bing181

... and independent of it (including funding) since the 1994 restructure. Following on from an appeal ... "In 2003 the Swiss Federal Tribunal dissected the current organisation and structure of the ICAS and CAS, concluding that the CAS was not "the vassal of the IOC" and was sufficiently independent of it, as it was of all other parties that called upon its services, for decisions it made in cases involving the IOC to be considered as true awards, comparable to the judgements of a State tribunal."

Making sweeping statements with nothing to back them up and no expertise in the field in question is not being pedantic.

It's like talking to a Trump supporter. I give you a link to 601 scientific articles on TB4, and you try and claim that " there is no scientific proof ..." There is EVERY proof that these substances work, though once again, you're completely missing the point as to HOW many of these products work when used as PED's. Valid scientific research that establishes that "this product enables faster recovery from muscle injury" is all that's needed for the likes of Dank to [censored] up their ears and start injecting it into athletes. That list above from the PED site covers the benefits of TB4 as established by scientific research.

Follow the thread.

Thas just BS Saty. You're just throwing around wild generalisations and sweeping statements with little or no actual understanding of the processes involved in substances being banned (or not).

This is a really simplistic, even ignorant comment, and whether it's deliberate or not, disingenuous. First of all, not all banned drugs are directly performance enhancing. For example, anything that enables better recovery after training or playing is in no way "performance enhancing", but clearly enables you to enhance your performance through more training. There are any number of masking agents that are banned that offer zero performance enhancement, but are banned for obvious reasons. Even some weight-loss products are banned, also for obvious reasons (just ask any cyclist) Same story with anything that "artificially" speeds up recovery from injury, which is one of the benefits of TB4, which is what the Essendon players were banned for. Secondly, there is never going to be any direct research into performance enhancement of any performance-enhancing product apart from vitamins and the like for really obvious reasons. No funding body or scientific organisation would fund research into anything to be used an illegal product, nor would any credible researcher put their name to such a study (enter the likes of Stephen Dank). On the other hand, there is a LOT of research into Thymosin beta-4, the product that Essendon players were banned for, and you can wade through any of these 601 articles and get back to us on what you find. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term="thymosin+beta(4)"[nm] Or you could go to any of the sites peddling PED's, where you'll find the benefits of TB4 (or one of its forms, especially TB-500) spelt out in full, and tell us whether any of this would give anyone who took it an advantage in any way, shape or form: Desirable effects of TB-500: differentiation of endothelial cells (blood and lymphatic vessels) growth of new blood cells keratinocyte migration collagen deposition decreases inflammation in various tissue types decreased inflamation in joints increase muscle growth increases in endurance and strength relaxed muscle spasm and improved muscle tone repair damaged heart tissue following a heart attack healing of ulcers and lesions (including stomach and intestinal ulcers) increased exchange of substance between cells overall tissue repair faster healing of wounds repair of tendons and ligaments improved flexibility of joints prevents the formations of adhesions and fibrous bands in muscles, tendons and ligaments promotes hair growth protects and restores neurons after brain injury

Examples?

Going to be interesting trade period, especially after the giddy heights of the last couple of years. After Round 2 for Hibberd, if we even get a pick in the top 40 or so, it'll be the result of some more Taylor/Viney magic. We don't even have a James Frawley ready to leave either, none of the players who might go are worth anything. Oliver, Weideman, Brayshaw, Petracca, Tyson, Salem. Guess the party had to end sometime.

I think to some extent they are ... but off-field unfortunately. We were 5 points down in the last quarter, the game was there to be won, and we needed calmer, more experienced heads, to make sure it was, Jack Viney can only do so much off his own bat. (though thought Vince was trying). No accident to see Riewoldt step up when the game was on the line. Just don't think you can underestimate the kind of experience that the players listed above bring to a team. Let's not forget that St Kilda were in the finals consistently from 2004 - 2011, including successive grand finals in 2009 - 2010. That's a LOT of big game experience to draw on, even if it's only a handful of players. I know people here talk about inside grunt and outside run and zone defence and coaches and game plans etc. etc., but it's this lack of real A-grade leaders (which isn't necessarily the same as A-grade players) that is our biggest Archilles heel at the moment. Hopefully it'll come over the next couple of years.

Experience and good form? Who would that be ... (no, it's not Lynden Dunn).

A bit stupid by Jack. Got to be bigger than that. Love his passion, but needs to add some smarts, he's going to be targeted every week, has to get used to it. All part of the learning experience. Go Dees. Trengove in.

He's not getting any younger, maybe this IS top form? We shall see. Agree, when he's playing well, he's an important contributor. But like Garland, perhaps we're starting down the other side of the slope. They're not getting any younger.

I'm not convinced. Old-style full back, stuck in a rapidly evolving game. Game gone past him?

And ... first Rising Star for 2016.

If he goes, the only positive is that we'd receive the mother-of-all compensation. Anyone know who picks 1 and 2 are likely to be in the 2017 draft?

Not sure how this "ends speculation". I would have thought it would have the opposite effect ... as the couple of posts above confirm.

... because everyone rated O'Rourke and Plowman ahead of Stringer, Wines, McRae.

As I understand it, suggesting that Melksham's contract would/should be paid by Essendon. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=HSWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&dest=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-could-be-forced-to-pay-the-salaries-of-banned-players-at-rival-clubs/news-story/f2ec419c9cfad4301ada984679405a09&memtype=anonymous

They weren't as duped as all that. Either they knew and kept quiet, or they went to some lengths to make sure they didn't know. As for the players, their behaviour only confirms they knew that what they were doing was dodgy as all hell.

Yes, and now they're being penalised for it. But once those penalties have been served, they deserve the same opportunities as all of us, or at the very least, the benefit of the doubt.

At which point I stopped reading. Satellites do not measure temperature.

Two parallel threads going on here ... we are nothing if not multitaskers. Weideman: will be surprised if he gets anything more than a token game or two late in the season. Has missed a lot of footy/training over the last 2 years, and has his work cut out, for this year at least.

These are kids, they all develop at different rates. All that that says is that Parish came on earlier than others. It doesn't say anything at all about his ceiling, or what will happen 4+ years down the track. You only have to look at some of our own recent recruits for verification. Would be happy with either of them. Or even both.

Once again, we didn't give up next year's 1st round pick - we took it this year. We haven't lost a pick. Two picks at the pointy end of the first round trumps pretty well everything IMHO, and to be able to take them sooner rather than later is some rather thick icing on the cake. We need improvement ASAP. In any case, we'll move up the ladder next year, so it's a moot discussion. (insert relevant smiley)

Agreed. OK, it's only under-age footy, but who do we have who can consistently pick out a target like that?