Whispering_Jack

The fact that there's nothing at the end of it doesn't mean I won't be watching Melbourne's games - I will - but it does mean that I have little interest in the rest of the so called competition.

There have been other occasions. The AFL was heavily influenced by other clubs that gave their opinions over whether Melbourne should be awarded the draft assistance it applied for at the end of 2012 and 2013. The Presidents of Collingwood and Hawthorn both had plenty to say about not giving assistance to a club that had just been found guilty of "tanking," which is obviously a far worse offence in the eyes of the AFL than injecting most of your playing list full of banned, performance enhancing substances along with various concoctions from exotic places like Mexico without keeping track of what they were given.

Yes, that's clear. However, because the AFL has previously accepted the overriding jurisdiction of the WADA Code and the right to appeal to CAS, the Swiss would at best from the appelants' point of view interpret the AFL anti-doping code changes as referring to appeals from AFL Tribunal decisions to the AFL Anti-Doping Appeals Tribunal and not to appeals that go direct to CAS. In other words, it's an argument that is unlikely to gain much support from the Swiss Court and nor should it.

Fairly sure there was nothing wrong with his toe. He was running around the court full bore. Showed a bit of talent as a basketballer.

Paragraph 114 of the Arbitral Award deals with the de novo question. There is precedent which supports the proposition that CAS hearings are always de novo.

I think you misunderstand my point which was that the Geelong game highlighted our inconsistency because of the events that followed. I wasn't commenting on whether the coaches were addressing the issue - that should be self-evident. It's what they're paid for. Nor was I suggesting that I have the prescription for eliminating or minimising inconsistency but my guess is that if you deal properly with all of the aspects bolded above and mentioned by you then, along with the natural improvement, experience and maturity of your list, then you'll go a long to resolving a problem that's hounded us for the best part of a decade.

We have coaches to address that. Do you disagree that we have to addres inconsistency?

The issue I have with the NAB Challenge is that it lost something in the transition from the NAB Cup so that there was no longer a winning club at the end of the series. I don't recall the exact reason for the change, perhaps it was the commercial side involving television ratings and rights or was it the sports scientists suggesting the longer pre season was too harsh on the players? Anyhow, I would be more interested if it was still a competition with a result, something for the teams to strive for while at the same time allowing clubs to try out younger players and experiment with team placements, tactics and strategies (does that sound like tanking?).

Unfortunately, all that was goodness and light from that performance was negated by some of the other games that followed, notably the thrashing we received at the hands of the Doggies and a couple of the other stronger sides and also four defeats (St Kilda x 2, Essendon and the humiliation from Carlton) at the hands of teams that finished below us. I acknowledge that there might have been some excuses for those displays but unless we address the inconsistency and overcome it, that glimpse into the future will not be as rosy as the result of the Geelong game might have indicated.

A funny thing happened today. I saw Petracca playing basketball.

Sorted out the copyright issues - it's now a subtitle

Oops ... my bad. I was wondering why the Swiss were on first name terms with their money. ?

Don't ask.

Bub ... I'm not sure if the Swiss have that good a sense of humour. I reckon they will give the players short shrift in a very stern manner and award more costs against them - it could be more bad news if our currency doesn't fare well against the Euro in the interim.

The tennis is over, the local international cricket finished and the only sport of any note on the horizon is the football - and by that I mean the real football and not soccer, rugby or gridiron. Which of course means that the NAB Challenge is not far away. MFC's elite performance manager Dave Misson reckons the Demons will attack the NAB Challenge with gusto and field strong teams - We’ll attack NAB Challenge: Misson but does it matter and do we really care?

I'm intrigued that people are so concerned about Trengove looking slow during the latter stages of his rehab. Whilst I don't expect him to ever be the team speedster, I think we should wait and see what he's like when he's allowed to go full bore before conceding on this. And let's not forget that Sam Mitchell is considered a slow mover but he's still an elite because he has other attributes that compensate adequately for that.

Redleg, I believe that this evening, you and I and our good wives are dining at a certain hostelry where the innkeeper has strategically placed televisions on its walls for viewing during meals. Your mission is to ensure that we're tuned to Fox Footy Channel for the duration of the meal.

Arbitral Award The above is a link to the CAS Arbitral Award - the judgement handed down by Michael J Beloff QC, Romano Subiotto QC and James Spigelman QC. In their field, these gentlemen are the modern day judicial equivalent of Ablett, Selwood and Fyffe. Among many other things, this Award reads as if it's been tailored to fend off any challenge by way of appeal. Not that there are many valid grounds available but, apart from the rather nebulous "factual error" claim, one of the ones Peter Gordon seems to be hanging his hat upon is the validity of the CAS treating the hearing as a de novo appeal in which fresh evidence could be introduced. Paragraph 114 of the Award is pertinent and bon chance to the legal team that attempts to stitch together an argument that might convince the Swiss Federal Court otherwise. Yesterday, I described an appeal as "an exercise in futility" but putting on my lawyer's hat and knowing now that an insurance company is allocating $500,000 for that exercise, I acknowledge that it's not completely futile for certain folks who must be rubbing their hands with glee.

I came upon this yesterday - A Review of the 1960 Football Season I know it was a long time ago but the grand final that year stands in the memory. It was a wet day and we held the old enemy to just two goals.

Unfortunately, the library of top quality recently produced winning MFC games on film is rather limited for obvious reasons. That and the fact that a good number were thrown out with the data on the Essendon supplements programme and subsequently eaten by the dog. On the credit side, I sense a new era coming on for the club and hopefully in a few years' time we'll be able to delight in some stunning victories from the current era.

Throughout the length and breadth of this often confusing episode in the history of our game, one man has stood out like a beacon providing his own breathtaking insights to add to the fog of confusion surrounding the mystery of the Essendon 34 ~ Essendon players appeal of doping ban is a fight for their reputation, Mark Robinson writes

And the saga moves on to a new phase ... in the land of Swiss cheese as another group of lawyers tries to find holes in the CAS Arbitral Award ... Here

12 January 2016 The Court of Arbitration for Sport issues its Arbitral Award finding all 34 Essendon players guilty and sentences them to a two year suspension but backdated to effectively mean the players will miss the entire 2016 season. There is a 30 day deadline for appeal to the Swiss Federal Court. 5 February 2016 Essendon’s Insurer says it will put up the $500k needed for the appeal ... and so we move to the next phase of the seemingly never-ending saga ~ Essendon players set to appeal ban in Swiss courts

None whatsoever ... but it's a travesty of a sham of a farce and it will get worse when the AFL announces it won't allow the four clubs that have lost players as a result of the suspensions to have top up players, not even to their rookie lists.

I don't think that's correct. Wasn't he given a one year contract extension last year? We are investing time into him now because it's the right thing to do. If he comes good then he will be a major asset and people at the club would have assessed the chances of that happening to make it worthwhile keeping him on.