titan_uranus

Now that Sydney's below us on the ladder, it will also be the first time we end a round (any round) in the top 8 since Round 14, 2011.

They look absolutely terrible. Rockliff might be injured too, which just adds insult to the injury that is this abysmal performance. I had them pushing for the finals this year; if they play like this they'll be closer to the bottom than the 8.

Hasn't finished just yet...

They've completely stopped since halfway through the third quarter (they led by 41!). Not surprising, no pre-season for half of them. Sydney looked pretty poor early, good opponent for them to work themselves into form.

Hands down that has to be the best game we've played since 2011. The intent to move the ball forward and to score was evident for the whole game. The best bit IMO was the way we responded to their challenges. They got it back to 11 (I think) in the third but we fought back, and again in the fourth when Ablett brought it back to 8. I felt the game slipping away, but there was a hardness and a desire there that didn't come out in those close losses last year. Really, really stoked for the team. We look such a different side this year, the seven inclusions all played their roles. Lumumba and Garlett are two particularly great additions, they both are inherently attacking players and look to move the ball forward by default. McDonald was incredible, absolutely nullifying repeated GC entries. Still needs to improve his kicking but he showed why he's integral to our side today. Really impressed with Watts too, worked hard, made space and more repeat efforts than we're used to. Garland being back to 2013 form is also a huge fillip to the side. Brayshaw can obviously play, as that frame fills out he'll get even better (9 tackles!). Edit: forgot to mention Howe, coming off an average pre-season I thought he was fantastic all day. Some of our best forays forward involved his attack through the middle/half-back. Agreed - it's a bit hard to say when sitting in the Members, but I've always thought that 27,000 MFC supporters is far, far louder than 45,000 Carlton, St Kilda, Bulldogs or North fans. I don't agree, I thought Jamar's ruckwork in the second quarter is part of what pushed the game in our favour. I'm not sure we are going to be able to go all year with Frost as the second ruckman though.

What makes you say that? The player has the burden of proof if they are trying to raise one of the Code's defences (e.g. no significant fault, or they were unconscious, or one of those things). But those only happen once the offence is proven. To prove the offence ASADA/WADA keeps the burden of proof, I'm 99% sure of that, but if you can show me where it says otherwise I'm happy to stand corrected.

Beau Wilkes kicked bags against us, more than once IIRC. That doesn't make him a good AFL footballer.

I had a really long response to this written up but then the site crashed or something and I lost it all. Essentially, I see a difference between Lees, who actively sought out the particular substance in question, and the Essendon players, who didn't. I agree that knowing the substance is banned is irrelevant, but the difference in my mind is clearer than in yours it seems. Lees formed the intent to use the particular substance he bought, and ASADA had no trouble showing that. But ASADA would IMO also have to show the players intended to use the particular substance in question, that being TB4, and I don't think they could do that. The policy behind the attempted use offence, I think, is to stop those who intend to use banned substances but don't get far enough down the process to be caught using it. It follows, IMO, that you have to have formed an intent to use the particular thing which, if you used it, you'd be guilty of an offence for, and I don't think that is as clear with these players. I'm not as convinced as you are that it would be enough for ASADA to say 'they intended to be injected', I think the Code requires them to have intended to be injected with TB4, and I don't think they could have shown that. Regardless, as you say, ASADA went after them for using, not attempting to use, probably because the injections happened to make it into their systems. But I don't think you're 100% right on the issue of intent and I think there is a difference between Lees and the players. We agree in substance but I don't agree where you say 'you're proven to be either guilty or not guilty'. They haven't been proven not guilty and you can't really be proven to be not guilty. The onus of proof wasn't on the players, they by definition don't do any 'proving'. They just haven't been proven guilty (i.e. ASADA couldn't show it), so they remain in the default position, which is that they are not guilty. That's all a bit of a legal [censored], really. I don't disagree. None of us know exactly what happened. That's why I find it very difficult to read people saying the Tribunal was corrupt, or the AFL planted people on the Tribunal, or the Tribunal misapplied the law, or anything along those lines. Simply put, no body knows anything to support any of that; all that we know is that the Tribunal wasn't satisfied that ASADA had made out the charges. That's a completely fair and defensible position on what we actually know so far. There's nothing fair or defensible about saying David Jones was the AFL's puppet. I agree, Essendon is and, in my mind will always remain, a total disgrace and their 2012-2015 is a blight on this game. If you have a 'gut feel', so be it. Most of us do. But no one deserves to be punished, whether criminally or under the WADA Code, if the offence can't be proven, so I have no problem with a finding of not guilty if ASADA doesn't have the evidence to show otherwise.

I hate it when these two sides play. The best result is usually that both sides suck. I think we achieved that today. Carlton is definitely the worse of the two. They have a terrible forward line, having let Waite and Garlett go, and their backline has always been mediocre at best. They went in missing just Walker and Kreuzer (borderline best 22 anyway), and though they did lose Thomas early, there was nothing in that game to show any spark for the season. Better get used to it though. Carlton's on Friday night football roughly 10912 more times this year.

It's quite sad for it to have come to this, but I'm all for the decision. For one, I think it's the best thing for the side to not have him in the 22. For another, I think it's best for him to go back to the VFL, get away from the spotlight, and work on the deficiencies in his game. He can do that this year without having to be the captain of an AFL side, without having to worry about whether he should be dropped or not. It might not work out for him, which will be even more sad. But it just might work out too, which would be wonderful for all involved. Best of luck to him.

Really pleased with the side. In some respects it's very sad to say, but most of us are happy that Grimes, Bail, M Jones and McKenzie aren't in the side. Slowly but surely we are beginning to develop a list that doesn't require those sorts of players to plug holes or be players they're not. It's all just names on paper at the moment though. We've still got three debutants plus a bunch of unproven players. But it's a much more exciting thought to see this 22 and think about what might happen. Whatever happens, cannot wait for the game! I don't think Dawes can come in for Frost, in this side Frost has to be the second ruckman and there's no way we use Dawes in that role after what happened at Collingwood wit him. No point playing Hogan in the ruck, that's robbing Peter to pay Paul (and we wouldn't really be paying Paul anyway as Hogan's no use in the ruck). I suppose Dawes moves into the forward line, Frost either stays or plays in the back line and rucks from there (which isn't ideal, but will have to do).

It's also relevant to the offence of 'attempted use'. In the note under Article 2.2 the WADA Code says the following: Demonstrating the “Attempted Use” of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method requires proof of intent on the Athlete’s part. It follows that if you don't intend to use the banned substance, you can't have attempted to use it. This makes sense policy-wise. The purpose of the Use/Attempted Use offence is to catch people who don't test positive. It's the fall back - if you don't get a test but you can show they used it, or failing that, that they tried to use it, then you can still get them, but that's all it's there for. Wade Lees intended to use the substance he was done for. The intent was non-contentious. For the Essendon players there is no evidence they intended to use TB4 aside, potentially, from the waiver forms. No surprise then that no charge was laid for Attempted Use. You have no grounds to be saying this. You're just frustrated. The Tribunal took a perfectly acceptable way out. It wasn't some 'easy' way out. You're focusing heavily on the 'comfortable satisfaction' phrase and your perception that the Tribunal misapplied it. You haven't seen the reasons so you can't actually know they misapplied it, but regardless, what is the exact problem as you see it? The article you quoted only serves to show that the standard lies between the civil and criminal standards. Therefore, it's not enough to say it's more likely than not that the drug was TB4. ASADA had to go beyond that. On what we know so far, which isn't the whole story, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Tribunal not being prepared to say it was more than simply 'likely' that it was TB4, and I really don't think you have adequate grounds to say otherwise yet. I have no disagreement with that, but the target of this frustration is EFC. ASADA didn't charge Essendon, it charged the players. Accordingly, the issue is whether the players did something wrong, not the club. The players don't need to be 'exonerated' as they are innocent unless and until proven guilty. They weren't proven guilty, so they remain innocent. That means nothing as against Essendon though, who will forever remain culpable, no matter what happens from here.

Not sure whether they can 'change tack', the current charges are against the players so it wouldn't really be by virtue of appealing this decision. I suppose if they wanted to go after the club ASADA would have to charge the club under the Code first - not sure though. However, as for placing TB4 at Essendon, Gerard Whateley's article shows that this was ASADA's key problem - they couldn't do this because they couldn't prove to the required standard that the thing imported from China was TB4. That was one of three keys to their case (along with the TB4 being provided to Dank, and Dank then injecting it into the players). They couldn't prove it was actually TB4, in part due to the fact that their case rested on Charter, Alavi and Dank and their credibility is extremely questionable.

'Appear' based on select leaked pieces of information. Again, we have to wait and see. As for not being given weight or accepted, sometimes evidence is given less weight because it's unreliable, and that doesn't just apply to Charter and Alavi. Who knows what other evidence ASADA led that the Tribunal queried or questioned, for some reason? At any rate, evidence that can't be accepted doesn't really do anything. If ASADA had a tonne of evidence but it was all flawed and got thrown out (not what happened here of course), then that's the same as having no evidence. They only discharge their burden by presenting evidence that actually stands up. I think the issue with TB 500 is that it wasn't the alleged substance. ASADA can't just say 'they took something' and get by on that.

Overall good squads I think. With Harris missing the WI tour I think Siddle will return, alongside Johnson and either Ahmed as a second spinner, or Starc. In England I'd suggest we'll start with Johnson, Harris and Starc. Good on Nevill for bypassing Wade for the back-up gloveman job. Wade's batting and captaincy were great this season but his glovework is holding him back. Voges and Ahmed deserved their call ups (especially Ahmed over Agar). I wonder if Voges will get the number 6 spot vacated by Burns, or if one of the Marsh brothers will take it back. Personally I wouldn't play Mitch Marsh alongside Watson; IMO it's one or the other. So might be S Marsh vs Voges for the number 6 spot. Smith to 3 IMO as well. Clarke at 4, Watson down at 5. Yep, that's right. They've given Pattinson a contract despite his continued injury problems but Siddle is going on the tours as the reliable back up.

3 is the one I want to see the most - even if the kicking skills aren't perfect, I really want to see us taking the game on a little more and demonstrating a move towards more positive football. I think we have a list that is much better placed to carry this out than we have had in the last couple of years. I'm confident in our back line, though the expectations should be high with a couple of GC forwards missing.

I have no idea what was in the statements and I have no idea whether Charter and/or Alavi might be the kinds of people to take to lying (could well be a possibility given their shady pasts). But it's not a 'technicality' when you don't have enough evidence. ASADA didn't have enough. It remains to be seen whether sworn statements from Charter and Alavi would be enough on their own to get the job done. Agreed. The vitriol being spewed towards them is so incredibly unfounded and misguided (e.g. linking them to Jill Meagher's death). Kidding about what? We have all seen snippets of evidence and pieces of the reasons but we haven't seen the whole thing, nor have any of us been privy to how it was presented in the Tribunal. You also don't know that the reason was solely the refusal of people to swear their statements. As I said, have a look at Jake Niall's article. He claims that another issue was that, if ASADA was right, the amount of TB-4 injected exceeded the amount that was brought in from China. That doesn't add up. He also notes that there was a real issue as to whether it was TB-4 or some other thing called TB 500, based in part on the evidence of the scientist. The charge was use of TB-4, so if there was a real debate as to whether it was this other thing, obviously there was some doubt that must have begun to creep in. The only people who heard and saw all the evidence were the Tribunal members. Unlike biased football supporters who hate Essendon, they were in the best position to decide whether the charges were made out. If, as you admit, it was open to the Tribunal to come to their decision, then by definition the decision can't have been 'wrong'. It might not be what you wanted, though. You only need to look at people's reactions to McDevitt's press conference to see what the underlying problem is. People hate Essendon and wanted the players to be suspended because that destroys Essendon. McDevitt slammed Essendon, not the players, and people loved it. I mean, look at McDevitt's words himself. He focuses on the club ('it was not a supplements program. It was an injections regime' - irrelevant to the players and the charges). He even starts moving towards sympathy for the very players he charged! ('The absolutely deplorable and disgraceful lack of records of these injections means we still have young men not knowing what was injected into them'). The misguided focus of most at the verdict is that Essendon has escaped (reinforced by the disgust most have for Essendon people and supporters talking about 'vindication'), which annoys people. Unfortunately, Essendon wasn't charged, the players were.

Aren't you a lawyer WJ? Not having the evidence to prove your case isn't a 'technicality'. It's simply losing the case. Have a read of Jake Niall's article today: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-essendon-verdict-the-inside-story-of-the-antidoping-tribunal-hearing-20150331-1mc2nb.html You can see the significant problems ASADA had, and were always going to have, in making their case without positive tests. It's not a 'technicality' that got the players off, it's a lack of proof to the required standard. I also quite like the irony of the vast majority on here putting their heads in the sand on the result - it couldn't possibly be that ASADA didn't have the evidence, it has to be a conspiracy! The AFL rigged it! The Murdoch press is rigging it! It's all rigged I tell you! Heads in the sand, ignoring the very real and far more believable possibility that ASADA simply didn't get the job done, doing the exact thing that they bagged Essendon for doing regarding its failure to take proper care.

No, they self-reported that they didn't know what had gone on and potential breaches had taken place. They were right. They still don't know what was injected (Hird admitted that today). They broke AFL rules. The players didn't self-report, the club did. The club wasn't found not guilty today, the players were. The jury found him guilty, you'd have to ask them (Emmett Dunne, Richard Loveridge and Wayne Schimmelbusch). You have no substance to any allegation that David Jones did anything wrong. Just because a player said Dank told him it was Thymosin doesn't mean the thing actually was Thymosin. We'll have to see the full reasons to see the context behind the 'no probative value' statement, but the fact that a player said 'Dank told me it was Thymosin' doesn't make ASADA's case. I'm wary of reading too much into the snippets in The Age's article without the full reasons. Hopefully they shed more light.

Can you name one time it has been corrupt? Again - what 'actions'? He didn't find Barry Hall guilty, so you're wrong on that one. Got anything else? Not hard to see why he'd be upset. But every case differs. Once the reasons come out, it'll be easier to see what, if any, differences there were in his case compared to this one.

David Jones was the Chairman of that Tribunal, he wasn't on the jury. The jury decided that case.

Have you considered the possibility that ASADA didn't have the evidence? Or is the only rational explanation in your mind that the judge was corrupt?

Seriously? Hating on Essendon is one thing, but conspiracies like this are ridiculous.

Someone's leaked to The Age again: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/secret-report-finds-essendons-drugs-recordkeeping-was-deplorable-20150331-1mc8hi.html

I'm remotely familiar with the WADA code and I'm happy with that explanation. It wasn't obviously banned prior to April 2013. Until that point it wasn't clear that it was a banned substance. WADA and ASADA weren't on the same page and there was differing information out there. It would be grossly unfair for someone to be charged and prosecuted for using a substance that wasn't banned at the time. It was far simpler for ASADA to go after TB-4.