bing181

Or, rather than get into a d*ck-measuring contest about who is or isn't an authority on the game, or who does or doesn't understand footy ...you could just ignore them.

Sure, but none of it was evidence that could ever be corroborated, many of those testifying against him had axes to grind, and none of the substances in question were ever tested. It's not for nothing that the Federal Inquiry into Armstrong didn't lead to any charges being laid, they knew they would have trouble getting past the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard required. USADA on the other hand, with the lower "comfortable satisfaction" didn't have the same reservations - even though the evidence and testimonies were the same. The other difference was that the testimonies in the Armstrong case were all sworn - though whether or not that should make a difference in a WADA/doping case is questionable. Not saying Armstrong was innocent, far from it, just pointing out that the differences may well be differences of scale, but aren't really differences of substance. Biggest difference, of course, is that there was no Tribunal.

i don't think anyone's against it, but it would go against what Roos and co have been saying, and what they've done in the past. Seems very early in the kid's career to be throwing him into the firsts against one of the best bunch of (mature) mids in the comp. Would have thought Toumpas, Jones, Riley and Bail would be ahead of him at the moment - though all of those are different types of players.

Interesting how few of Melbourne's "failures" have managed to really kick on elsewhere. Col joins a shortish list of young retirees, alongside Gysberts and Morton. About the only exception is Stef Martin, though Old Dee's favourite player is at least a regular in WCE's firsts. Good luck Col, hope you find doing what you really want to be doing rewarding.

If that's your argument, Toumpas and Grimes won more of the pill. And if that's your argument, James Magner would be in our first 22 every week.

Let's play him as a forward, let's play him as a swingman down back, let's spend the whole pre-season with him training with the mids ... he's been thrown from pillar to post under a revolving door of failed coaches in one of the worst sides of the current era. Might have had just a little bit to do with the water that's gone under the bridge. That he hasn't just given up and walked away from the club, if not footy, is something in itself, and has earned him my support, if not respect.

Seriously? Thank god you're not selecting. You can't see past your own biases. Jones and Terlich are the turnover kings.

No.

Wouldn't say no to Fitzpatrick.

Don't believe we're better than Bulldogs.

Can people stop suggesting Pedersen. Would rather Gawn or Spencer if we go down that route. Having a bad run with injuries at the moment. As if Viney and Frost weren't enough, seems we now have 3 more. That's 25% of the team.

http://watchafl.afl.com.au

To be fair, Vandenberg is mature age, and Hogan is effectively into his third season.

Best win for a very long time because it wasn't a) a fluke or b) against easy-beats.

Nasher?

Skills, skills, skills. Either we need to learn (possible, plenty of young/inexperienced players out there), or import some players who can execute under pressure.

Really pleased with the consistency being shown at the selection table. Forges a strong group work ethic, shifts the responsibility onto the players to perform, and makes people work to earn their place and then keep it.

Yes, but you should look at why that is, (though not sure where you got your figures ...) and why, for the most part, the reasons for that don't apply here: a) the vast majority of sports do NOT have this extra layer that we have in Australia. In nearly all countries, it's the equivalent of ASADA who prosecute, and as they act as WADA enforcers in each country, WADA don't need to step in as their job is effectively already being done for them. Also, it's worth remembering, that it appears that the only reason ASADA aren't appealing themselves in this case is that they would have to go back through the AFL system, they can't go directly to CAS. b) WADA have done enough of "reading the riot act" and "coming over the top" with the national organisations and regional sports bodies, that they now all toe the line. Mostly. c) It's not only WADA who can appeal to CAS, it's the international sports organisations. e.g. when Alberto Contador was cleared by the Spanish anti-doping committee, (Clenbuterol), it wasn't WADA who appealed to CAS, it was the international cycling organisation, the UCI. There's no international organisation above the AFL, so it falls to WADA in this case, but that's unusual. In brief, WADA are the overlords, and it would be very wrong to assume that they're somehow powerless or reluctant to act. In most cases, WADA don't need to get involved because someone else will do it for them.

ANB gets another run in the 2's. Makes sense I guess.

Doesn't surprise me. Does show how parochial and insular most of the above are though.

http://www.naturalbalancefoods.co.uk/nakd/

He's the coach of a VFL side that won convincingly. To do so, most (all?) of the team had to perform well - which is all he's saying. But there's plenty of info there for anyone who cares to look.

I don't know why people keep bringing this up as if it's consequential.

It's "comfortable satisfaction", not "beyond reasonable suspicion" (whatever that is). ASADA don't need WADA to do anything that they didn't do. All that ASADA need is for CAS to correctly apply the law regarding standards of proof. As people continue to point out, the burden of proof that the Tribunal applied is so high, that you could effectively never get a successful prosecution in a non-presence ADRV case.

Which is the crux of the matter: there doesn't have to be "absolute" proof, only comfortable satisfaction. It's that very difference that has many (of us) frustrated in the outcome.