bing181

Well spotted. I stand corrected!

AOD is on the S0 list because it hasn't been approved for use on humans, and is thus, not approved for use on humans. i.e., banned.

If only: "A number of studies have shown that particularly in the United States and in the UK tabloid press, the media significantly understated the strength of scientific consensus on climate change ..." It's precisely BECAUSE we don't have fair and balanced reporting on AGW, especially in countries like Australia, that views like yours have any traction at all.

Lots of records falling here in Europe as well. In France, December temp is running 2.8 degrees above the long-term average, and we're getting days where it's 5-10 degrees above average. This, following on from similar temps in November, have us heading for the hottest year on record (or close to). School holidays start this weekend, where people traditionally head for the slopes. But the situation on all but the higher runs is pretty grim, especially for the smaller stations. FYI.

Nothing to do with it. The AFL was simply applying the rules on provisional suspension as they exist in the WADA code. Whether you agree with it or not is a separate question.

From what's known, provisional is 4 ½ months. It covers the period from when the SCN's were issued till when the players were cleared by the tribunal. They continued training, but were ineligible for competitive matches. Them's the rules. Agree with the above on "no significant fault" and how difficult it is to establish, but perhaps they (players) can make it stick.

29 and 13. Thanks for reminding us, fingers crossed.

Don't hold your breath, still waiting re the "I'll get back to you with details" from page 171. Anyway, back in the real world, agree with your predictions - though re 2), I can't see what in the code would allow them to be found guilty and still be available this year. 2 years less credit for provisional less 6 months for no significant fault would be 13 ½ months.

Given that Robinson hasn't been penalised or charged so far, hard to see how he would get dragged over the coals for what happened beforehand. For me, he's the one great enigma in all this. Hird may/may not have known the details (we can agree to disagree), but surely Robinson must have known exactly what was in those syringes.

You're setting me up here ProDee ... I don't know that any of us visit this section of the board for anything much more than curiosity or, as you put it, to get a rise. i.e. it's not really the place for any kind of debate, nor are any of us here likely to change our views because of it. Suffice to say that there's lots of info out there on all these subjects, and you don't need me to help find it. I really appreciate the contributions to Demonland from students of the game such as your good self, so I'm happy to agree to disagree on a non-footy matter. Life is short.

Nah. Tol's speculative piece has been roundly discredited, and as usual, shown to be shot through with flaws, assumptions and failures in methodology. This all just becomes a dick-measuring contest. The trouble is that the scientific consensus on climate change has a much bigger dick.

Nice article from that left-wing rag, Scientific American. Worth looking at if only for the cartoon. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-climate-skeptics-are-wrong/

The only places where the science is in question is in countries where the Murdoch press provides a forum to commentators who are to climate science what Stephen Dank is to sports science.

The debates have ended. You lost.

Doesn't quite work for me, as I put myself on ignore a while back.

Quoting is difficult across the board it seems, some comments (last few posts) on the WADA thread allude to it. It's not just me, and seems from the comments there, not just on a Mac: "My quote function isn't working" "quoting is perilous atm"

Having a lot of trouble with it on Safari/Mac OSX. For example, impossible to Quote or even reply properly ... having to do this in Google Chrome. Anyone else experiencing this?

Not even. I would say it emanates from the idea of "responsibility". Showing that you didn't intend to take a banned substance isn't enough. You have to show that you did everything you could to ensure that you didn't take a banned substance.

No. It doesn't absolve the players of anything under the WADA code.

They don't have to be found to have taken a banned substance. They don't even have to be found to have intended to take a banned substance. Google: Wade Lees I don't believe that there's anything in either the WADA code or precedence that supports the argument(s) you're putting forward.

Bomberblitz would welcome you with open arms.

Good luck with that. The criteria to meet 10.5 are clear - and almost impossible to achieve in normal circumstances. Jake: nice guy, nice get, will be nice seeing you sometime in 2017.

Technically, any further charges would be laid by the AFL - they're the ones who have to issue the SCN's. Which would then go back to the AFL tribunal, perhaps even to the same 3 wise men we had last time. Can of worms.

Fair enough - though I would suggest that a) it's a fairly murky and far-ranging situation, implicating local drug-testing labs, the national federation and the IAAF, which isn't the case here and b) it's based on information coming to light retrospectively, which is IMHO, the only basis for introducing charges against admin and support staff at Essendon (or anyone for that matter). As for Hird, he may well be the ringleader - but he has to actually have committed a doping-related offence for charges to be issued. Administration, distribution, facilitating etc. etc., it's all in the code. We shall see, but I'm not holding my breath.

What's that supposed to be, some sort of put-down? Pathetic. In any case "my sources" doesn't count as "specific examples".