mauriesy

That's where I think we can make the most improvement. Hard at the ball and hard at the contest. Make other teams realise they've been in a competition.

And in the next breath someone will probably tell us that some other player needs to 'toughen up' and play through all those 'little niggles', like the best players do. Footballers are competitive beasts. The more pain some of them get, they more they want to play through it just to stay on the field. Often we laud them for that approach.

A player who is "blindingly quick, has clean hands and can break lines", like Cyril Rioli, can have 12 possessions and kick 6 goals. (Please don't say "Hunt's not Rioli", that's obvious.)

If he's an average player, you can't argue that losing him for a season will make a great difference to the team. If you are arguing that pick #25 was wasted on him, you have no evidence until he plays and we see what he can do for the team. Until then it's just your supposition.

Maybe Roos et al assessed where the club is at and the expected progress to be made, and decided that a good player in the system this year (especially with the potential of Weideman or Oliver) was worth more than a first-round pick next year. Don't over-emphasise the importance of losing Melksham. He was traded to play a running role off half back, a type of player we need. He cost us pick #25. Standing out for a year is not 'catastrophic'. Why be so concerned that we are without him for just a season? Can't have it both ways, either he is 'good' and we can wait, or he is 'average' and it doesn't matter that much.

I'm not expecting 'guns'. I'm expecting players who are more competitive than the ones we 'let go', who do their job and who may improve the list. There will be 'failures', but that's the nature of drafting and recruiting. Let's not deny in all the pessimism that some players do better with a change. Ted Richards was 'let go' by Essendon and became a premiership player with the Swans. He's not a world beater but was a very effective backman in a premiership side. So was Rhyce Shaw, 'let go' by Collingwood. Maybe Roos just created a better environment for them. Vince was 'let go' by Adelaide. Do you want to send him back?

Probably taking my post a bit too seriously mate.

I think the title of this thread is a bit wrong. The transition to Goodwin is not being treated as just a 'handball'. That implies avoidance of responsibility, a quick changeover and letting Goodwin sink or swim. It should be gradual ... more like a series of transition moves linking from a defensive kick-out for a brilliant goal.

I wouldn't see that as particularly sinister. Jack will be 25 this year, and some of his cohorts in the 2009 draft have now played 110-130 games. That puts him well behind with perhaps 6-7 years of his career left. His time is indeed "borrowed" given he has missed so much.

But the governance issues are inextricably entwined. It seems to me that WADA and ASADA are happy with the result. Either they haven't got the power to prosecute the club or they're not interested in further action. You'd best ask them. I'd suspect it would be useless for them to keep going, given the governance penalties that have already been applied by the AFL. I'm satisfied that Essendon has been punished enough without dragging it on for another few years.

Add in Hird's references to Thymomodulin rather than Thymosin B4. Thymomodulin is used for conditions such as immune disorders, infections, rheumatoid arthritis and skin diseases. Thymosin Beta-4 provides a range of benefits including increasing lean muscle mass, helping to repair tendons and ligaments and increasing endurance. To paraphrase Hird, "why would Dank want to give them thymomodulin. It makes no sense".

Yes, I think it's vindictive. Essendon have (quite rightly) been heavily punished and will be a basket case for years. Their supporters will have to put up with years of taunting about drug cheats. Yet you ask for more. I'd question whether it's really just punishment or justice you want. The player suspensions obviously came from WADA. The club punishment as a result of the diabolical program is the AFL's responsibility, and they have already done it through fines, draft penalties, Hird's suspension (and Dank's life ban as a result of the AFL drugs tribunal). You can't punish them twice for the same error. All the perpetrators (Dank, Robinson, Hird, Thompson etc) are no longer at the club (three by sacking), and I don't see the point. The recent team concessions came from the AFL, just to keep Essendon fielding a team. They're hardly a 'reward'. I don't think that's a bad result, and there's no way I'd want to be in their position.

Agreed WJ. Reid says he was out of the loop and deliberately sidestepped, Hird says he was right in the loop and OK'ed the program. Overall, Hird said he'd made mistakes and carries a sense of responsibility and guilt. But still proclaims total innocence regarding any banned substances. Tracey Holmes didn't refer to one single paragraph from the CAS decision that would contradict this belief. It was a poor piece of interviewing that apart from Reid gave no new understandings or information. All you could say really was that Hird looks exceptionally worn out.

Saying "every other team did it" sounds like the sort of excuse Essendon supporters would use to ameliorate their culpability and guilt.

There's always the possibility (I'd suggest likelihood) that Essendon were deluded enough to be the only club doing it. You can't raise a "possibility" and then proceed with the argument as if the possibility is true.

Everything the club has suffered is a punishment for their drug program. But if you want to be vindictive, go right ahead.

$2 million fine for poor governance Team kicked out of the 2013 finals Loss of 2013 draft picks Loss of 2014 draft picks Hird suspended for 12 months and later sacked Corcoran suspended for 6 months Dank found guilty by ASADA and unable to work in sport forever Thompson fined $30,000 Watson most likely to lose his Brownlow medal Fine of up to $600,000 by Workcover for unsafe work practices 34 players suspended for two years (reduced by backdating) Reputations ruined and the club probably uncompetitive for 3-4 years Honestly ... how much more punishment do you want?

The Age had Hurley at CHB in that list, but he's one of the players suspended.

"The PA has grown in influence and size to become a respected champion of players and the game ... AFL Players’ is passionate about instilling a sense of integrity ...." You'd have to wonder after yesterday's effort whether the Players Association is the slightest bit interested in being a "champion of the game", with a "sense of integrity". They're just another self-interested trade union.

So you applaud the WADA decision, except for the penalty they handed out and you want to add more? When every player has served their penalty, they are entitled to resume their trade, as far as I'm concerned. Melksham has been through a lot (and is culpable for it), and now misses a season of football with a new club. But that's punishment enough, and WADA says so..

The 'team sport versus individual sport' distinction is a furphy. A huge number of athletes coming under the WADA code play in team sports.

The AFLPA is akin to a trade union trying to keep the jobs of a small group of workers who have openly flouted workplace safety regulations, favouring them over the great majority of other workers whose ongoing safety and wellbeing ought to be paramount. They need to ask whose interests they really represent.

At the back of the CAS judgement is an outline of costs. Costs of the arbitration have to be paid by the players (75%) and the AFL (25%), plus a figure of 30,000 Swiss Francs (A$42,800) to be paid by the 34 players and the AFL to WADA for its investigation. Could be several thousand dollars per player as well as other income losses etc. I wonder if Essendon is going to cough up for the player's costs.

Our midfield might be 'ordinary' in terms of 2015 output, but I don't think it's 'ordinary' in terms of potential. It then becomes a question of experience and individual player improvement, and if that's not in 2016 then it will be in 2017. The sky's the limit as far as I'm concerned. I think the quality and potential of the young players is at least as good as what the Western Bulldogs and Richmond had a year or two ago, and they both made finals in 2015.

I can remember far lower points in the club's history than that. Like the whole of the 1970s.