bing181

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he was joining in full training even before Xmas/the toe. Good to get the positive news, and let's all hope for Round 1, but he's missed a lot of actual football training, to the point that he hasn't done any at all since this time last year.

I believe we need depth players if we are to become a top 8 side.

That SEN article is a magnificent example of how to spell something out without ever mentioning it.

It's climate change denialism that makes me think of religion: no facts, but lots of leaps of faith.

"So the AFL rules did change, but can any amount of legal hocus-pocus give the players any sound basis of appeal? The short answer is, no; such an appeal will fail. The mere fact the AFL's rules did not expressly state WADA had untrammelled appeal rights does not mean WADA's rights were limited."

Interesting that we seem to be able to measure a distortion in spacetime 1.3 billion light years away, but somehow we can't even work out what's happening on our own planet and "the science is unproven". Interesting that we seem to be able use modelling to predict that gravitational waves disrupt spacetime, but somehow the models in regard to climate change are unreliable.

We've supposedly got some of the best development coaches in the league. Why should people be surprised if there's some actual ... development. Yes, even to players who we thought had none left in them.

The majority of governments world wide support and endorse the science of climate change and many, many of them are to the right, often well to the right. Carry on.

Surprised this thread is still going. But as it is, some nice work here in regards to cognitive bias, Ted Cruz etc. etc. Credits etc. at the end.

No EFC players checked anything with ASADA. AOD was always illegal under S0. Always. But there was some confusion over the information that ASADA gave the ACC, in particular, that it wasn't banned under S2, which is the class where AOD would have fallen.

In the world of WADA, being duped doesn't make you innocent. Though ... they didn't do enough to avoid being duped in any case. Once again, this isn't just about doping, it's about not putting yourself in a situation where doping could take place.

Yes, agree. On the other hand, when TMac is running the ball out of the back line and looks up to see two Melbourne players, Jack Watts (just for argument's sake ...) and Jack Viney, both marked by their opponents, who's he going to kick it to? You want your team mates to be tough bruisers. Just not when they're playing on you.

Actually, I couldn't find it funny. More ... tragic. The guy has some serious problems. Unreadable and disturbing.

Some good points/questions here. But ... all academic I would imagine. It won't even get to (Swiss) court, yet get up.

If the Swiss court upholds the players' appeal, all that happens is it goes back to CAS to hear again. Procedure perhaps slightly different, but same case, same evidence, presumably, same result. Seriously. http://www.eurosport.com/tennis/atp-tour/2006-2007/cas-reject-canas-appeal_sto1190935/story.shtml#com-tw-sh

I don't think you'd find too many people in Europe who want multiple currencies back. The only folly of the Euro was not being more rigorous (or even ruthless!) when it was first set up. In any case, the Swiss aren't too fussy when it comes to money, though rather more fussy when it comes to applying the letter of the law. I just dont know what the players are thinking. Has no-one ever sat down with them and said "Look, it's like this ...."?

The course Hird did at Insead in Fontainebleau is in English. And there are so many English-speakers living/working/studying in and around Fontainebleau (one of the local high schools is even bilingual), about the only thing that's missing is the morning copy of the Herald-Sun in the local Tabac.

Also excellently covered by Chris Kaias: https://chriskaias.wordpress.com (i) The 2010 Anti-Doping Code does not specify the type of appeal It would appear that Mr Gordon has not correctly represented what is in the 2010 AFL Anti-Doping Code for the following reasons: The 2010 AFL Anti-Doping Code does not stipulate that rulings can only be appealed if the decision involves legal error or gross unreasonableness. The 2010 Code does not specify or limit the type of appeal at all; and As the 2010 Code does not specify the type of appeal to the AFL Appeals Board, the position would arguably be the default position under normal AFL Appeals Board procedure, which is to limit an appeal to errors of law or gross unreasonableness. The default position under the CAS procedure is a ‘de novo’ hearing. Further to this, the 2015 Code adds provision 20.1(b), which says that Appeals Board proceedings are ‘de novo’. However, even the 2015 Code is silent on the type of appeal to the CAS. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the rules changed in 2015. The 2010 Code did not specify the type of appeal for either the Appeals Board or the CAS, and the 2015 Code still does not refer to the type of appeal to CAS. .... and ... (ii) The newer 2015 Anti-Doping Code would apply in any case Even if the 2010 Code had in some way restricted the type of appeal to the CAS, the CAS Panel noted at [114] that it is the newer 2015 Code that applies to the procedural (as opposed to the substantive) aspects of the appeal. As argued by leading academic Richard Garnett in Substance and Procedure in Private International Law, issues concerning appeals are procedural and not substantive ([6.16]–[6.19]).

or ... how many murder convictions would there be if there had to be eye witnesses?

I presume you're talking about psychology, and there are plenty of places on the net where you can take it up, and plenty of people who will disagree with you. However, areas such as neurology and neuropsychology are definitely scientific areas of study, and there are a range of mental health conditions where there are real, observable, changes in the physical structure of the brain and in the way it operates. Once again, on the level of a serious mental health issue, this has nothing to do with "I'm having a bad day".

I don't know why people keep bringing this up. You can't simply declare yourself to have a serious mental health issue any more than you can declare that you have cancer or a serious heart problem. These are all medical conditions, mental or not, and can be diagnosed as such.

Except that there's only one, she's a junior and it hasn't yet been established that it was her bike. UCI have been openly testing for motors for a couple of years now, but this is the first time they've come across one. Also, this isn't a cloak-and-dagger rigging of a bike either, the bikes in question are openly available online with a motor as a standard option. They're made for old blokes like me who like to ride but can't keep up with their younger mates ... https://www.salden.nl/nl/wilier-triestina-e-cycl-ocrosser-met-trapondersteuning.html

Mental illness is still an illness, and can be (and is) diagnosed by appropriate medical professionals. I don't know that it has much to do with "the player's word" in this or any other case.

Good to see you work "pansy" in there as an insult, though you missed one by not referring to him as a girl.

They consented to Thymosin. They didn't check what it actually was, and hid it from the club doctor. Not a leg to stand on, assault charge or not. Also, the "charge Dank with assault" notion is trying to get the players to fall through the cracks between sports law and civil law, where the onus and level of proof are not the same. Even proving they were deliberately misled doesn't get them past the "you are responsible for what goes into your body" part of sports law/WADA code, Dank or no Dank.