daisycutter

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

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?