daisycutter

i always wondered if it was because of d-l that we no longer have a font choice

funny how the hun made a big deal of his (fanciful) claims of how he was going to prove the innocence of the players and get jobe his brownlow back. here's a guy who continually loses court cases, fails repeatedly to turn up to hearings, fails to abide by legal court requirements yet the hun makes a bigger point reporting his hollow claims of "getting jobe's brownlow back". the quality of journalism these days is so pathetically low and downright lazy

lol - there is a very big presumption in your question that the 'people at essendon' actually know how to 'think'

and mr little

that must be the predominately white away jacket haven't you been listening bub. need a red or inverse one for away jacket

presumabty though. george, because this appeal is "de novo" and tb4 administration was part of the initial hearing, is it possible he could be found guilty of administering tb4? any lawyers want to comment?

reported in today's rage that oral submissions will be allowed in dank's appeal seems dank's team "thought" this wasn't allowed. they seem to be really on top of this appeal

might have troubles finding the dosh to pay one. his last lawyer on the ch9 case walked on him and guess what.......he represented himself!

you should try and get him down at the gat, biffo. he could probably do a whole season there and you could clean up too

our stephen does a lot of blustering, threatening and promising, but when things get to the pointy end he just disappears like a puff of smoke. then pops up at his next footy pie night to pick up a nice purse and offer a bit of salacious condemnation of all and sundry. surprisingly he is very popular at such high brow events. much like the table-top strippers who complete the show

so was HIS court action against ch9. didn't turn up to three consecutive hearings. judge dismissed case.

can't even see him turning up, bub

very much so....................................imo

none of those things you bring up are individual awards bestowed by the sporting competion

it's unlikely it's all completed yet. be interested to see next year's figures

the hand that taketh also giveth.............................................soooo afl

The essendon propaganda machine just never stops. always "on message"

seems the afl preferred my opinion to that of slobbo.......for a change now......about the clash jumper rule...........

true. but the tour de france and other cycling events you would have to agree were quite exceptional given the rampant use of peds in that industry. it would not be fair to use their treatment of retrospective race results as a yardstick for other sports, especially without proof of similar excesses. retrospectivity always has its problems i know. i do accept there is a reasonable case for no result, even though in this case it's not my preferred option

so you mean -10, redleg?

i wonder how d'landers would feel if cotchin was nate jones?

ok, understand (and i suspect this will be the result today, even if i disagree) btw your footrace analogy is not always so simple. generally to get to a final you must qualify through heats, semis, prelims etc before the final. in all these races someone has been eliminated and denied the chance to progress to the finals thus complicating the theoretical result just as in the afl example. In the case of the ioc they just ignore this anomoly and simply remove the miscreant from the final result. ..............just saying

i'va the umpires only gave 3 players votes per game. it is therefore impossible to remove watson's votes and promote other player's votes completely. no-one knows who the 4th or 5th or even sometimes the 6th umpire's fairest and best player would have been occam's razor would suggest just use the next final positions i.e. cotchin/mitchell

caveat emptor