sue

It better be a big cup to fit all the asterisks on it.

Well they maximised it where I live to the extent there is no match on TV. Probably no loss anyway.

No thanks. Given the uncertainties that surround testing and timing, not worth the risk to our players.

As I posted earlier, teams should schedule training and testing so thaat results come back before the next training. I don't see that would put impossible pressure on testing, but maybe it might.

I hate to defend Essendon but they didnt let him hang around for 20mins after they got the result. He was there for 20 mins before the result arrived, then was told to bugger off home. So we are told, though we're not told who he is living with etc. as yet.

Looking at that timeline the only question I'd have about Essendon's actions would be what did they tell him to do on Saturday beyond not training when the result came back . Eg. did he go home to a house shared with other teammates etc? More generally, I'd think it would be wise to ensure no one comes to training until the result of their last test comes back. That would only require scheduling training and tests suitably (assuming tests results take a predictable time to be returned, as seems reasonable). And it would avoid what happened in those 20 minute son Sat morning. No, he went there to train, but was stopped when the Friday test result came back. He was then given a test. So he would have come into contact with Essendon people, even if he left before actually training. As I said above, they should schedule training after all test results have come back so they can call people and tell them not to come in.

thank you. I was about to post a timeline asking what and when and ask if anyone could actually fill in the blanks.

I fear you are right. It may end up just a season with an evolving fixture of what would then be ad hoc practice matches with a chance to try out some new players and ideas.

As I said, I mistook the Ch7 report to be about training after the Friday test result had come back. We don't have full information. If Essendon put him in isolation immediately after the 'weak +ve' test came back, then I don't think they are guilty of misbehaviour. Though it could be argued that if Essendon assumed all would be OK if the next (Sat) test was OK, Essendon was playing with fire. It would be prudent to wait another week before letting him loose given the Friday result and the uncertainty in the testing.

If this is true and he's not training entirely alone, but is with Essendon players which would imply club knowledge, Essendon should be in massive trouble. WHOOPS - sorry, forgot what day it is. Friday training is OK if test was not concluded before training.

Was Gil said otherwise apparently. If (and it is a big if) Essendrug sent him into proper isolation on Friday and didn't let him near anyone till the Sat test was concluded, then I don't think they did anything wrong (it pains me to say). On the other hand.....

The difference is the nature of the test. I agree. But we don't know that he didn't go home on Friday and isolate (who is he living with?). No clear statement as to the facts as yet.

As much as I agree with your general sentiments re Essendon, they could have taken the bet that the Friday test was wrong, knowing he could be withdrawn if Sat proved +ve. Trouble is in the latter case, we'd be where we are now. So I don't think merely naming him in the side was naughty in itself. There may be naughtiness however. We shall see (or probaby not).

The trouble with the CV19 tests is that they ar enot 100% accurate either way. ALl the AFL can do is assume the worst before the worst happens.

I agree with all that, but feeling soory for Essendon is a step too far.

It's unlikely he'd be here that long without permanent residency, But for completeness, I believe non-residents/non-citizens can apply for special exemptions, (like visiting a dying relative, which caused an issue in NZ). I trust playing AFL would not be considered for an exemption.

BTW, in response to those who asked how he could get back into the country in the first place, he is probably a permanent resident (been here 6 years I think) and thus is allowed in along with citizens.

actually 18 in some way, any of which might affect the outcome of the season.

True but what I meant (and should have been clear about) is that it is plucked out of the air whether 97% or 98% or 14 days or 15 days etc is the magic number to protect us all. I suspect whatever percentage that gave us 14 days was chosen because some ancient Sumerian decided we would have 7 day weeks.

Trying to understand Essendon's degree of culpability or otherwise: Tested on Fri with weak +ve signs, tested Sat at X o'clock and was +ve, confirmed at Y O'clock. When was he at training?

Well a lot of what goes on in the AFL is arguably criminal from a supporters point of view, but this would land someone in jail.

14 days was a numebr plucked out of the air to a large extent.

Because you don't always test positive if you have it. But if there is a +ve test, then even if it is a false +ve test, you'd be mad to asssume so. And it's still not clear exactly when you are contageous.

If that's true, heads should roll.

And do you think any selection panel in the league doesn't know rule 1? Things are sometimes not so clear as later statements might imply.