sue

I'm not commenting on boycotting, but I wouldn't compare breaching the salary cap (or 'not tanking') with what Essendon has done.

I'm old enough to remember all this, but I don't. You guys are worrying me....

Ha. Of course I meant the players playing. Not the banned players. What a shameful exhibition this will be if they roll out and applaud the banned players and Hird. I fear it may get international attention. If the AFL doesn't pull them into line, then I despair of them.

Surely the best solution for the perplexed EFC-hating supporter (and for those who can attend free of charge) is to show up, supports the Demons, but have some sort of banner which puts the boot into the drug team. Since none of the players on the field are convicted drug cheats, thought is needed in getting the wording right. My suggestion is to finds words to express satisfaction that we are playing a clean team. How can any AFL Big Brother object to that.

Can the AFL object to a banner reading "happy to be playing a clean team"?

That's where we differ. If I say I'll be that at 4pm or between 4 and 6pm I won't be there before 4pm because I think it is rude to show up early. The person I'm visiting may not be ready - I don't want to embarrass my host if he hasn't had time to roll out the red carpet. When a club says 4 to 6 weeks, I assume 4 is the minimum, not some sort of average for that sort of injury. Assuming anything else is just wishful thinking - no wonder so many on here get so depressed about injury recovery times.

Disagree - estimate does not mean average. And anyway does anyone not read 'at least' into such estimates (without being a MFC supporter). It's implicit. It is an "estimate" but there is no reason to assume the player will recover faster than the minimum in the estimate. And plenty of things that could go wrong to make it impossible to recover by the upper estimate. If at 2pm I say I estimate I will be at your place between 4 and 5pm because I am 2.5 hours away, you'd be more than surprised to see me at 3pm. And if my car breaks down I may not get there till 7pm.

That 50% argument is not correct. We're not talking about tossing a coin, but the minimum time for recovery. If they say 4 to 6 weeks, it doesn't mean that there may be a miracle recovery in 2 weeks. I doubt if giving false hope to supporters is a major factor - after all they get it wrong for players who haven't even raised expectations in supporters (other than those who salivate over a #46 pick). Keeping opposition teams guessing is probably a factor, though probably not a major ones.

The plan seems to be to poke the bear multiple times, get a reaction each time and them claim that the ASADA is picking on the AFL. Pathetic really, but will probably work.

Gotta love the AFL. - they are more worried about how a player fills a cup rather than the drugs that might be in it.

Agree. That for a change they didn't suspend first and announce policy later is one small positive in this.

yes, but the MRP seems to use loaded dice.

Just re-watched the tackle. Clear to me that most of the danger came from the Port player trying to spin out of the tackle. I don't really see how the tackler can be responsible nor what they can do to avoid it except not tackle someone trying to spin. Which is absurd.

As I replied to Nutbeam in the other thread, I suspect a tackle where you pin the arms but try to not bring the opponent to the ground and fail, is more likely to lead to injuries than a (modest) sling with the arms free.

Nutbean, seems to me that that new tackling technique is more likely to cause injuries (when the not bringing to ground fails) than a sling where the player's arms are free.

$1000 fine for the "sling" tackle.

Personally I think that every player who has the slightest ache after a game should immediately go in for a full body CT and MRI scan. And anyone sent off for the blood rule should have a top-up transfusion. Just to be safe.

I don't see why they are tedious - it is a significant issue and one hopefully where we have dodged any bad outcome. I'm also glad we have him as things stand.

An word of praise for the AFL - for the first time it was possible to hear all the questions asked of Goodwin in the post-match interview. I hope this is the norm for the season and not a result of there being few journos attending NAB games.

BB as an Essendon hater myself, I'm happy to say that if Goodwin was involved with drugging his team, then I will happily see him go regardless of the effect on our club. I expect most of the anti-Hird/EFC people you attempt to criticise have the same view, but it irks you that they don't call for Goodwin's head on a daily basis. And why should they - the issues that they comment on are the events as they (endlessly) unfold - all to deal with legal actions etc involving people whose name is not Goodwin. Unlike you, I think EFC were as guilty as hell and compounded that by their subsequent actions bringing disgrace on our game. They should have put their hands up like the rugby club did and this would all have been over years ago. No Essendon-lovers can ever again shake their head and tut-tut when the Russian water polo team or the Chinese hockey team etc is called out for drug cheating.

But is it a case of can't bear weight, or is avoiding doing so until it is fully investigated?

They mostly reflected the speed with which some supporters start cutting their wrists.

I wasn't arguing for banning anything. I was simply saying a bit of local corruption is no big deal compared to what the introduction of on-line betting will do and has done because of the scale it can bring. If you were a crook/terrorist/whatever, think how keen you'd be to launder some money on a curling match in the Shetlands via your friendly on-line gambling site based in Hong Kong.

Not so sure that would be true. While local 'underground' betting can be a corruption problem it is a least going to be on a small scale. Once there is on-line betting, the world's the fixer's oyster. When people start betting $1M on a NAB match, we'll know something is wrong. Trouble is we won't know about those bets.

BB, just because someone thinks something is wrong does not mean that they also think it should be banned.