daisycutter

so, which one was correct?.......i haven't seen either

lol

that's why they wanted them to appear at the hearing tomorrow.........so they could do a signed confidential deal (they can't do anything without a "deal")

well we'll find out in 2 days. i suspect they will take the option that placates essendon but

don't know if it is any help to you doc, but i believe nbn just recently launched their own satellite. i seem to remember reading that this would allow them to use new technology for a better faster solution for satellite users. i didn't pay much attention to it at the time (as it wouldn't affect me) but there may be some promise in it for you in the future. you might like to pursue that line of investigation? there again my memory might be wonky.

'cept he wasn't one of the "34" charged can't remember what he actually admitted too though

i'd just like one player to come out and say unequivocally and simply 'i/we did the wrong thing, i/we were guilty' instead of the spin that is so much part of life these days. i'm not holding my breath.

the afl like breaking records, w. it's good for business i'm told (and bonuses)

too true doc. it's not for me but. it's for all those historians of the 22nd century. i'm sure though that all our collective posts on bananas will certainly exceed 4 pages, so i am at a loss to understand the optimistic target being set. far too orwellian a task i fear. pass me the soylent green please, the popcorn has all been eaten

you eat the peel?

redleg, i don't doubt the afl will officially strip him of the medal come tuesday. only the governing body can do that. all watson has done is return it for their decision, returning it at the last moment is a bit reminiscent of essendon "self reporting" only when they heard the axe was about to fall.

four [censored] pages! this will be akin to the wanton destruction of the library at alexandria. at least thanks to modern technology we will have the wayback machine

plus, banana bashing should be subject to immediate banishment

the hard copy was worse with headline "Honour without Glory" in huge letters right across the front page

if you read the electronic version then be aware the printed version seems to have more of the same, add warner to slobbo too

WARNING unless you have a particularly strong stomach i would strongly urge you not to read today's hun. It is all that was predicted and more

well we disagree then moonie. as does the ioc. a "long time" didn't stop the afl retrospectively awarding brownlows to those who lost on the then rules of countback either. it may well be within the afl's purvey to award no winner, but if i was cotchin or mitchell i'd feel cheated out of my rightful brownlow by a drug cheat. the passage of time doesn't diminish an injustice but, just my opinion, moonie

so i suppose robert harvey shouldn't hold the 1997 brownlow? Chris grant polled highest that year but ruled ineligible, just like watson will be.

care to expand on that doc? i know it's late in the day and i function better in the mornings, but i'm not very clear on what you are censuring

i personally don't care whether he handed it back 2 months ago, now, or in fact ever, it's the afl 's job to manage that, not watson's.. the issue that irks me most is the inability of the afl to make timely decisions and to try and stage-manage watered down deals. they even invited watson, mitchell and cotchin to make submissions of what they thought the decision should be, puleeze!

sounds like a great junket, froggy. what's new to learn about roads you can't get out of a book or the web and what's wrong with a video conference

you mean i don't use a coat-hanger?

i've got a maple tree on my nature strip. might try to extract some syrup it's acer rubrum also known as october glory (not to be confused with morning glory, ethan)

If he admitted to taking peds during his brownlow year then there would be a problem I don't think admitting to "recreational" only drugs in his brownlow year would be

george, i can't see how that resolves all issues such that the afl don't have to make a decision. all it does it make this decision somewhat easier. they would still have to decide if the official records will show watson as the winner or whatever. if they then decide he is not the official winner of record then they have to make the decision as to whether there is no winner or the next placed players become the official winners of record. just returning a medal in itself means nothing. only the afl can decide the official status of record.