daisycutter

plenty on demonland did. club must have thought it was a chance.

hehe, next years pick is gonna slide a lot more

apparently all his mates were charged with budgie smuggling but biffo got charged with sparrow smuggling

I wouldn't fret too much, uncle, over biffo's (temporary) absence. I understand he already on a flight back from malaysia after his involuntary detention following a misunderstood attempt of multiculturalism. a much chastened biffo i might add, with a lighter wallet.

hey froggy, we need you to get to work and find out what jesse is up to over there. we want all the details. i know we can count on you

that would be doubly climactic, uncle. definitely a coronary overload to be avoided on sunday. sat night?......well that's a different story

does year 8 mean "school-year-8" i.e. probably under 15's?

nervous times ahead, red. i hope they blitz them in the first quarter for the sake of my blood pressure

so ladyboy shows have gone politically correct too. the world has gone crazy. the stuies are taking over

that is so 70s ethan I believe it's basketballs nowadays that's progress for you

hmm.....bad choice of words......in good faith to whom? but i agree with, did the crime, did the time. everyone gets a 2nd chance and we move on (with or without hard-man wyl)

i think the thread is getting ot and not spefically about milkshake. much of what is being discussed should be in the other essendrug thread

the view that tb4 had no benefit (debatable) on essendon players' performance, and the other view that tb4 should not be a banned substance (also debatable) are complete red herring arguments and have no impact on guilt or otherwise.. the fact is that tb4 was a known wada banned ped at the time essendon injected it to their players in a secretive and undeclared (to wada) fashion, and that the essendon players were contractually obliged to follow the wada drug protocol under threat of banning conditions. it is as simple as that. the rest is obfuscation. the proportionality of guilt between the club officials and the players is an interesting discussion but does not reduce any guilt to zero. the players were ultimately treated leniently in wada punishment terms to effectively 1 playing season. it is also worth noting they rejected the much earlier reported opportunity that would have meant only missing 4 matches. i'm sure cronulla players now feel vindicated they took the deal offered initially for cooperation. added: oh, and incidentally this type of discussion should really be in the other thread

i think they are out of the cap

quite

you're right jesse, got caught in a moment of weakness.

there is nothing contradictory about being performance enhancing and having other desirable medical benefits. why is that such a hard concept to understand? there is also a documented procedure in wada whereby in certain cases and for certain drugs under certain strict conditions, permission can be given to use banned drugs for medical purposes.

you don't give up do you? i didn't realise you were a pharmacologist. it's on the wada banned list as a specific product as a performance enhancing substance, not on the s0 generic category. i know whose expertise i would consider most credible

errr................what about those highlighted ones........they seem more performance enhancing than medical recovery

yeah, i heard that too ernest. However at the start of the year i was at a family do and my wife's cousins are all mad bomber fans. I asked them what they thought and they all thought he was a good pickup who was down a little on form in 2015 probably because of all the pressure re asada at the club, meaning he became a bit of a whipping boy to some. guess we will all find out next year. btw i consider jake has done the crime/done the time and starts off with a second chance, so i hope he succeeds. I was against the trade initially and events proved that correct in at least one aspect (i.e. out for a year) but that's now water under the bridge and we move on

ah, so now you have moved the goal posts from "CAS aint a Court." to " It is not a Court of Law and is not......" it is still a court of arbitration which the players (by legal contract) have agreed to as part of the administration of the laws of the game pertaining to the use of substances.

i don't understand your beyond a reasonable doubt level of proof comparison as no-one here is claiming this is a criminal case and as you know. civil cases in "genuine" courts of law adopt a level of proof even lower than that used by cas and yes, we understand, we (posters) aren't privy to all the evidence. and we understand the separate findings under worksafe laws which was a different issue to peds which is what was under discussion.

the fact is that you said "CAS aint a Court." the broad definition of cas is that it is a "court of arbitration" and is a "quasi-judicial body" but, it is still a "court"........ sport!

of course it is a court, and run by legally qualified practitioners. it is also part of a jurisdiction process signed onto by all afl players you are only quibbling

there is paperwork. see cas findings. players took banned performance enhancing substance tb4. found guilty. but some people know better than a court