sue

You make an excellent point about short-term tanking to prepare for a final (not cheating apparently) versus longer-term tanking (to improve next year). But really BB, you shouldn't underestimate the degree of self-loathing that goes on on this site whenever the smallest opportunity arises. How anyone could raise our tanking in this context, let alone compare our tanking with what EFC has done and is still doing to the game, is beyond me. Ed: Sorry, I shouldn't have said 'self-loathing' I really meant 'self-flaggelation'

Makes a lot of sense to me at least. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/recovery-session-new-dog-teaches-little-dogs-big-trick-20150518-gh4fqv.html

It's not amazing they do that since it works so well. What is amazing is the way Essendon fans and others lap it up.

It is not a cop out. It is a factor - would mentally weak players (as well as mentally strong ones) not get their confidence up if they had a few weaker teams to play? Of course they would. If players are not at AFL standard, no amount of mental toughness will help. How about us fielding a team of hairy-chested Demonland posters next week. They all would be mentally tough, but I doubt if many could kick a ball 20 metres. Getting back to the original point, I don't think the AFL was thinking at all when it put us up against 3 top teams in a row. I think they have so many constraints in doing the draw to do with making money, TV etc that the rest of the draw is pot luck. But I would have hoped that one of their constraints would have been to not put a hopefully improving bottom team in such a difficult situation, but apparently it wasn't a priority.

Well that makes sense of why he was dropped after being a reasonable sub. Faith in selection panel restored.

Didn't spot that but it is a fantasy of mine that someone will hack into those screens and insert a few pointed comments about Hird & co.

I'd have accepted your argument more easily if several players other than Watts were also booed when they came on and got their first kick.

Would like to see the same analysis for several other players before I singled out Watts for having too many <average entries. Still puzzled as to why he wasn't dropped last week if he needed to be dropped rather than have him on the bench as several posters have mentioned. Rather than assume the selection panel has gone totally mad, I'll assume dropping him this week is for general form plus a match-up issue.

I hope no one is keeping records.

I don't understand dropping Watts this week and not last week. What was the point having him on the bench last week? He did reasonably when he came on. I wonder what he was expected to do last week to justify being selected this week.

They don't necessarily have to chose Tribunal members for a particular outcome, just chose members who are sympathetic to the AFL generally. And then hope they will deliver the AFL-preferred verdict if there is enough doubt to allow the members to make that decision without looking obviously biased. But what about David Jones? Am I wrong that he previously showed a tendency to deliver the AFL's preferred outcomes when he let Barry Hall off to play in a final when anyone else, including Hall at any other time, would have got suspended. ed to add: I agree WADA would not use bias in an appeal. There is no legal evidence of it.

I respected Redleg's responses to those who suggested the Tribunal was rigged. But the fact that David Jones who chaired the "we can't join the dots tribunal" was on the panel that let Barry Hall off is clear evidence that he is a guy who will bend his judgement to suit the AFL. I dimly recall a counter that Redleg or someone made to that earlier, but it looks damning to me. Anyone?

Hird's gone too far this time surely. He is implying that ASADA was determined to prosecute EFC to the point of destroying evidence which proved them innocent. Quite a claim - should only appeal to the delusional.

ASADA comments on Hird's latest line: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-13/asada-refuses-to-be-drawn-on-hird-claims/6468000 When contacted for a response on Wednesday, an ASADA spokesman issued a one-line statement: "ASADA CEO Ben McDevitt stands by his previous comments regarding the deplorable lack of records in this matter".

We hear a lot about the stress caused to players being named by CAS. What about the stress of those who were on the list but have not been accused? They will be relieved that it is now known to everyone that they are definitely innocent.

He grabbed his shoulder at least once v Sydney.

Sports lawyer/academic on ABC radio just now saying decision to appeal was surprising. But not taking the usual media/EFC line. She said it was surprising because AFL is not an international support and because WADA doesn't often appeal having limited resources. Shows how significant this is.

I'm not. While it would hurt if the MFC was involved in drugs etc, it has to be stomped out. Though I'm sure we wouldn't get the same level of sympathetic and sycophantic treatment from the media.

Especially when ASADA said (in only slightly more diplomatic language) that they are not going to appeal to the AFL because there is no point in going back to the same turkeys and expect a different result.

Amusing comments on the Age's article. The doozy is the conspiracy theory by Bomber54: The timing of his announcement is a deliberate ploy to distract from tonight's Federal Budget Speech. I'm just not sure why WADA is concerned about the Oz budget. Or perhaps the budget is meant to be a distraction from the WADA decision? Or was WADA hoping Essendon won't notice they are appealing because Little & Hird are focussing on the tax on booze in the budget? I'm confused ...

As several posters have said, it defies belief that any program as described in Ziggy's report would not keep records in this professional scientific age. So their absence now is more than highly suspicious. You have a lot of respect here Ash, as does my mate who has given away supporting EFC and AFL. Don't know what will bring him back, but I suspect a clearing out of Hird and co would satisfy him. He'd probably forgive the players assuming they were duped of pressured -maybe even if they were individual drug cheats. But the admin, never.

If announced, this would be a terrible outcome for the players, especially if they don't really know what was injected (or know they are guilty, in which case my sympathy evaporates).

Agree. I'm not saying we haven't done poorly, but those who praise the GWS recruiting over ours need to look at the statistics. GWS got a very large number of high draft picks, we got a few. Given that not that many top picks end up top players, the more you have the better your chances. It is not like tattslotto where buying 4 tickets does increase your chances by a factor of 4, but your odds are still bugger-all.

I didn't see much sign of Sydney slacking off in the last quarter. Any side trying to get well up the ladder for the finals will go for the 100 point kill against a team which only manages 1 goal in a half. Credit to our blokes that Sydney didn't succeed.

Normally the healthiest are the most successful at having and rearing babies. There is no real evidence for your second sentence, though as I said, perhaps footballers are a special category. I doubt it - another fad will overtake it. Even so, a lot of its benefit may well be a placebo effect.