titan_uranus

My guess at all this is that the media got all hyped up during the investigatory process re: Essendon and latched onto anything that related to Dank, or AOD, or anything like that, however deep/meaningful/important. That's why Melbourne's involvement came to the fore. Even though, on what we know, all that happened was that Trengove was administered a cream (which people are suggesting isn't banned, though I don't know), and Dunn was administered an injection (I'm not even sure that's confirmed). Two players, two instances, one of which (or maybe both, given what ASADA may or may not have said about AOD) might have been legal. No widespread administration, no 'pharmacologically experimental environment'. No disregard for players' health and wellbeing by practicing with concoctions. The issue of Dank being involved is relevant, but there is a difference between directly hiring him, like Essendon did, and having his involvement concealed by the doctor, as with Bates. To me, the MFC was at worst negligent in failing to discover his involvement, but that's even pushing it somewhat. It all appears to be far less serious at Melbourne.

They've been withdrawn from the finals, so they can't be any higher than 8th. However, they are participating in the draft from Round 3 onwards, so they need a position on the ladder to be allocated picks. Therefore, 9th is the 'worst' position they can have to participate in the draft whilst still being out of the finals.

I've never had any issue with statistics, nor their ability to provide value. What I had an issue with was your use of them. Statistics tell a story on their own. But the way in which we read that story can sometimes vary. Your statement way back when that Dunn would be viewed as better than Gibson if he was in Hawthorn's side was your conclusion based on the statistics you had seen. That conclusion, in many peoples' opinion, was a bad one to reach, as the statistics don't take into account various terrible aspects of Dunn's football, nor do they explain everything on their own (we've already discussed the reasons why Dunn is likely to have more rebound 50s than Gibson). I'm not sure anyone on here tried to argue the clubs don't use statistics, so I'm not sure exactly what you're going on about there. But your position seems to be to take the numbers and to state your view based entirely on numbers, because you put a lot of stock in the ability to back up your position. That's of course a defensible position to take, but it's not perfect, and doesn't account for anything that statistics don't account for. That is why there are people on here who disagree with you.

Is there anywhere where this has been confirmed? I can't find a full video or transcript of Demetriou's press conference and there's no mention of an investigation into Melbourne anywhere. This has been addressed in the Essendon thread. Lees was charged with possession, not with attempted use, so his case is different.

The more we prevent rotations, the more we tire our players out. I'm in the camp of those who believe the increased fatigue will lead to more soft-tissue injuries, to less skill being exhibited on the ground, to a lower quality game overall. What's more, I can't see any real problem with allowing unrestricted interchange. Some say it benefits the unfit - players like Nick Riewoldt have easily demonstrated their superior fitness with interchanges increasing, so I'm not sure that's a true argument. Some say it will reduce collision-style injuries - the AFLPA rejects this, and though I'm not across the research/evidence, even if it's true, we're simply trading off collision injuries for soft tissue injuries.

My guess is they'll be basing it off injury figures, if prodded. Something along the lines of repeated interchanges = fresher players = more high-speed collision injuries. I know that the AFLPA doesn't agree with this, though.

No, the law is not different, TD. The law is the law. WADA's code provides ASADA with a burden of proof. It can't lay a charge unless it has met this burden (i.e. it has enough evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to show there was an infraction at a standard greater than the balance of probabilities). Charging a player simply because they were a part of a group of players to whom some substances were administered, without being able to say who took what specifically, does not meet this burden. The burden is on ASADA. They can't charge a player unless they have enough evidence. It's their job, not the player's.

Really.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-27/afl-brings-in-interchange-cap- Cap will be 120 per match, no cap per quarter. Thoughts? I'm strongly against the continued changes to the rules, and I'm strongly against a cap in particular, but so be it I guess.

What are you talking about? Where did I try to say he did that? The irony of you critiquing me about not reading closely whilst you fail to do the same is enjoyable.

Indeed. Fortunately, however, I'd have thought Watson's 2013 hasn't been good enough, especially with his month out. Ablett should have a good lead by about Round 18. From then on he's been in poor form and maybe someone like Selwood, who seems to be dominating many of Geelong's wins, might sneak over him.

I apologise for attributing the bad argument about marks to you. I figured it would fit in with the rest of your banter. Someone had earlier raised the argument that Dunn's proficiency in marking contests was some sort of glory for him, which truly isn't the case. Yes, you did compare him to all of them, and you ruled out a comparison with Birchall. Dunn, if anything, is as close to Birchall as he is to Gibson. We don't rely on Dunn to take one of the opposition's best forwards, that's what McDonald, Frawley and Garland are for. We use Dunn more like Hawthorn uses Birchall, on a less dangerous forward, with the freedom to push off that man and move up the ground. Birchall does that far better than Dunn does. But you don't like comparing Dunn to good players, so you're ignoring that. In a different debate, I'd also question your statement that one of Hawthorn's defenders must be an 'equivalent' - each team's defence is different, and Hawthorn's is more based on midfield pressure than ours is (clearly, given we don't have any midfield pressure). I don't think any two teams are identical. However, if we are going to compare players, I maintain that Birchall is a closer comparison than Gibson. I do think you focus too heavily on numbers. I also think that everyone bases their views on their own perceptions of 'reality'. I'd be happy to critique and open my mind to new ideas when they're floated, but you haven't provided me with anything other than numbers, the value of which is questionable in both the way you've used them (comparing to Gibson) and given the holistic output Dunn provides on game day (those numbers say nothing of his positioning, his failure to lead, his poor kicking style, his bad decision making or his softness, many of which aren't able to be borne out directly in numbers). As for your final sentence, I disagree entirely. The main difference between Lynden Dunn and Hawthorn's defenders is that Hawthorn's defenders are courageous and talented.

This kind of approach would be prone to being smashed in a court of law. If ASADA was to go down this route, it would be close to guessing who took what. Various substances formed part of this program. Some are worse than others. Some may not have been illegal at all. It is wholly improper for ASADA to say 'well, you took part, and at least one person took a banned substance, so we'll lump you with a charge and now you can go about defending it'. If ASADA wants to charge a player, it needs to meet its burden of proof, which means they need to provide enough evidence for each particular player. Otherwise they'll have to try going after the club.

I don't need to, you're running my arguments for me. By comparing Dunn to Gibson you demonstrated a lack of understanding of both players. You're also focusing on statistics which anyone who watches MFC games can tell you don't mean as much as the paper they're written on. Yes, Dunn takes marks. He does this because he consistently is placed against smaller players. Yes, he rebounds from 50 more than someone like Gibson. That's partly due to his role being totally different and partly due to Melbourne conceding more inside 50s than Hawthorn, and thus giving Dunn more opportunities to rebound. Focusing on nothing but numbers is one way of making an argument. You're not doing it well though.

No you didn't, you said this: As I said, the number of kicks McKenzie got has nothing to do with his tagging job.

I'm fairly confident you can be charged with attempted use of something even if you didn't know it was banned. It's lumped in with use, and you can definitely be charged with use of a banned substance regardless of knowledge. I think the Lees thing has got us all confused, since he doesn't appear to have been charged with attempted use. So, what Lees did may well not be enough to be 'attempted use', which in turn may mean that what the Essendon players did isn't enough.

There's absolutely merit in statistics. Just not in the pathetic way you attempt to use them.

It's not 'intent', the offence is one of 'attempted use'. It all depends on the consent forms, I think. The more specific they are with regards to which supplement was to be administered, the closer it will be to the Lees situation. Consenting to a program, or consenting to a range of drugs, or consenting to something else, won't cut it. Edit: According to ASADA's own website, Lees was charged with possession, not with 'attempted use'. So it's possible that what he did doesn't constitute 'attempted use'.

Now you're conflating issues. McKenzie's number of disposals is irrelevant to his tagging job. You can shut a player out of a game and get 0 disposals. As you tried to do earlier, measuring a tagger's success on their disposal count is not useful or fair. However, the separate argument is whether having a tagger in the side who provides nothing offensively is worth it. McKenzie's tagging jobs are good without being great. The fact that he gives us little offensively means that, overall, his value to the side is lower than it could be, and he clearly needs to work on that aspect of his game. But your job as a tagger has nothing to do with disposals, as you originally said.

Your continued analysis of Gibson v Dunn is a waste of time, mainly because you're comparing one club's number one defender with another club's number four. Their roles are completely different. Gibson plays FB/CHB on the opponent's best or second best tall. Dunn plays HBF, a far easier position, on the opponent's fourth, at best, tall. You're purportedly trying to focus on facts and statistics and comparisons - you simply cannot compare Gibson and Dunn as they don't play the same role.

Simply signing a form does not mean you took anything. ASADA will need to have sufficient evidence to back up each instance of a violation it alleges. Simply signing a form saying you consented to doing something doesn't mean you did it. Given that the standard exceeds balance of probabilities, it means ASADA needs to have a situation where it's stronger than merely just more likely than not. Just a consent form isn't enough, especially if they consented to more than one substance (i.e. which one did they take?). I don't think the consent form + an answer to 'were you then injected with something' answers it. Think of it in the reverse - player X signs a consent form saying what he is taking is some innocent drug, but it turns out to be illegal. WIthout more, do you think he could simply say 'hey, what I was injected with came straight after I signed a form saying it was the innocent drug, so clearly I'm clean!'? I'd be very surprised if ASADA's charges were simply based on the fact that a player signed a form and then was injected with something. They'll need to do better than that.

RR, is that in the Code? I can't see that anywhere. Sue, as far as I can see, the club could be liable under r 2.8, which sets out an offence of, essentially, 'administration or attempted administration' to any athlete in competition of any prohibited substance.

Stopping short was Frank's move!

Not sure what you've read on this, but you're wrong. WADA Code 3.1 - 'The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred.' The organisation in this case is ASADA. As such, ASADA has the burden of establishing there was a violation. 3.1 goes on to say that the standard required is greater than the balance of probabilities, which means it's not enough that ASADA thinks it's more likely than not that an Essendon player committed a violation, it has to be greater than that (though the legal specificity over exactly what is required is a grey area, ripe for picking by a court IMO). At any rate - ASADA has the burden. If they don't have enough information, they can't charge a player. Completely irrelevant to what I was saying. In Armstrong's case, the evidence was all personally against him. In Essendon's case, it appears that ASADA doesn't have enough evidence to be able to say to the sufficient standard under WADA r 3.1 which players took which substances. At best, they only know that some players took some substances. Totally different.

The onus of proof should always be on ASADA. Essendon should only have to defend claims against it if ASADA has sufficient evidence. In order to charge players ASADA will have to know which players were administered drugs, and which drugs those were. If they can only say 'well, we believe some players took some things', that's not good enough.