titan_uranus

Lyon > Ahmed, so if we play a spinner it's Lyon. That much is undebatable, Ahmed's simply nowhere near good enough right now. I'd play Lyon over Faulkner, four quicks is a recipe for disaster I think. Storms forecast for every day of the Test. Don't be surprised if it's 0-0 going to Adelaide.

I think that penalty against us was for a horsecollar tackle; I think he got a piece of Brees' collar as he dragged him down. We should have won that game, and the fact that we didn't hurts us immensely. Kaepernick is really struggling at the moment, couldn't get us any yards on our last offensive drive when we needed to burn some clock and give Lee the best chance to pin them back on their end zone. But worse still was Osgoode's incredulous penalty for touching the punt returner on a fair catch, gifting Brees a free 15 yards, as if he needed it.

This is the exact kind of reasoning that landed us with Gysberts and Cook.

Same thing's reported on the AFL website today.

I've got my evidence - most dismissals in an Ashes series. If you can find evidence to back up your dropped catches theory, bring it. If you can't, shove it.

Yes, figures. Statistics. Evidence. That kind of thing.

Meanwhile - http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/689523.html Awks for Wade.

You're arguing that Haddin's keeping is not good. The statistic is that he just broke the record for Ashes dismissals. Your conclusion is that catching the ball has nothing to do with keeping. My conclusion is you have no idea what you're talking about.

I haven't heard anything about them asking him to interview, the reports have all been that ASADA hasn't yet done that. If the media doesn't know everything, it may well be that he's refusing to talk on the grounds that talking would lead to self-incrimination, which under the Act is a way of getting out of talking. So it may be that they've asked, he's refused on that grounds, and that's that. But there would be a lot ASADA could specifically demand out of him that wouldn't be self-incriminatory that he couldn't refuse, and he won't have infinite funds to continue paying $5,000 per day he refuses. My guess is they haven't done it yet because they're not ready to talk to him, and they're experiencing delays in sorting everything else out first.

As for the Ashes, there is a little, faint bit of pressure on our batsmen. Marcus North's Shield season so far has read 45, 118*, 50, 37, 110 and 84*. Very much in form. Phil Hughes just cracked a double century, Rob Quiney's in good form too, as is Cameron White, as is Alex Doolan. Chris Lynn is also a promising younger option too. None of those names jump out as amazing selections, especially given four of them have failed at Test level before, but at least this series if we're struggling to make runs we won't be forced to stick with the underperformers.

At the moment, as a keeper Paine is well in front of Wade. Wade's main problem is his awful keeping, and until he fixes that, his run-making (made a tonne in the Shield game) and captaincy (we won today's match despite nearly a day of rain) won't be enough.

Ironic that beelzebub liked this post, given it's an extremely similar argument put against him in the whole Toumpas v Wines debate, and in that context he disagreed with it...

I think we just had the lines of communication crossed a bit, since we do seem to agree on a lot. Something that hasn't been discussed much is article 2.8 of the Code, which makes it an offence to administer (or attempt to administer) a prohibited substance (as well as aiding, abetting, covering up, or complicity in administration). There is going to be scope for that to apply to Hird and Dank, maybe Robinson, Reid and Thompson too. Though I'm not as familiar with 2.8. I'm not sure it's fair to compare this investigation to the USADA one, where the practices were years in the making and thus took a lot longer to uncover. This is, from all reports, one program in one year (though I guess the length of the investigation could mean otherwise). I don't disagree with ASADA being diligent, but there has not yet been any reason given for why they haven't used their compulsion powers on Dank, and that kind of delay could work in the players' favour.

Apologies, you're right. Nonetheless, they were disqualified from the finals, which is still one of the penalties considered in the Code.

If you're referring to me as 'swallowing the Essendon/AFL line', you're again wrong. I couldn't care less what happens to Essendon. If they broke rules they deserved to be punished. I'm merely referring to my knowledge of the Code and how these things work to establish what the real framework here is. As such, statements like 'WADA will just come over the top and ban them' encourage me to correct them. Again, your point about the conduct unbecoming penalties being different to the doping penalties is correct. However, as I have said, when the AFL decides what to do about penalising Essendon, if it chooses to, it will note the fact that it has already handed out the penalties that the Code permits, and there is simply no way to ignore the fact that they've already stripped Essendon of points, which is the primary punishment for a team. The first paragraph I agree with. That's essentially the point I've been making. Daisycutter referred to article 11.2 which allows the AFL to punish a team if more than two of its players are found guilty of doping offences, and I have since been discussing the scope for Essendon to be punished. At no stage have I said that has any bearing on the potential infraction notices to be handed to Essendon players. That is a completely different issue. However, as I said earlier, I believe there are legitimate cases to be made under the mitigation provisions of the Code (specifically, 10.4 and 10.5.2) that will assist the players in their attempts to reduce their bans (if they get them) from the 2 year standard. The point of the backdating provision is to prevent unfairness to athletes who break a rule but have to wait for a finding to be handed down against them. The idea being that if the doping body is competent, it gets it all done as soon as possible and the ban starts as soon as possible. Where the doping body takes an unfairly long time to get the investigation done, that can have unfair consequences on players who have to wait to start their ban (especially relevant when you're considering bans starting at the start of the off-season, vs bans which start at the start of the season proper). In this case, ASADA's had new powers since August but are yet to use them. The longer it takes them to finish this investigation in light of the new powers they've been conferred, the longer the unnecessary delay for the players. Thus, they may be able to get their ban backdated to start, say, from around now, or even earlier, if it's viewed as reasonable that ASADA should have wrapped things up by now. That's what I was getting at. I'm not delusional, I'm merely applying the Code as it exists. If you don't like it because you don't like Essendon and you want to see them go down, there's not a lot I can do about that. The Code is what the Code is. I maintain that 10.4 and 10.5.2 are open to Essendon players on the current state of the Code (10.4 is harder to make out, but 10.5.2 is very likely to apply, which gets the period down to one year). There are also the major issue of ASADA needing to find enough evidence to satisfy the standard of proof, which is being glossed over in the debate. Dank may help solve that, but that remains to be seen.

Usually the period of ineligibility starts from the day you accept the penalty, or from your hearing. But under 10.9.1, where there is substantial delay that isn't the fault of the player, then the ineligibility period can be backdated to start as early as the date of the offence. It's discretionary, so it's not a requirement, but the fact that ASADA is seeming to take a long time even interviewing people (e.g. Dank) might give the players an argument to get the ineligibility period to be backdated to help them get through it quicker. The longer it takes for ASADA to get the investigation finished, the more likely this is to work in their favour.

Still wrong. Essendon players who receive infraction notices have legitimate defences available under 10.4 and 10.5.2. If they are banned, they will have the 2 year minimum reduced. Also, with the incredible tardiness of ASADA's investigation, under 10.9.1 the players have an argument to have the ineligibility period backdated to the date of their violations, which will reduce a lot of the time they are left to serve, if any is left after their bans are reduced under 10.4 and/or 10.5.2. As for the club, they do not get penalised by ASADA. Let's say that again - they do not get penalised by ASADA. If ASADA recommends penalties should be given to Essendon, that is the decision of the AFL. The AFL's power to penalise Essendon comes under 11.2, which gives them discretion to choose their penalty. Options include stripping Essendon of points (already done) and a fine (already done). Now, they could decide to repeat this, but why would they strip Essendon of a second year's points? That's not only extremely severe (and likely to be successfully appealed by Essendon), but detrimental to the AFL. So they won't do that. As for a fine, they could raise the fine, but $1 million is already quite a lot. So that is a possibility, but again, whatever they do will have to be considered in the light of what they have already done. Why? Because the AFL sets the penalties. Not ASADA. If, then, WADA does not like what the AFL has chosen to do, they do indeed have the right to appeal. They do not, as you seem to suggest, have an automatic right to increase the penalties. To do this they have to win their case with CAS (which, by the way, does not operate under a model of binding precedent, meaning they are not bound to follow any previous cases). To do this they'll have to show that the AFL didn't penalise Essendon properly. WADA may well win their case, but they may also lose. In any regard, to win they have to show that Essendon's gotten off lightly. If you think that having their 2013 points stripped (a year in which, to date, there is no suggestion of any doping offences occurring) and losing the ability to play the finals, along with a $1 million fine is insufficient, then good luck to you. I'll hazard a guess that WADA's going to have a tough time arguing that's insufficient.

No, I'm not. The fact that the AFL sets the penalty is significant when it comes to the penalties that have discretion - the decision isn't mandated in the Code. It's not like a player getting a ban for doping, which has a minimum period and the AFL just sets it. Penalising the team is a decision that gets made by the AFL, and they will take into account the fact that they have already used their internal procedures to penalise Essendon for this whole saga.

A lot of this is not correct. ASADA doesn't issue infraction notices. They instruct the sporting bodies to issue notices. The sporting bodies are also the ones who determine penalties, not ASADA. The ability to strip points from a team is what is provided for in the Code. If the AFL was instructed by ASADA to issue an infraction notice against Essendon, that would be one of the available penalties. They've simply decided to already issue it. As for the 'squibbing it' thing, WADA doesn't just step in and set new penalties. The decision is the AFL's; if WADA doesn't like it, they can appeal it to CAS, but to succeed they have to make their case that the AFL's hasn't done its job properly in penalising Essendon. That's going to be a tough case to make given that, for this saga, Essendon's copped a $1 million fine as well as a total loss of points in a season, including the ability to play finals. ASADA imposes nothing, so you're right about there being no relationship between ASADA penalties and AFL penalties. ASADA doesn't set any penalties.

I know what the code says. 'Disqualification' does not mean 'ban'. It means 'stripped of results'. Handing the players periods of ineligibility (i.e. bans) is not a penalty that is available under that article of the code. I'm not aware of them banning an entire team before because I'm not sure that's permissible. That's not entirely correct either. I know what you're saying, in that the penalties so far have been for 'conduct unbecoming' as opposed to anti-doping breaches, but penalties against a team are difficult to lay under the code and are often discretion-based (e.g. r 11.2, as daisycutter has been discussing). If the penalties under the WADA code involve losing points from an event, that's already taken place. The penalties available under the code have already been applied to Essendon, arising from the same matter. The AFL will determine any penalties to be applied against Essendon under the code. If WADA doesn't like it, they can appeal to CAS, but since Essendon's already paid a heavy price so far, their chances aren't great.

Lol. So when you like something it conveniently 'goes beyond Schwab', but when you don't like something then we have to PURGE ALL OF THE SCHWAB.

I don't think that's entirely correct. Whilst you're right in that, if more than two Essendon players are found to have committed an offence under the code, that does not mean they can use this to ban the other players who aren't guilty. What it means is that they can use that to penalise the club, which may include what WADA calls 'disqualification', but WADA uses that term to refer to losing any awards or achievements earned. It's distinct from 'ineligibility', which is what WADA uses to call 'bans'. So I guess Essendon could be 'disqualified' from the 2014 season, but that would be a pretty substantial penalty given the AFL has already stripped Essendon of its 2013 points, which is essentially a disqualification from the 2013 season.

Would be fantastic to see Tendulkar get a tonne in his final Test. He hasn't reached 100 since January 2011, which makes you wonder, if he wasn't Tendulkar, would have have kept his spot this long?

I should have entered! FWIW, I'd go with the Colts, Jets and Cardinals

I quite like the NFL site, if you can avoid some of the trash there are some decent analyses and videos, behind the scenes stuff (I always love the Sound FX clips they do, hearing coaches and players on game day is quite a novel insight), statistics are pretty good. Leaves the AFL site for dead.