Its Time for Another

IMO there is literally going to be the biggest, loudest and longest s%&t storm in the history of the AFL if this mob get off. Mind you I guess it's pretty safe to say it's already that. The lack of transparency if they get off is going to be one of the big contributors to how bad this storm is going to be not just from AFL supporters but from followers of all sports worldwide. The damage to Australia's international sporting standing will be massive. IMO the system should require that once it is established that an athlete took a substance, as has been proven conclusively here, then the onus should be on them to prove what it was and if they can't they should automatically face a ban. If this was how the system ran then the players would have pleaded guilty a long time ago. I know BB thinks this is how the system works but everything I have read indicates that the onus is on ASADA to have to prove "to reasonable satisfaction" what they took and that it was illegal. We all have our opinions about this whole saga but none of us have seen all the evidence and the Tribunal will have to make a very forensic legal assessment of the evidence. No matter what anyone's personal opinion if the evidence isn't enough to prove it legally then they will have to find them not guilty. ASADA already start on the back foot because they don't have any direct evidence eg positive blood tests and can't even call the two key witnesses. They have to rely on a whole lot of circumstantial evidence to prove what they took. Hopefully for everyone's sake other than the Bumbers this is enough. I can't bare the thought of Hird and Little's behaviour if they get off. It would be enough for me to turn off all media for an extended period.

Good Point BB. I believe you are right that if they are found guilty and appeal they will have to sit out playing games until their appeal is heard or they could take the risk and play hoping that the guilty finding will be turned over on appeal. If it isn't then I believe the ban will start running from the appeal decision. Taking that into account perhaps it's more likely they will take their medicine if found guilty and not run the risk of ruining two seasons instead of one.

Using the Alberto Contador appealed to CAS over his ban as an example, Bing181 knows how long the appeal process took. I believe he said it was something like 4mths. If found guilty the next step is that a sentencing hearing will be held. I assume if they appeal the sentencing hearing would be postponed until the appeal is completed. If they are unsuccessful it will go back to the sentencing hearing. They might even then appeal back to the CAS against the sentence that is handed down. That would possibly be another 4 mths or so. Conceivably it could be close to a year before the sentencing process is finalised if all that happened and then potentially a year to two years for a ban if applicable. If it was two years it could be the 2016 and 2017 seasons under a worse case scenario of maximum appeals and maximum sentence. I would be surprised if the Tribunal decision is the end of this sorry affair. I expect the players will appeal if they lose and WADA will appeal if they get off. OD the only way they would only get 6mths is if they get a 12mth reduction because they can prove they were duped plus they have fully co operated. The Cronulla players fully co operated and still got 12mths. Essendon obviously have not so absolute best case if found guilty will be 12mths, it can't be less. But for it to only be 12mths they will have to prove they were duped. Not sure, given their combatitive behaviour, how successful this argument will be, especially if the rumours are true that some players have come forward and admitted they were told it was TB4. I suggest the onus is on a sportsman to get a clearance from their Doctor. In this case Doc Reid. I don't think it will be enough to rely on what Dank said or Hird etc. We have seen that Doc Reid sent emails etc saying he was very concerned about what was happening and not being given info on what was being given. If the players had asked the Doc if it was ok and he expressed this to them then I would say they are going to struggle to establish they were innocently duped. If he didn't say anything then why has he been permitted to continue. Jobe Watson as Captain and head of the players should have been asking these questions to the Doc . You would think he would have discussed this with his Father, who you would have hoped being such an experienced football person should have raised alarms. Yet Tim is running around in the Press supporting the Club. What hypocricy is that. He should have been telling his son to stop it if he knew anything about it.

Interesting one. The players legal advisers advised them their prospects of success were so high they shouldn't co operate with ASADA, thereby forfeiting the chance of a 6mth reduction for co operation. I am surprised they would have been that confident if the onus was on them to prove that what they took wasn't illegal given they can't prove anything because there are no records. Whereas I can see them being that confident if the onus was on ASADA to prove it when there are no records.

Makes it a very different proposition if you're right. Would be a lot more likely they'll go down from what I've seen of the evidence.

BB I really and truly wish you were right but as I understand it, ASADA have to provide enough positive evidence to satisfy the onus of proof of "reasonable satisfaction". The players just have to discredit the evidence (which is all circumstantial) enough that they raise enough questions so that it fails the "reasonable satisfaction" test which is a higher test than the usual civil burden of "balance of probabilities".

Agree with this sentiment but for some reason the onus is on ASADA to prove to "the reasonable satisfaction" of the tribunal that they took TB4. So if their evidence fails this test then they get off. I don't want to even think about the footy and sports world reaction if that happens. As for f'ing Hird, Little and Essendon, it will be unbearable. I will be turning off all AFL coverage other than Dees for some time. Even then I'm sure the conversations will be in everything. This forum will go for another 100 pages.

GNF they aren't necessarily F....ked. ASADA still have to prove to "the reasonable satisfaction.." of the tribunal that the players were administered TB4. We can all theorise on this but it is a legal threshold and if they don't have enough conclusive evidence then the players will get off. It certainly isn't a sure thing. IMHO the fact that they didn't keep records and can't prove what they were given should lean the standard of proof very heavily on to the Bummers not ASADA but that's evidently not how it works. It means that because of this ASADA have to build a case on circumstantial evidence not on black and white evidence that proves they took it. EG positive blood tests. I hope that it will allow the tribunal to give ASADA's circumstantial evidence greater weight than it would if the Bummers had kept records. It is the lack of their records that has caused this whole situation. If they had the proof of what they took and it was legal none of this would be happening. I suspect there will be a few changes to the legislation made after this all settles. For instance I believe once you have proof that an athlete took a substance the burden of proof should be on the athlete to prove it wasn't banned. If they don't have proof then they should get a mandatory 2yrs. In this case it's possible they will all get off because there were no records. I also think they will probably amend the legislation to give ASADA greater powers to force people like Charters and Alavie to give evidence at the tribunal so that their ability to not give evidence as happened here won't happen again. It also looks like they should amend the legislation to make it absolutely clear that they can carry on an investigation using the Sporting bodies powers to collect evidence like they did here. The Fed Court has said that but if it is made clear in the legislation it will end any future court cases like Hirds.

Thanks LH I went hunting and found them before I saw your response.

Here's the numbers for comparison with the last couple of years on 12 Feb. 23650 2013 26,039 2014 26,290 2015 Looks like the improved set up at the Club isn't translating to enough optimism to increase memberships. Yet! Wonder what it will take. Will there be enough optimism in the Admin and Footy Dept to translate into more memberships or is it now only going to take onfield success. Guess we'll know by the beginning of the season or about 4-5 rounds in. IMO in the first 7 rounds the possible wins are Gold Coast at MCG, GWS in Canberra and Adelaide in Adelaide. I probably wouldn't even put GC in that category although I'm always an incurable optimist the first round of every season. We could conceivably be 0-7. I wouldn't think we will be hitting the 40,000 mark this year if it depends on early wins.

Nutter totally agree with this being the problem but don't agree with the cause being laziness. I think the cause was a combination of two things firstly game plan issues, either not having an adequate one or not knowing it well enough to know where to run ahead of the ball and secondly not having an AFL standard of fitness to be able to run on transition. At the end of the day I don't think the fundamentals of the game have changed that much. I hate to harken back to the '88 GF but I just remember waves of Hawks running in numbers out numbering us all day. Numbers at and ahead of the ball is still the key to the game today. But in order to get numbers to run and carry the ball you have to know your game plan backwards. Roosy or someone like him said the purpose of a game plan is Predictability. You have to know if player X gets the ball on transition what exactly you have to do if you are behind him. ie run to offer a run and carry option or a series of players up field have to know I have to run to create an option. And the players around that player need to know they need to run to that position to create options for that player if they get the ball. And the next set of players even further down the field need to be anticipating all that and setting up for it coming into their area. In order to play like this you also need to have the fitness to be able to run both ways on the transitions. I believe this fitness level is the major difference today compared to the past. We clearly haven't known where to run to or had the fitness level to run there if we did. I remember watching M Jones in the Carlton game last year getting the ball in the back 50 on several occasions and not knowing what to do. He held the ball for a few second too long and then chose the only remaining option that was open but in those few seconds it became covered so it ended up being a turnover. Many people were saying how bad a kick he was. It wasn't his kicking, it was the lack of options up the field and then his inability to pick the best option immediately and honour it. That comes from Predictability and it sounds like this is exactly what Roosy has been working into them all pre season. My litmus test for the improvement in the team this year will be seeing players like M Jones getting the ball and immediately disposing it to the best first option. That will happen because multiple other players down field know the game plan well enough and are fit enough to run ahead of the ball creating multiple options and because he knows the game plan well enough to pick the best option. People will be suddenly saying how much his and players like Grimes kicking have improved but it won't be that it will be knowing how to play.......I hope!

Who knows if PJ wanted to extend beyond 2015. The only public comments I have read from him since he started indicated his view was he was going to be short term. I thought it was a relief we got him for this year. Maybe that was his choice and GB is looking at his successor. This would be a storm in a tea cup if that's the case and he's sounding out Cook because PJ doesn't want to stay long term. PJ has certainly talked about a succession plan for the CEO.

Cannot believe an AGM thread has been derailed into a dig up the old crap about tanking thread. Sorry to talk about the AGM on the AGM thread but I just watched the footage of PJ's speech. He certainly fills you with a lot of confidence.He's done such a good job of cleaning out deadwood. They are obviously doing a lot better financially with less but better people than they were before. Much prefer the strategic plan of going back to the old heartland areas to build the supporter and membership base instead of heading out of town to Casey as the sole source of future development. What a legend he'll be if we make finals in '16, hit 50,000 members and get a solid profit.

Not comparing them as players. Commenting on the fact that Kirk was a very ordinary kick but managed to be a great player. So saying McKenzie can't make it because he is an ordinary kick doesn't hold water. His kicking is becoming adequate if he doesn't make it, it will be because he isn't good enough not just because he's a bad kick.

TDI I agree with most things you post but I don't agree with this. I was watching the replay of the Dees v Swans game last night and reflected on the fact none of the Swans behave the way Dunny used to. It's not part of their culture. There are plenty of ways to get up forwards noses without behaving the way Dunny used to, especially when it resulted in giving away free's. I agree with others that under Roosy most of this behaviour has thankfully gone away on gameday. It was counter productive the way he was executing it.

Hard to argue against that group. I thought Bernie Vince might have got a look in, especially based on his performance last year. Jamar has been around a long time and is looking fighting fit but possibly in his last year or two. Interesting Garland has dropped out but given his performance last year maybe not so surprising. Hope BD is wrong about it signalling he will walk at the end of the year. I wouldn't jump to that conclusion.

If you're referring to my feeble attempt try bending your superior intellect to get it to fit the Meter. You might surprise yourself.

I remember another player Roosy used to coach who was a horrible kick when he started. Much worse than McKenzie and ended up being a serviceable if not good kick. He was even suggested by some as the next coach here. Anyone remember a bloke called Brett Kirk. He seemed to go all right, from memory.

I have to admit I agree with this. Lets face it. The reference to a Grand Old Flag is irrelevant. It's been left in because it was in the original American Civil War song it comes from. It really should say something like this. It’s a grand old Club It’s a high flying Club It’s the Club for me and for you The Demons are, the team we love The team of the Red and the Blue Ev’ry heart beats true For the Red and the Blue As we watch them fight for Victory No matter how long it takes Keep cheering the Red and the Blue It's not that big a deal, I've sung it for 54 yrs without thinking about it but I'm sure if you stop and think about it a few minor changes would make it a bit more relevant.

IMHO you're looking at the swap of pick 20 for pick 9 the wrong way. You seem to be suggesting we gave up pick 20 as well as 2 for Tyson. I think it's fair to say now with hindsight that pick 2 for Tyson would have been a worthwhile deal on its own. Upgrading pick 20 to 9 as well was an added bonus not a sacrifice. Let's move on.

Well spotted Hardie, I don't remember seeing this thread. You're right they should be merged. Not sure why this one was locked. Also have no idea what TSFKA's problem is. Must be off the meds.

Thought this might be a bit of trivia that might be of interest to some. I had no idea about the origins of the team song, I guess I assumed it had been written especially for MFC but here is where it came from. I'd never really thought about it before but the song is based on a Grand Old Flag which really is irrelevant to MFC. Since when do we rally around a Flag. Maybe it should have been Grand Old Team. I got this from wikipedia url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_a_Grand_Old_Flag You're a Grand Old Flag" is an American patriotic march. The song, a spirited march written by George M. Cohan, is a tribute to the American flag. In addition to obvious references to the flag, it incorporates snippets of other popular songs, including one of his own. Cohan wrote it in 1906 for George Washington, Jr., his stage musical.[1] History[edit] The song was first publicly performed on February 6, the play's opening night, at Herald Square Theater in New York City. "You're a Grand Old Flag" quickly became the first song from a musical to sell over a million copies of sheet music.[1] The title and first lyric comes from someone Cohan once met; the Library of Congress website notes: The original lyric for this perennial George M. Cohan favorite came, as Cohan later explained, from an encounter he had with a Civil War veteran who fought at Gettysburg. The two men found themselves next to each other and Cohan noticed the vet held a carefully folded but ragged old flag. The man reportedly then turned to Cohan and said, "She's a grand old rag." Cohan thought it was a great line and originally named his tune "You're a Grand Old Rag." So many groups and individuals objected to calling the flag a "rag," however, that he "gave 'em what they wanted" and switched words, renaming the song "You're a Grand Old Flag".[1] — Library of Congress In the play itself, the scene with the Civil War soldier was replicated. The soldier's comment was the lead-in to this song. Thus the first version of the chorus began, "You're a grand old rag / You're a high-flying flag". Despite Cohan's efforts to pull that version, some artists such as Billy Murray had recorded it under its original title, "The Grand Old Rag", in advance of the play's opening, and copies under that title still circulate among collectors. Cohan's second attempt at writing the chorus began, "You're a grand old flag / Though you're torn to a rag". The final version, with its redundant rhyme, is as shown below. Lyrics[edit] The MFC song is taken just from the Chorus. Chorus You're a grand old flag, You're a high-flying flag, And forever in peace may you wave. You're the emblem of the land I love, The home of the free and the brave. Ev'ry heart beats true 'Neath the Red, White and Blue,[N 4] Where there's never a boast or brag. But should auld acquaintance be forgot,[N 5] Keep your eye on the grand old flag. In popular culture[edit] "You're a Grand Old Flag" was used in a major production number in Cohan's 1942 film biography, Yankee Doodle Dandy. Recordings by Pride of the 48 and Catalina Strings, were used in the film Born on the Fourth of July. The tune of "You're a Grand Old Flag" formed the basis of the club song of the Melbourne Football Club.[2] In the 1986 Kidsongs video "Sing Out, America", the barbershop quartet sang the first part of "You're a Grand Old Flag" and then the Kidsongs Kids sang the second part. Billy Murray's rendition of "You're a Grand Old Flag" is featured in the 2013 video game BioShock Infinite. The tune "You're a Grand Old Flag" is used as the school song for Big Lake High School in Big Lake, MN. In an episode of the Nicktoon Fanboy and Chum Chum, a song called "It's a Grand Old Candy" was sung to the tune of "You're a Grand Old Flag."

That'd be the Bourke Street Mall? Or perhaps a home game over the past 7 years?

Agreed. It also struck me that this Captaincy decision has the hallmarks of MN's first Captaincy decision and we all know how that worked out. This decision has to be based on the politics of making a statement about who is showing the most loyalty not who is the best man for the job. That might be worth considering this year but next year and beyond they need best available and I highly doubt that is Tex.

You're probably right but I suspect the scenario will be whether he is moving to maximise what he can earn as a player for the rest of his career or he is moving for success. The Cats have had a long held policy that no player gets paid overs compared to the whole group. This certainly applied during the Premiership years. Hawkins will command a huge sum if that doesn't apply anymore, so I'm not sure it is a fait a compli that he'll end up there unless he's happy to play there for less than a team like us would pay him.