daisycutter

probably that they just have a better defined "local" region to draw on i.e. basically anything south of the city

30? more like 40! saty

victory got absolutely smashed last night, wyl

i though it was a trendy converted hipster warehouse

well we never had a problem in the past generating skill errors with higher interchanger numbers but seriously, it's way too early to make judgements. nab practice matches are not good indicators of anything

roosy's wage?

apart from his comments what makes you think the nt is more interested in nrl?

may? hardwick just cracked the sads and panicked

that wouldn't be fair on the current inmates, wyl

reckon daisy thomas might just be getting a holiday for sneaky elbow to head

would we still get our half mill?

one would think that when the sponsorship contract was drawn up there would be very specific conditions laid out for both sides to comply with i suspect this nt minister is now looking for something different to the conditions that their own people originally signed up to it's probably more political than anything to do with contract performance

it's actually looking quite well od. one very small hole you'd hardly notice, that i've been meaning to darn for a few years. thanks for reminding me it's got the right red and blue too

i'm still wearing my dees leather sleeved bomber jacket from the 70's - bought at carribean market could never part with it

reading the article didn't provide any detail one guy praised the demons, the other didn't say much if anything anti-dees the headline was very specific but that seemed about all

read the rules. doesn't look ambiguous to me however, i wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they did their usual re-interpretation of the rules

by the look of it i think the aints have got it trademarked

i wouldn't recommend anyone to look at him. it could be bad for their health

cue uncle bitters

still better than dusty's come to think of it, clarrie's ain't too hot either

chris, i understand your point about it "being within the rules" or being "legal", but you could also reword this as "not currently covered by the rules" or "not illegal" and you can see that this puts a whole different meaning to it. as i say it is the intention of the athlete to gain an unfair advantage or cheat that i would focus on. it's the ethics of it more than the "law". we also need to lcontinually look at the forest and not the trees i.e. not get distracted at some of the marginal or peripheral issues of which there will always be some

all banned substances were at some time not banned. there is many good reasons why there is a delay before a substance is banned by wada. if athletes didn't use substances to unfairly give them a competitive edge then there would be no need to ban substances and have a wada. professionalism ($$$s) changed all that, but so too did nationalism and other factors. no doubt the real problem here is the intention of the athlete in the taking of the substance and this is really what the debate is all about (as well as health reasons) admittedly in determining what substances should be banned can sometimes be a hard line to draw. take simple glucose for example which is prevalent in many common foodstuffs that it would be impossible to ban it (but maximum dosage levels could be set based on health reasons).

well i wouldn't say no problem, unless you just mean legally the afl certainly had a problem with it, so much that they changed the rules. they deemed it not within the spirit of the game so i would call that a problem

thought i read it was 3 times by (wada?) and 2 times by WTA