daisycutter

get it done

still wouldn't matter. wada rules are that guilty players should lose awards and prizes for period of offence. jobe should lose brownlow not because of "fairest and best" afl rules but because of wada guilty rules. if it was "best" only he would still have brownlow stripped

*rumour *mongering

but he's red'n'blue through and through

i don't need to know all the facts (though i'd like to know more). does one ever know all the facts on anything? i've seen enough to convince me of essendon's guilt within the wada framework, that the afl reluctantly work under and try to undermine when it doesn't suit them we will never know all the facts because those closest to it will not provide the facts, nor evidence, nor testify under oath asada have not done the best job but have laboured under inadequate funding, very limited investigative powers and other factors

all that may be true but i fail to see how that is relevant to whether essendon and its players broke the rules on peds in sport. we know the afl is unwilling party to wada over-lordship

wasting your time on saty. he's too obdurate to reason with

or thread-clogging (not you)

relevance? they cheated or they didn't. they have been found guilty. of which i am satisfied. canberra had nothing to do with their guilt.

there are other over-riding rules that can come into play, such as those that come with signing on to the wada code which call for the stripping of awards and prizes pertaining to the period of transgression. of course wada leave that up to the ruling body but for the afl to ignore that would bring into question the afl's hypocrisy and right to claim wada compliancy. it's is only "hard" if you refuse to stand on principle and continuously look for excuses to prevaricate and do nothing.

iva, it is the unwillingness of the afl to make decisions and their failure to tackle the issues of drugs in sport (performance or illicit) with any real conviction that drags this issue needlessly on and on, that is prolonging the players' time in the "stocks" (that, plus the bad legal advice that they have accepted over the last 3 years)

why have a commission if their favoured option is to avoid making a decision. surely they are made commissioners to make decisions on the game whether easy or hard, popular or unpopular. or would you rather an organisation run by lobby groups, focus groups and public polls with commissioners replaced by accountants and clerks

the afl actually asked mitchell and cotchin to make a submission re 2012 brownlow. wtf. thankfully both players declined immediately. they are simply incapable of making a clear cut decision and are more intent on finding a way to make a "deal". integrity must be a foreign word to these clowns

you have to feel sorry for the afl. they have only had all of this year to decide on the brownlow if the appeal against cas was not successful (as widely expected) and now they need just another month to just have a meeting. running a footy comp is such hard work and people expect too much of them

they'll have to decide on his inclusion in the all australian side too - hehehe or maybe they'll decide that in a later meeting......maybe a focus group? too many decisions for poor old gill. he did say back in august that the brownlow medal decision might be the hardest decision anyone had to make in their whole life......nearly had me in tears

afl to have a meeting on nov 15 to decide fate of jobe brownlow medal - weak, gutless [censored]s

he should go to gws then

yeah agree, most likely nixon. (could also be capper or jacko looking for some publicity)

depends, iva, whether you believe someone who has completed his punishment should continue to be punished (in some form) or allowed to start again.

maybe it was just a reflection of his opinion on trade week, ernie

meanwhile, up in harbor town, cronulla are still celebrated their premiership, 3 years after cooperating with asada and taking their medecine without enriching the legal fraternity.