bing181

As an aside on that, my son has come through elite level tennis - or, just under elite level - and the constant technical work is a real grind. A couple of kids above him, who at the age of 12 had full sponsorships with Nike, scholarships etc., have now stopped completely, as they're just burnt out. I wouldn't worry too much about the draftees having to work on their technique, it's the intent and application that's important, and if they have that, it'll sort itself out.

First up, there isn't and won't be any new information, no-one's going to suddenly turn up with a 3 year old vial of TB4 that was at the back of someone's locker. Secondly, as for "new charges", what kind of charges? If it's for/against individuals, that's already been covered. Finally, as to what Essendon were punished for, it was clear what it was for, in the same way that it was clear what our $500K fine was for. Essendon as a club couldn't have been charged for implementing a banned drug program, because that hadn't been proved (and still hasn't), but they certainly weren't barred from the finals and draft picks etc. etc. because they'd been a bit sloppy in the accounting department.

What Armstrong precedent? In the Armstrong case, the non-cyclists (support staff) involved were all charged at the same time as part of the same process. If there was a case against Goodwin or any other support staff, they would already have been charged - as Dank has been. The current case is the end of it for the players and any/all individuals involved, and the AFL have already punished Essendon as a club.

Lots of speculation. And not just here. I fail to see how anyone, much less the AFL, can give assurances about the outcome of an independent judiciary panel. We will not see Melksham next year.

We haven't given up anything. Which you choose to ignore.

They'll get some sort of "no significant fault" discount of 6 months, perhaps (though unlikely IMHO) 12 months. That would make it more like 13+ months. They'll miss a season. In part why Melksham was offered a 4 year deal IMHO. Would be interested to see the details of the contract.

And so it starts! Thus the need for mids, mids, mids and more mids. All very well people trying for nearest to the pin on the first 22, but we'll be doing well if we ever get that first 22 on the ground at once, let alone keeping them there for the season.

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.

Interesting that all the Draft picks we took had been held back through injuries. It has either enabled us to pick above our weight, or get lumbered with injury-prone players. I'll go with the former until evidence proves otherwise!

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.

Smoke and mirrors I suspect, pushing us to take Weidean at 3, so they get both Oliver and Parish?

I'm another that doesn't think it was/is written in stone, or that we traded up for a particular player. Info continues to arrive, as it has done over the past few weeks: draft combine results, further interviews and reviews, info we may have gleaned during or post the trade period (e.g. we seem pretty onside with GC, and may well now have a fairly good handle on who they're into at 6), which potential draftees may/may not have been picked up by the police for a traffic indiscretion, additional testing (e.g. Weideman last week). My feeling now is Oliver/Weideman, but wouldn't be surprised or even disappointed if it didn't pan out that way: Weideman's testing didn't do him any favours.

So, headed in today to get around to building that Ikea shelving (see above ...). Walked past the Bataclan (just round the corner from where we were going). Found it impossible to imagine the reality of the horror of it all. Seems unreal, to be standing there on a beautiful Parisian autumn morning, looking at a scene of a massacre. The sign out the front still displays: "Coming: Eagles of Death Metal". Even looking at the laneway down the side, and seeing the second floor window where the woman was hanging by her fingertips until someone managed to pull her in ... like rewatching a dream. Hard to grasp. What brought it home was this: across the road, is a small park. Completely surrounded now by flowers, candles, dedications, photos, flags, you-name-it, lots of people there standing round silently, laying flowers etc., along with others with little stalls handing out hot drinks and sandwiches, the whole street still lined with TV crews and camera trucks. And at one point amongst it all - a woman's bike, a run of the mill, thrash around Paris bike, locked to the fence: but covered in flowers. Someone's bike that the owner, for whatever reason, hasn't been able to come back and collect. They were real people, with real lives, real families, senselessly cut down. Difficult. (took a photo, but can't work out how to post it ...)

With all due respect, what any of us or our mates may have done as 18 year olds is just irrelevant. None of us were on the verge of lucrative careers as professional athletes. He's in the system, and has been for some time. He knows what's involved. Beggars belief.

Roosy: Enough already. You've made your point. #threadhighjack

... and we're off.

As an aside, not as uncommon as it might seem around this age, and not just in footy. Underscores just how much effort is needed, above/beyond ability.

On the surface, a common-sense proposal. But: - it creates an enormous loophole - the players should have known, or at least done everything they could have to know - the players almost certainly knew what was going on, enough to know that they were sailing close to the wind

Which is what we've been doing in regards to talls/KPP's: King, Oscar Mac, Frost. As everyone keeps saying, KPP's take time. Let's give them time.

Not the kid we pick up at 3 or 7, that's for sure.

WADA don't need to get directions from anyone. They make the rules.

I'm not sure on what grounds you're making the assertions you are LH. It's a completely new hearing, starting from zero, so there's neither new or old evidence. It's all just evidence. While its an appeal, they don't refer back to the original hearing in any way, shape or form. As for the question of "their interpretation of comfortably satisfied", this goes to the essence of the appeal: There is no interpretation of "comfortably satisfied". The legal guidelines as to what it entails are clearly laid out. The appeal is not because the evidence wasn't there in the first case, it's because that yardstick of what "comfortably satisfied" entails was not correctly applied.

They don't actually. On the one hand, WADA only need to establish intent, and on the other, they only have to be found to have "probably" taken it (where probably = comfortable satisfaction). What it turns on for me is that WADA would never have appealed unless they were sure they could nail them. End of.

As some know, I live in Paris. Nowhere near where this happened, though I know it well. My wife's office is in the 10th, we were due to go in today and put together some Ikea shelving (don't ask ...). My son has school this morning, even though it's Saturday, but that has been cancelled. Hard to think of what kids must feel growing up amongst these kinds of events. Around us, it's very very quiet. We live near an RER station, and there's usually a stream of people coming and going, even moreso on a Saturday. Not this morning. From what I can see, no-one can quite grasp what's gone on. The local press and media are primarily just trying to catch up on events, there's very little analysis or reflection. But you would have to say that it's something of a game-changer, and I suspect that our idea of what a "normal day in Paris" entails is about to change. Tragic. Hard times.

Perhaps. He's new, maybe they're just trying to get a feel for where he's at, maybe there's a low-level injury etc. etc. I don't know that I'd read too much into it. Yet ...