bing181

Too you, yes.

ANB I believe.

I believe you're incorrect, though in practical terms, it probably won't make any difference. It's for the parties involved (WADA and the Essendon payers) to agree on which jurisdiction of law should be applied, not CAS. CAS only get a say if the parties can't agree, at which point, they apply Swiss Law (if this is held in Switzerland). Given that presumably WADA will argue for Swiss law, and the Essendon players for Australian law, in the absence of an agreement, it will become Swiss law.

Been discussed here. Go back and look at what Roos is actually saying.

No.

I don't know that that's what's being said. Roos' comments reflect on a group who've never been part of a winning culture, and who haven't been immersed - on field AND off - in a winning culture. Or much of a culture at all for that matter. As such, there are still some that, it seems, don't quite trust their team mates, don't quite trust their coaches, and don't quite trust the game plan. They may do so intellectually and when it's all working, but in the heat of the moment, when the pressure is applied, it all goes out the window and they end up playing for/by themselves ... because to some extent, it's all they've ever known. Leaps of faith, the "just do this, trust me, it'll work". Always tricky.

Not to mention that old chestnut, "I'm not racist but ..."

Perhaps you should have been ...

For which we are internally grateful.

No, sorry, I meant how close they (people in general) were to getting it right/making it work. See it all the time. Was speaking generally, not so much about the players. A moment of whimsy, my apologies.

I suspect we'll never know.

Part of it, not all of it. How is it that our best players last week was an 18 year old kid? Roos' Sydney was full of players who were "not up to the level". But they did what they needed to and played as a team.

Even Yoda has a breaking point. Sounds like Roos is pretty close to his. More list changes coming. Still, you see it all around you, it's not just footy - people who just don't or can't or won't do what they need to, because ... well, just because. And you end up scratching your head and thinking "if only you knew how close you were".

Ridiculous. Just ridiculous. The big difference yesterday wasn't between Roos and Daniher/Northery, it was between our team of decent and also-ran players and a couple of genuine A-Graders who were able to single-handedly turn a game. Jones had 11 possessions in the first quarter. Boak went to him ... end of Jones, end of Melbourne. It's not complicated, and has little to do with who's sitting in the coaching box. If players can't beat their opponents, then Melbourne can't beat their opponents. End of. "Boak gathered an equal game-high 31 disposals (18 contested), as well as eight clearances and played an influential role around stoppages. The Port skipper led a dominant midfield, which included outstanding contributions from Brad Ebert (32 disposals, nine clearances and seven inside 50s), Ollie Wines (29 touches and six inside 50s) and Robbie Gray (26 and eight clearances). "When you lead from the top, it's a great spot to start. Then the other boys like Ollie, Brad, Robbie, the forwards and the backs all join in; but they had a symbolic person up front saying, 'this is the way we're going to play,' Hinkley said."

Bummer. Can't watch. Updates via the iPhone app, plus this Game Day thread are all I have to go on. Luckily, I have a Masters Degree, and am thinking about a PhD, so all is well ...

Sure. But a close second is stopping opposition players getting and using the ball. Especially key opposition playmakers.

OT, but good to see that AFL isn't the only football code having to learn that they're not above the law.

Not far off half those possessions came after Jones went off. Murphy had something like 11 till 3/4 time - which given his usual output, is definitely a win to Jones. Shame people can't give credit where it's due.

I also thought that that was the case, but don't have the time to go looking for anything to support that. If it's something that has come in recently, it can't be applied retrospectively in any case. And if it's something that hasn't come in, I would imagine it's only a matter of time.

I like Lance. Don't always agree with him, in fact, often don't, but he does his homework, which is more than can be said for many.

This has been roundly discussed In Another Place, and as I and others suggested there, if you were to look at the reality of Olympic sports, or any sport at an elite level, these points are pretty well invalid. Sure, every sport has its idiosyncrasies, but there's not that much difference, especially once you get to the professional level. Athletes in olympic sports have to toe the organisation's line every bit as much as at a footy club, perhaps even moreso. Cyclist Trent Lowe was sacked for going to a non-team doctor, as was sports director Matt White who recommended said doctor. In the Armstrong case, there was much made of the fact that the cyclists who were penalised were given a 6 month ban which just happened to be right across the off-season. Then, this mention of the Olympic calendar is a complete furphy - you only have to look at the Olympic winter sports for example, where the focus is completely on the season-long competitions: world cup, world championships etc. etc., with the Olympics themselves as a bit of a postscript. Cycling is the same ... can anyone here tell me who won the gold medal in the men's road race at the last Olympics? etc. etc. Rather large red herring for mine.

Not to mention, laying plenty of tackles. A handy attribute for someone who's in the thick of every stoppage.

Woah ... First of all, UCI is the umbrella organisation for cycling - ALL cycling, including track, cross etc. etc. - they don't run any events. The Tour de France is run by Amaury Sport, ASO, a private organisation and sports promoter. Then, it's not for UCI to prosecute drug cases in cycling, it's for the national doping bodies in the countries where the cyclists concerned are registered. UCI have no say in who gets prosecuted, or the prosecutions themselves - any more than AFL have input into what ASADA are doing. UCI's role in doping cases is to enforce the penalties handed down by the relevant bodies (as they did in the Armstrong case), and/or to monitor and where necessary, appeal the decisions to CAS (as they did in the Contador case). Moving on ... It wasn't the American Cycling Federation who prosecuted Armstrong. Firstly, because there's no such body, the national body for cycling in the US is USA Cycling (much like Cycling Australia here), and secondly because, as with the UCI, the national admin bodies don't prosecute doping cases, the national doping agencies do. ASADA in Australia, and in America, for Armstrong, USADA. You're not any closer with the rest of your post either. For example, none of the cyclists prosecuted along with Armstrong (ever) tested positive - thus, there were no positive tests as the basis for the charges for anyone charged in the Armstrong case. Leipheimer, Hincapie etc. were charged on the basis of confessions (the guns to their heads being the testimonies they had previously given under oath to Federal Prosecutors), while Landis (and Hamilton) were not charged in the Armstrong case, they were (only) witnesses. etc. etc.

Great to see you here Lance. Your leather elbow patches are in the mail.

No problems with the diet this week it seems.