daisycutter

crows can be such a hot and cold team

think we have more sources than gnf, luci, though without searching the archives i can't be too sure

Caro, Matthews and others were discussing Hogan on 3AW today. Caro thought he was gone and others thought 50/50 but all based on speculation rather than "facts". They then discussed why he would want to go back home. They talked of all the usual WA stuff and even a thought that Jesse was a "different cat", but not once was there any mention of illness or any other issues in the family. Not even any broad generalisations in that direction. That struck me a strange because surely journos get a lot more info than we do. OK, they may have a pact to not talk about it out of respect to the family but if so why go to lengths to discuss other reasons? Why not just skip the reasons? It just didn't make much sense to me ... anyway make what you want out of it.

i'd still like to see how dorks could get o'meara + mitchell without giving up too much

the afl have changed the rules on some of those points type swaps. i don't understand the specifics and differences though. maybe someone can enlighten us? if hogan is to go to freo then freo have to find picks for hogan, mccarthy and hill (at least), all of who would attract high pick selections. their only other choice is to trade some top players. i'm still struggling to see how they do it. if hogan goes back to wa for family reasons then we are limited to 2 clubs and what they can offer. it seems under those conditions and where we wouldn't block him from going for family reasons, that the most likely outcome is we are forced to accept unders (despite all the keyboard jockeys here talking about rich rewards and being in such a good strong bargaining position). if he decides to go home (and it makes sense to do it end of this year) then i think we are at a great disadvantage.

won't freo have to cop up a high pick for mccarthy (sp?) to gws? not sure where they are going to get all these high picks from.

yeah, hope crows smash the coathangers. will make my weekend (that and casey winning of course)

and...computer say no

isaac smith wouldn't be feeling too flash right about now

how sweet will this be? dorks on top of the ladder, out in straight sets. fingers crossed.....go dogs

you should have been a poet, bitters, love your prose

such crap video resolution. how can you override goal umpire on that flimsy evidence?

is that why you bring it up so often? just to check?

anyway ethan, i thought it was funny (in case it got lost in all the "noise") at least we now know you can't be jesse hogan incognito

are you blind? check the photo

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

you've got a good memory, tilly. i struggle to remember melb players from the 80's let alone who shifted from carlscum to the aints.

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

these comments are so far off the mark it is comical. seriously, if you don't understand the facts you would be better served by saying nothing. you are just coming across as an apologist and a denier for the performance drugs in sport industry.

makes sense to me, ethan