beelzebub

Danks is a nutter..he last folly would be to ever enter a courtroom, hes all bluf, bullshlt and mock bravado

My understanding is WADA can NOT compel Danks But it doesnt need to really, not to sanction EFC

just as a devils advocate you understand

Ive really no idea about this. So many variable and nuances that we the unwashed public just arent privy to make it hard to gauge ( i think) . He does strike me as someone youd feel happier playing for you, in the trenches etc. I have the idea the team stands a little taller when he's on song. Conversely when hes not they slump. Maybe that in itself is a measure. We are better i think with a solo captain and if Roos thinks hes up to it, then thats fine by me. I would however prefer it if others felt the desire to fill the void or take a step in the Jones direction and "lead"

I must admit ol' Dawes has his flaws ( sorry ) but his upside more than counters this. I sometimes wonder if his marking isnt simply affected by poor delivery. We still have a mile or two to go in the art of 'good effective kicking" Hopefully the Salems and Watts ( yes thats me saying this , but hes always been a fabulous kick ) can illuminate some others as to the art of delivery. Not that I was anything to write about but about 90% of my footy was played in the forward arc ( or where it would have been ) and I can tell you the difference between a good day and bady, all other things aside , was how that ball came in. We still ( sigh ) for the most part arent skilled at good delivery. Im not absolving Dawes but it needs to be taken into consideration. Im certainly not about to write him off at this early stage

My first reaction was....Someone's f*#@king dreaming !! However the reasoning is interesting. Id still rather a fit Ablett ( sorry Chunk ) but its because Ablett is freakish. Still...id settle atm for a really fit Jones. Good pickup Stu

No....we did

^^^^

Further exposes the Tribunal as a crock. I may seem rather biased in this but I cant for the life of me understand how in a situation whereby the only drug actually mentioned or sourced ( or even attempted to be if you want to take the wowsers stance ) was TB4. That this is accepted by the member of the tribunal as being the one sought, indeed in all likelihood the one compounded. That we know the players were injected with something that followed the protocols of TB4 that players exhibited reactions/results as one would having taken TB4 that you can then come out and say...well we're not comfortable it was TB4..cat say what else it was or even could have been ...but...but...but. The learned wise ones seem less learned and short on wisdom. Hope they enjoy the money.

Jkh in Thats all

you said shattered !! get it

I concur.. also...they arent really answerable to anyone really.

It cant be too bad a fracture. He was probably more aware of it as a local soreness that crippling pain. Had scans and lo and behold...tis a break me lad. But what kind ? If he can keep the atrophy to a minimum he may well be back training in 4 watch this space I guess

A number of interesting things there. Im not actually personally 100% convinced that ASADA will/would appeal. Well not with the thinking it will actually get very far. It may need to as some sort of 'face' thing. who knows. It might be playing a clever counter ploy of 'protesting too much " in a fashion whilst all along knowing Uncle WADA will carry the can and call in the Cavalry.Either way WADA doesnt get its chance ASADAS 21 days is up The difference between how WADA/CAS might view something as opposed how the AFL tribunal dealt with the suppositions ASADA presented ought to go to whats accepted and whats not on the basis of the evidence. Keep in mind WADA can bring in new evidence etc The CAS might well give a different weight and hence outcome to particular aspects. Also what I thought interesting is that under the code only INTENT need be established but this for what ever reason was not the path the AFL took. Here in lays subtle differences. The AFL Tribunal , whilst under the guidance of ASADA in terms of adherence to codes actually ran do a difference one. it was run as per the AFL's own Anti Doping Code and the facility it gives for hearings. WADA will front the CAS where WADA code is spoken , understood and adhered to. Quoting the Social Litigator http://sociallitigator.com/2015/04/03/a-question-of-proof-might-an-asada-appeal-have-legs/ "What vexed the Tribunal apparently came down to this: Those involved thought they were buying, distributing, compounding and dispensing Thymosin Beta-4 (or ‘TB4’). However, the Tribunal could not be satisfied the substance was, in fact, TB4" they did however feel comfortable about : * Shane Charter bought what he believed to be TB4 and arranged to have it sent to chemist Nima Alavi; * Mr Alavi believed he then compounded TB4; * Mr Alavi dispensed 26 vials of a substance he believed to be TB4 to Stephen Dank; * Correspondence between Mr Alavi and Mr Dank regarding “thymosin” refers to TB4; * Mr Alavi’s lab technician compounded 15 vials of a substance she believed to be TB4 for Mr Dank; Required to prove this circumstantial case were the following matters: 1* TB4 was procured from sources in China; and 2* TB4 was obtained by Mr Alavi, compounded and provided to Mr Dank in his capacity as Sports Scientist at Essendon; and 3* TB4 was obtained by Mr Alavi, compounded and provided to Mr Dank in his capacity as Sports Scientist at Essendon; and 4* Mr Dank administered TB4 to each Player. The Tribunal reportedly did not consider 3.. This is because it was not comfortably satisfied by 1. and 2. For the Tribunal, belief did not translate into fact. What then was the substance administered to each player? Circumstantial cases rely on inference. Here, the Tribunal faced a fork in the road. The Tribunal could have inferred that because: the substance was not Thymousin A1; and it was satisfied the key protagonists involved in administering the product to players all thought they were using the prohibited substance TB4, then the substance was – to their comfortable satisfaction – TB4. Instead, rather than turning left, the Tribunal turned right, onto the road where belief does not offer sufficient proof. Presumably, the only sufficient proof would have been scientific proof. If on the other hand you are inclined to believe that the substance was indeed TB4 and that it was intended to inject the players with this as it matched the annecdoctal evidence of players ( some ) as well as known protocols for delivery of this substance together with the suggestion that it would not have been anything other than TB4 because Thymosin was always discussed and Thymodulin needs neither injection nor compounding then you would probably turn left not right as the Tribunal did. So it seems the tribunal applied one set of reasonings to part of the submission and another to other parts. Now what Red says is that they are entitled to do so. What some, like WJ, suggest is theres no consistency to this..its skewed. When things lack consistency theres often a reason. In judical land its imperative that all thigs seem squeaky clean. this is done by the separation of those judging from those with vested interests. The AFL is nothing if not an entirely self-interested beast. The Tribunal is and of the AFL. How can you possibly guarantee no contamination when its all done in-house, even with ring-ins !! Who set the rules of the Tribunal, who outlined the scope and who briefed the bench ? quack !

was my veiled reference in other thread... necessity might advance his cause here. Might be the beginning on something. ..as opposed cameo that is

A strong mid body needs to come in Michie probably a look in for that role imho

Necessity, mother if invention....cousin to opportunity. For not just form considerations but injury some may now get a run and others more game. Team sheet will be interesting .

Did a fib skiing...running on it 5 weeks later. Took maybe 2 months before i couldn't remember it affecting.Hes a lot fitter than i was and better resources. Hes now the next 4-6 off the rank Bugger Bugger

Bugger Just BUGGER Fast and full recovery Jack.

Qwerty. The whole fiasco has been tainted by corruption from the instance Vlad overstepped his position and abused privileged information through the AFL meetings with players held inappropriately to even now, the seemingly unbridled method of preventing fair outcome. You keep suggesting that CAS require a lower standard. This is plainly wrong. The evidence is the evidence. The code allows those sitting to accord what it wishes to it indeed seek more or differing review. Its not about any lowering but more about whats given due currency. CAS might look at it and think that walking quacking thing is indeed a duck !!

is the house up....or down ?

Its all about how you arrive at the 'Comfortable Satisfaction" in terms of the evidence as presented. At an earlier juncture WJ spoke about the , well for want of any other description, a range of interpretations and subsequent acceptances. The AFL's tribunal chose one very fine and limited view with respect to this. A different view towards the very same evidence would in all likelihood deliver a different outcome. It could be argued, indeed some much more versed in the legalities and such have done exactly such that the view taken by the tribunal was of an inconsistent nature.. A conspiracy ? I'm often amused by this idea in so far as its put out that there are never such things and of course there are. One might very well be the orchestration of an outcome. Indeed we're still seeing it played out before us. Qwerty i feel youre doing yourself a great mischief if you dont look into the nature of how these bodies like CAS ..and the Tribunal go about their work. Under the Code there is largesse provided as to how any evidence is viewed, weighted and indeed augmented. The AFL Tribunal for reasons it only 'knows' ( but many suspect ) deliberately took a skewed stance and delivered a decision which fell within what I distinctly feel was its brief, as given by its masters the League. CAS have no such string pullers. They will deal with it quite differently. Its nothing about any lowering of evidential standards, its about what logic and extrapolations any is prepared to give them

WADAS appeal will be heard by a totally unbiased CAS as opposed to ASADAS which would be reviewed by effectively the AFL ( again ) What the AFL and by extension its 'learned folk' deem comfortable may , pray will be most likely . a different standard as to how CAS view things. The AFL tribunal wasnt into joining dots, no matter how obvious or prominent they were. History suggests WADA will be listened to more favourably away from vested interests

irrespective of what WE may want the club will temper the temptations to over play the Angus too much too early

we could certainly do with a repeat that link went 404 maybe this one http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2015-04-16/last-time-we-met-adelaide