Redleg

Well done Rollo you have provided the opportunity for many ( myself included ) to have a fun day, involved with other Dees supporters and experiencing many wins, which lately hasn't been the case with our senior team. Enjoy your retirement, watching our beloved Dees climb up the ladder.

I am doing my anti rain dance pointed towards South Africa.

I was doing undercover at the Gat for the Fed Police. Now you have blown it. You may be liable to charges.BTW I think the off the shoulder look suits me.

I won't stand for lies on this thread. Unless you lease the hats you wear, or borrow them from MRS. WJ, they must be your hats that I have seen you in. BTW, they are pretty ordinary hats.

Not according to Damien Barrett. We were mad according to him to trade Kelly ( pick 2 ) for Tyson and Salem. He has actually called Kelly a Brownlow medallist.

"Every evidentiary brief will contain a recommendation. Simply: whether the subject of the brief has violated anti-doping rules or not. The idea is that all completed briefs will survive any legal challenges." The above from Lane's article makes it clear that any charge will be extremely well founded. "Australian anti-doping rules dictate that evidentiary briefs are handed over to ASADA's Anti-Doping Rules Violation Panel; a seven-member group with varied expertise in sport, the law, medicine and anti-doping. Andrew McLachlan, a professor of pharmacy at the university of Sydney who has worked with the national anti-doping authority since 1999, is the panel's chairman. Its job is to decide whether it agrees with the recommendation contained in each evidentiary brief. These rulings will determine whether infraction notices are issued to Essendon and Cronulla footballers, or support personnel - something that would be carried out by the AFL or NRL, which are obliged to act on the panel's direction" Another bit from Lane's article, which demonstrates that any charges laid, have been scrutinised and taken very seriously by experts in the field. Conclusion: any charges laid, will be well founded, with sufficient evidence to back them up and very difficult to defeat.

What no coffee? Oh that's right it is a stimulant.

And people who relied on them got us into the trouble we were in. According to the statistics, we should dump all of those named players and keep X.

Well there is one player who I won't have to watch in the red and blue this year. Universally, everyone's worst on the game day thread. I would rather play one short, at least that way there are less turnovers.

No they didn't.

Agree.

Don't think he was a Pharmacist.

For a start, I think under the WADA code, that is enough to lay charges ( circumstantial evidence ). Remember there was surveillance, chemists giving evidence of what they sold to Dank and the Club, admissions from players, admissions by the club of injecting of substances, probably no proof of legal substances being purchased and injected, probably statements of people off campus who injected the players, statements by Reid that he knew of substances being given and didn't approve, statements by Dank to the ACC etc.

If Notices are served on Bombers players and they fight them, what is the basis of their defence? It can really only be one major point, we didn't take banned substances. How do you prove that? The club says it has no records. No one at the club can give evidence of exactly what was given, to who and when.That has been stated by the club several times. Guess who might be the only witness who might have records and might be able to give some evidence in the players' defence?

He won't be and you can keep your seat.

I really enjoyed hearing Roos out on the ground. To be honest though, it is no different to when I coached youngsters years ago. Footy really is a simple game, no matter how much some try to complicate it.

Mitch will not be a "flash" in the pan.

You have been in a dark room too long.

You need to focus on his training and attempts to recover.

Sorry, but it looks like I am a non starter. Good luck to the boys and I hope Rollo, you and all involved, have an enjoyable day.

Rohan Connolly was discussing the saga a few days ago and he said, "why pick on the bombers several Demons players were also mentioned, when the story broke." Actually only two were mentioned that I can recall, JT and Dunn. Dunn seemed to be nothing, with JT the concern. The story on JT was that there was an SMS recommending he use a cream that apparently contained AOD. There was never, following that SMS, any confirmation that he actually used it. If JT denied any use and no other evidence is available, that is the end of that, as there was no testing. The Bombers as we all know had a system of off campus injecting, into players' stomaches, going on for a season. Connolly did not differentiate between the two clubs. Oh and Rohan Connolly supports Essendon.

The ASADA case is ramping up for a conclusion.

I said at the time that the Judge was apponted to ASADA, that it was probably to help with deciding whether there was enough evidence to lay charges. I am convinced of that now. To have a Judge review the evidence and then lay charges, makes them a lot stronger than if some inexperienced clerk laid them. That said, the fact that Dank hasn't been required to give evidence, suggests to me they have enough to make their case.

The substantial difference as I am aware and I obviously only know what I have read, between JT and the Bombers, is that JT has never admitted taking the substance only that it was recommended in an SMS. The Bombers have admitted being injected regularly during a season with various known or unknown substances. Other evidence and statements may show what those substances were.

I will not bite.