sue

At least the Guardian is more rational. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/nov/16/resigned-acceptance-over-brownlow-medal-masks-afls-policy-failings

true, but perhaps not much different than the effect of the player having the most votes being suspended near the end of the year.

If that is what (and all) he said, then I withdraw my earlier remark - to some extent at least. Trouble is there is no contrition shown by the AFL, EFC or by many media hacks. They'd never get parole.

if you want a strong indication that Watson is in no way contrite, you just have to read that.

I'm surprised that several posters say this has let Gill off the hook. As usual we don't know the full story. It is possible Gil/AFL did make the decision that he couldn't keep it (albeit too late), told Jobe who then realised that he'd look a whole lot better if he appeared to take the initiative and hand it back. The whole thing was doubtless stage-managed one way or the other.

Perhaps if Jobe had a Russian or Chinese name the AFL may have done the right thing.

If the AFL decides to remove the medal, they will advise Jobe in advance, so he is very likely to then beat them to it and 'voluntarily' hand it back.

I reckon your case is comatose rather than resting

So at least some of the players were not imply 'naive' and 'too trusting'. good. As I understand it, they are asked to list any supplements they have taken, not just did you or didn't you. If you list some but omit others for which there is evidence, I think it is very reasonable to assume there is something fishy going on with the omitted ones - to say the least.

That's one thing we agree on at least. But let me push you a little. Do you not at least think that the older more experienced players ("leaders") are more at fault than the junior ones.

I agree 100% with all you said. Recall I did say 'the only favourable interpretation I could put on it' and even if that were true, the AFL is $%$%@

The only favourable interpretation that I can put on the AFL's delay in making a decision is that they want that time for people to work on Jobe to convince him to give back the medal voluntarily. That being a positive view of the AFL's position shows just how hopeless they are.

I agree that those 2 could well have known what they were doing. But the rules don't extend to life bans. They have done their time. I may be a bit uncomfortable, but I'm no going to boo them when the AFL admin and the EFC organization really need booing.

Saty: I agree that we have to treat Melk as one of us, having done his time. Unfortunately there sems no easy way of moving this debate back to the EFC Swiss thread.

I think you are relentlessly missing the point. It is one thing to make an argument that WADA shouldn't ban everything in sight, but them is the rules and I would argue there is no workable alternative. But that is irrelevant to the discussion. Just because the drug may not work, does not change the original intent which was to cheat. The degree of guilt to ascribe to the various parties at EFC (possibly naive young players, experience players, coaches, officials) can be argued. You can't argue that just because their cheating failed, they didn't cheat. But that is precisely what you are doing.

Why on earth do you keep repeating the sentence bolded above? It is irrelevant to the discussion whether the drugs they took worked or failed to have the desired effect. It doesn't make the behaviour of the players or the club any better or worse that the club's cheating plans may not have worked (as judged by you or anyone). So why do you keep saying it? It must indicate something about your thinking on this issue, but I can't see what it is.

I think you will find Saty that it is the other way around. Swisse is piggy-backing on the fact Hawthorn have one the last 3 premierships.

You don't have to be aware of specific evidence in this case to know that post by Saty is plain nonsense. He is usually more sensible than that so I expectsomeone has hi-jacked his account. So WADA just bans everything in sight so they can justify their existence and keep busy? I would have thought anyone can see that WADA and CAS have more work than they can possibly handle.

It is totally irrelevant whether or not the 'experiment' worked. They weren't experimenting to see if they could find drugs that would slow the players down or make them better lovers or compose better symphonies than Beethoven. They were trying to cheat in the game we love. Full Stop.

for a moment there I thought you said you had seen them doing a bank job.

This list is getting out of hand. If we keep on winning you blokes will have to go for records like "Since 1988 we haven't beaten Sydney at the SCG on a day when a north westerly was blowing until half-time after which it swung around to an easterly." I look forward to that.

The AFL is happy to make new 'interpretations' on the fly. Since they said some years back that this sort of tactic would lead to a free kick against in order to protect players' heads, it would hardly count of a biggest new rule of the week to instruct the umps to stamp it out.

Is it true that deliberate rushed behind is now being more rigorously enforced? I thought it was just a thought bubble from one of the geniuses at AFL HQ as something that might come in. One of the commentators did imply that it was true, but I have zero confidence that those guys know what they are talking about. Anyone know for sure?

Completely agree. Where will it end? Recall the C'wood goal where the C'wood player was paid a mark and picked up the ball and played on and scored a goal, should we have a review of whether he played on forward of the mark. (I will certainly be reviewing that when I watch the replay!)

dangerous stuff that Bex - it was banned eventually. Clearly an ump stepping back cannot keep out of the players' way. It has to be the players responsibility. The stupid thing about the umpires telling the players at every ball up that they are going straight back is that it is completely unnecessary since they always go straight back. The players can easily work out where straight back is, and telling them doens't ad any extra information, so what is the point of telling them?