daisycutter

effervess?????????????

i do have to laugh at "the club abandoned me" line. he got enormous support from the club, even if they didn't agree with every action he took. how entitled can one get

there is more than one defendant, ldvc ? (but i know what you mean) and absence of dna evidence doesn't amount to 'clearing'

i understand, but until there is more info, i will maintain a 'healthy' degree of suspicion ? without going overboard

because 'contamination' of evidence is a police procedural problem and needs explanation of course in court, but not only in court no-one is saying dna (trace or otherwise) is a panacea, but it raises a red flag when the biggest amount of illicit drug is mysteriously 'contaminated' and cannot be tested for dna as all the other (smaller) samples were i am wary of 'coincidences' especially in controlled and carefully planned operations like this . anyway, enough said already, i will follow this aspect with interest

well i could have guessed that much too, but then like you i would just be speculating or are you saying you have specific knowledge? nevertheless a public explanation is required from the police

i'm just suspicious in cases like this of "contamination" and asking for clarification police are highly trained in forensic sampling procedures, especially in pre-organised raids nothing personal re thompson re the mdma. just a desire for proper procedure. after that "let the chips fall where they may"

I don't understand this dna contamination of the 839gm of mdma i always understood they could detect (differentiate) multiple dna profiles in a sample and could therefore at least determine if there was any dna from thompson even where there was police dna on it due to mishandling unless.... it was suspected that the handling of another item by the police could have transferred thompson's dna from that item to the mdma whatever, i think this 'contamination' needs to be further explained publicly to eliminate any accusations of 'tampering' with evidence especially as the mdma would appear to be the largest example of 'commercial' level trafficking

so why then did foxsport publish a whole article based on an anonymous lawyer is that how you prefer your news?

if he's just talking precedent why the need for anonymity no doubt we will see more of this as we did with the essendon supplements support campaign

spinning the positive side iv'a and probably invested in a good outcome for a bomber legend

i can almost guess who the anonymous lawyer would be, bub would have had no connection to the essendon saga......not

i'm sure that argument would sound reasonable to most efc supporters

i've already heard one sports journalist blame his demise on the "unfair" accusations of the bummers supplements "persecution" (words to that effect) expect a lot of the "industry" to rally around and make sympathetic excuses for him gil will continue to flummox and make babbling sounds should be lots of opportunity for the sports journos to endlessly dissect it for months....without really saying anything more popcorn time

sorry about the binman tag, p-man (and binman) probably right about being a bit late, i was reading an article on fritzl just a few days ago and i guess the gorge was still sticking strong in my throat

not sure fritzel is a good nickname, binman google a certain austrian pos named fritzl

and andrews was so impressed by the ghan teledoco that he wants to call the proposed train service to the airport "the dhan"

i believe "ghan - the musical" is already in rehearsal and lego are working on a set of ghan models

think there is a game of semantics being played out here, lucy all about what "approved" means afl are saying not approved as in recommended but approved as in allowed or nothing to stop it company is trying to treat approved as meaning afl sanctioned

but the point specifically for wines was that he was essentially ready and was "low maintenance" re development......same as vineyl wines would have been a star wherever he went

ummmm...... he was developed by draft day......a walk up starter

now that went out the window quite a few years ago, od, or weren't you paying attention?

was all public (australia) pressure. without it ca would have applied the wet lettuce, let's not kid ourselves

i thought i said effectively that i disagree that this was the final straw for ca . they have been conspicuous by their lack of action and concern for all the bad behaviour nevertheless the punishment for ball tampering is excessive, it is not justice to punish someone for an offence based on what others have done previously and for what they are not specifically charged with. nor to be so markedly different from precedence 3 months (maybe 6) would have been more appropriate and still sent a harsh message

i see your point but also mr legs. whilst the icc standard ball tampering penalty of 1 match (+ some points and match fee) is manifestly inadequate, there is one hell of a big difference from 1 game for 1 person to nearly three years across 3 people (plus all the attendant $ costs that result) I think too that this is the first case that the offenders have actually owned up. In the other cases all sorts of stupid claims of innocence were made and du plessis even appealed one of his charges. some say that this instance was worse because of premeditation and complicity. You can't tell me all the other ones weren't premeditated and as for complicity we just wouldn't know because they all claimed innocence. to me they were all just the same - a blatant breaking of the rules and cheating, full stop bottom line, i think the final penalties were excessive and the players effectively punished also for all the perceived recent sins of the team i don't doubt the public outrage was increased due to the general bad sportsmanlike behaviour of the team in recent years and that this was a major factor in determining the sentence (fairly or not). this makes ca all the more hypocritical as they have had adequate opportunity over the years to do something about this bad behaviour but chose to ignore it and therefore tacitly give it approval