beelzebub

No no no no The gladiators of this sport are the players. No one else fight the fights on the weekends. The advantages or such are conduited through them and they are handsomely rewarded. They have duty of care to themselves. They can not be excluded or forgiven lightly in this debacle. They are pursued by WADA because the code holds them responsible. They are.

wot 'e said !!

I came into this conversation not really knowing who's who. I have my thoughts as to the type to take at 3 and 7. In reality i don't think it matters what we think the club knows. In the oast we've sought silver bullets...the magic elixir to fix all evils. We'll take two players here and two players there and they'll add to the bottom line. I don't think it matters as much as we suggest. The FD will get its job done. Im comfy saying that these days as these players need not appear in 16...theyll take time and be given games when warranted. So different...thank god

yes...just let the poor diddums off with a nasty warning !!!In the immortal words of one John Mcenroe ... "You can't be serious"

I can tell you now one huge difference in the way this will play out. At the AFL farce the panel needed to be convinced in a manner more akin to their working experience that TB4 was definitely the culprit. They decided it wasn't for them to go joining any dots and the AFL knew this would be the case ergo why they were chosen. CAS is a different beast. It has shown a willingness to ask those silly questions like. ' to the defendants' if not tb4 then what and what proof do you have given there is definitive evidence there was some intent by the club to obtain TB4 in fact over here we have dot dot dot. How do you explain ? Again this is not a court that will be familiar (in the main)to the legals representing the 34. CAS will ask questions when prudent or if it feels its being given the run around. The burden still rests with WADA.There are obligations that the 34 have though in paving a verd to their satisfaction. If they cant show they a) didn't intend to take tb4 b) actually used something else..with proof then they will have a very hard job undoing WADAs case. At the AFL circus the defence was to 'la la la la la ..nothing here...la la la la ' and the panel left it at that. CAS will ask..if not...what ?

Not sure anything would have really helped BP....he was deaf to all logics

Her understanding of the game,it nuances and what effects what is really second to none.I think in the main he judgements of players is very good but she does have a few biases of sorts and like all us mere mortals gets things askew on occasions. Overall though i find her immensely informative. The explanation of bidding has allowed me to participate in the thinkings and dialogues in other threads. Rpfc has helped some also.

I had my doubts about the effectiveness of all of this but it really adds a dynamic, one which of itself has a great leveling effect really.

shh Jack...thats heresy apparently !!

Im with you here. Many in a tiz to get some talls so we can develop them to be useful in a few years time.. But we already have some in development !! By all means get more but lets not get too carried away and forego what we can get for what might be..as it were..i.e if best avail is a mid.utility...get them.

iF theclub was going down the path of an each way bet...i.e one mid one biggun.. Then id be quite happy with Parish and McKay.. I still prefer...yada yada yada....but Id prefer Mckay to either suss 1 or suss2 It wil be interesting for sure let alone the other two picks Going to have an OK list at eh end of all of this I think

wont happen . In a years time Salem will be almost on par . Tyson wont be traded either. Most likely be trading picks. At years end we probably will want to keep a lot of the list. How novel.

The media is not privy to ANY of this....the poor things

Actually was a good read...very illiminating. Smashing stuff !!

I think both Curnow and Weideman will go later than many suspect. Both a little over inflated for mine. Draft always reminds me of the Melbourne Cup. Got to be pretty good to be there but strange things happen.

I thought it worked something like you had to use your 1st round pick two years out of 4 or something similar. That doesn't preclude you from trading 2017's 1st pick. My reading...i might be wrong...it hapoens

Am enjoying the banter / debate. We all see it a tad different and thats fine. Kudos to all for not allowing it to descend into bickering and name calling. I've no real idea who we will take but its sure to be interesting if not for who we take alone but who we don't. This might offer up clues as to where the club sees us taking steps and strides. In past years up until recent ones I have been quite concerned. Im almost ambivalent yet still curious. Other than horsetrading for them these might well be our last use of early picks for some time. I don't mind that at all. Go you good Dees

Stangeley Dexter was somewhat Sinister also

Poor Essendon, it must be gnawing at their guts the poor sods ( not )

id say its as much of a muchness. Occasionally standout display themselves and go 1 or 2.The reality is theres just as much chance of getting a decent forward..maybe not a Buddy Roughy or Hogan bur more than serviceable in the next round as could be the first round. Weideman is a fools choice if better than decent mids are available.

that made me laugh thanks

Does it...?? Nothing of the sort ,Simply acknowledges it takes far longer normally to get any real value out of a tall kpp draftee. We arent looking for a #1 forward...we're looking for a 'helper' come pinch hit ruck Both suss 1 and suss2 arent this type so have no idea why youd bother. Teams like Freo are looking for a KEY forward...we arent. Some very good forwards have been picked quite a deal later in drafts..Westhoff..Walker , Gunston..Reality is far more are spotted, taken later and nurtures than are drafted early a do a whole lot. Invariably when these standouts are there they have far more going for them than suss1 and suss 2 Ill stick with my opinion of what we need...happy for others to make own assessments We'll see what the club reckons soon enough

What makes you think a court never want to get to the truth ? This isnt a court of law...is a court for arbitration in sport. LDVC.. CAS has a distinct history of looking a bit deeper, especially when encouraged to do so by the likes of WADA. My understanding of the CAS is it is built upon the Inquisitorial System of Courts as per the French System , NOT the adversarial system we are used to. CAS wlll as such quite possibly look to what is in its interests calling for accounts and relevant facts even if not presented. Shouldnt matter where this Court is held or even that the Laws ( as Im given to understand will be our own Oz ) the Court will function as it does as though it were still in Switzerland. I think this is very much a mistaken idea that the Fanboys etc have fallen into believing.

LH..not having a go..all good. Just keeping ball rolling

Discretion... Its not absolute. Itll depend on what the panel wants to understand. Here we have CAS who DO want to get to the bottom of it as opposed the AFL who wanted it all shoved in the the cupboard Theres nothing to say you CANT....It will be taken upon its merit and relevance. This I feel has been misconstrued...and of course no guessing by whom. Much I would say rests ( even in worst case scenario ) to the idea of "reasonably" Nothing that Essendon has done performs to the ideal of reasonably