in 2012?

Wouldn't be so confident of that OD.

Maybe he is worried that f the players bring it out in the open and start trying to make people accountable then the reputation may get better, and we all know that can't possibly be the goal of the AFL. I just wish I was their rug or broom supplier, they must have made a fortune!

Said the same after watching him last week. Calls it as he sees it but is considered in his responses. Is showing an intelligence that certainly wasn't evident to me previously.

Or the other travel guide 'My year in seine'

You forgot his travel guide, "exploring de Nile"

It is especially true that this couldn't possibly have been TB4 as that was the only thing Mitchell intended it to be, therefore it wasn't. We better watch out, we might get a gig on the AFL tribunal

Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we had here last week, which is the way Hird wants it, well he (doesn't) get it!

You are ignoring R58 which you quoted above, and yes that was the one I was referring to. To me they are interlinked and make it all far less certain. We shall see in the next six months or so.

Not sure what a lack of hair has to do with it I also find it funny that you say other day it will be swiss law and you say it will not be, yet you now seem to agree that it up in the air. I say it is more likely swiss, you disagree. Problem solved. Will have to wait and see.

He said propaganda about 5 times in three sentences. Maybe the new push to discredit the AFL, interesting change of language.

It doesn't default to swiss, your last sentence even implies as much. It effectively defaults to what ever the panel decide they want, as yes they would need to say why, that could be very simply down to extra powers or differences in procedure that they want or need. It is not anywhere near as cut and dried as you try and say.

Interestingly you have provided a quote in the past the had a sentence near the end that was along the lines of 'or at the discretion of the panel members'. Where has that gone?You also miss the required agreement. If WADA want it in Switzerland and under swiss law it will happen. For it not to would rely on them agreeing for it not to be, if they agree on that then they obviously didn't want it in Switzerland under swiss law.

The comfort and experience of the sitting members, along with any extra powers they will be afforded. The tribunal members did express dissatisfaction in their inability to hear all the evidence. If Swiss law provides this, as some people say, then they may wish to use it. The specific section you refer to also contains 'or' between the options. It does not mention if this doesn't happen then this should, just or. This leaves the option open to however they wish to proceed.

That part of the quote is prefaced by an 'or'. The intent of that section of the rules may be one thing, and is open to interpretation. The intent of the panel is another, if the CAS member and WADA member want it in swiss law then I can see no way it will be heard in anything but.