titan_uranus

It's interesting how her article today backs away from all her vitriole directed at the club, now that her information is that the club is not going to be punished save for a fine, and that Schwab will not be punished. Also, if Schwab is not punished, her earlier comments about him and his likely being sacked may provide the basis for an apology (I doubt it, though).

Actually, I can do this now. No one took who I was considering. Pick 72 - Brad Haddin (Australia) I know it's possible that he may never play again, but I need a keeper. There aren't any decent ones left, and frankly, Haddin is better than most other countries' keepers. Pick 73 - Trent Boult (New Zealand). I need a Kiwi. He's taken some wickets recently, so that'll do.

Sorry guys, I've been indisposed the last 24 hours, unable to even check in. I'll have a think tonight and hopefully choose (it's tough having to pick two every time!).

This should be Demonland's motto.

Oh yes. And no MFC supporters have held this view regarding our tanking investigation. None at all.

AFL is aware of one player from one club possibly taking WADA banned drugs. It is also aware of multiple players from another club possibly taking drugs, but in this instance it may have been done without their knowledge or consent. He said the AFL is not aware of any other instances of players taking banned drugs. He identified the second club as Essendon. Would not identify the first player or his club.

Indeed. Not that it matters too us much. That charge is against Bailey only, not against the club or Schwab or Connolly. But if Bailey gets charged with that, the AFL is going to get slammed in a court. Why?

It will be both. I'm sure part of the argument will be the inadmissibility of a whole stack of AFL evidence. But I'm also sure that, on the basis of what the AFL adduces, we'll be arguing that the charges they're laying against us don't exist, or can't stand.

Of course it's not, it's strict liability. But when it comes to punishment, whether they knew what they were doing or not will have a big say. If they were told they were taking X but they in fact took Y, then that is different to a player ordering a banned substance. Do you see what I mean? The Essendon players may have been told they were taking a certain group of drugs, and if they'd gone and researched, they'd have found them to be fine. Whereas if Lees had checked (not saying he should have, but if he had have), he'd have known what he was ordering was banned. That's a big difference, and if the players were told to sign consent forms to mask what they were actually taking, the relative culpability shifts from the players to the administrators. How is any of it going to be proven? The investigation is going to have to gather evidence to see if they can precisely work out what was injected. Drug tests now obviously aren't going to help. Whatever they took, banned or otherwise, it's going to be hard for ASADA/ACC/AFL to find out exactly what it was. If they do work it out, then they'll know if the players signed a form relating to it or not. It won't change their guilt, they'll be guilty if they took it no matter what, but it will have an impact on their punishment, I'd say.

The players all signed forms consenting to their being administered these drugs. The HUN today says that those consent forms listed the drugs they were agreeing to take. The interesting thing now will be to see what was listed on those forms, and what the players actually took. If the players only took what was listed on the forms, and one or more of the drugs turns out to be banned, then the players are in trouble. The fact will be they consented to taking a banned substance, and the form will count as their knowledge of what they were doing. It might sound sad, but short of the club threatening to sack them for not taking it, they agreed. However, if the players were given something that wasn't on the list, then it's going to raise a lot more issues. For Dank/Robinson/whoever to tell the players 'here's what we're giving you, it's all legal as you can see', and for them to then be given something else, the players, despite still being guilty, might not get punished as much as they otherwise might. If a banned substance was administered, the punishment will be variously distributed between Dank, Robinson, Hird, the board and the football administrators, and the players. It will be interesting to see who knew what.

I thought the same thing. She was like 'I don't know why Don McLardy's repeating that, no one is making that allegation', yet we had to deal with the HUN saying things like 'they purposely fumbled'.

Nah don't worry about a 12th man. It's just the luck of the draw, unfortunately.

Just realise I get dudded in this. 11 picks means 11 rounds which means one odd round where I get to pick last again. Woot. Thanks HT. Haha. I guess you all needed the assistance after I clearly picked the best team the last time we did this.

Great pick up.

Yeah. We've never seen those kind of comments on here before.

Read Caro's crap about us closely, and you'll see it's a load of tripe: In the coming days you will learn that your son's club - or former club - has been charged with attempting to manipulate the draft and perhaps even perverting match results. The coach, the footy boss and maybe even the chief executive could also be charged. OK. So she says that the charge is going to be attempting to manipulate the draft. What now? Where's that a charge? Attempting? We didn't actually manipulate it? And what does manipulating even mean? If she's referring to a potential charge of draft tampering, why wouldn't the charge be simply draft tampering? It won't be 'attempting' anything, it will be doing something. Moreover, that charge is so far-fetched and impossible to land on us that it just couldn't happen. Then she says 'maybe even the chief executive'. Maybe? This whole time she's continually said Schwab's screwed. Why all of a sudden does he get off? If the club and the 'footy boss' go down, so does Schwab. Conclusion - total nonsense. Again.

Awks. I searched for his name, must have spelled it wrongly. OK. Back up plan. Round 8, Pick 57 - Jackson Bird (Australia) Need an Aussie anyway.

Round 7, Pick 56 - Ian Bell (England) Round 8, Pick 57 - Tim Southee (New Zealand) Jackson Bird (Australia) Hope Southee's the Kiwi Nasher was referring to. He's playing some good cricket at the moment, to be honest. 20 wickets in his last three tests, all away in the subcontinent. Given what's left out there, and that I need someone from NZ, I'll take it. Bell is in the top 20 batsmen according to rankings, so that's not a bad get 56 picks into the draft, I'd say.

Indeed. But I've only been doing that for 2 minutes. Have been at work all day, but work is over now for a while, so I'll have more time to think. I'll consider my options and decide tonight.

This is what I use. It's awesome: http://subscriptions.thismonkey.com/fixtures/afl/calendars/aus/2013/index.html

At least this gives the media something else to run with (and maybe something under which the AFL can bury any statement about us). Also, guess who's back? Dream team in trouble

I had to follow it online at work. I almost gave up at 28-6, but the power outage caught my attention. Lucky it did. I haven't seen the full game or replay, but I have seen the last fourth down attempt we had. I saw holding/PI. Oh well, I'm sure there were others. Looks like CK took a half to get over the nerves. Flacco had a dominant postseason, deserved the MVP from what I've seen/read. Once again, the Super Bowl winning side is one with a low-ish seed, without having a stellar regular season, but who peaked at the right time. Giants last year, Packers the year before, all similar. Timing is everything.

Pick 40 - Cheteshwar Pujara (India) Pick 41 - Alviro Petersen (RSA) My man Hafeez, my opening batsman, last night took 4-for against the Proteas. Broke the de Villiers-du Plessis partnership. Golden arm. Tick.

Pick 24 - Steve Finn (England) Pick 25 - Mohammad Hafeez (Pakistan)

Amazing two Championship games. Giving up a 17-0 start, on the road, I wasn't confident. But we really did play great football to win the game. I was so happy with that performance. Baltimore played fantastically too, to beat New England, so it's going to be close. We've got to stop the run, first of all, and our secondary needs to do better than Denver and New England. Both those sides gave up far too many big plays (Champ Bailey on Torrey Smith, e.g.). If our defence stands up to its ability, I think we can restrict their scoring enough to get the win. It's nice barracking for a team that's made it to the last game. Horrendously, though, I'll be at work on the day and won't be able to watch it. Shattered.