bing181

All we need now is for someone to start a poll on how many goals he'll kick against Richmond. I'm pretty confident we'll see a 6-goal haul at some point this season.

That's deep? I would have seen it as a superficial analysis myself. Each to their own I guess.

I'm sure the panel takes into account a global view, including a large amount of information that none of us are privy to. I'm equally sure that the panel makes their decisions from the point of view of experienced professionals, and will weight the value of a kick not reaching its intended target accordingly and in context.

Some of the micro-analysis on here is just getting ridiculous.

It's a bit more than one good game. He's been working into it over the last month or so, with increasingly positive reports across that time.

Roos and Goodwin are former topline players. Under the circumstances, more than happy to go with what they think.

Just ridiculous. (actually, worse than ridiculous ...)

Perhaps, but I don't know we're playing one too many rucks.

You're making a whole heap of assumptions - about a) Watts, b) Demonlanders, c) Roos and the coaching staff. Watts won't be dropped, and I for one don't really see the point of doing so. Rather he work on his shortcomings with McCarthy, Goodwin, Roos and co. Running round at Casey getting easy possessions isn't going to help anyone.

I'd give Fitzy a run, been solid at Casey it would seem. I understand the support for Pedersen, but he's 28, while Jack F is only 23. I'd rather at least try and build something with Fitzpatrick, more upside in the longer term if it pays off. Suspect Pedersen is on his last year with the club, but the season is still young, so who knows.

Agree - I just was trying (not very well I must admit!) to make the point that at this level of footy, skills and nous aren't always rewarded. It's in part a response to the "he should be dominating at Casey" comments that pop up here not infrequently.

Pleasantly surprised by Fitzpatrick. Looked solid. Must be frustrating for these players though, as the match itself will always play a big part in what's possible for them to do. Toumpas looked to have it on a string there for a while, but then the game ended up being played around the Casey half-forward line, and he disappeared from view. Playing at a lower level like this must be frustrating at times - no point running to the right position time and time again, if your team mates can't hit you with their kicks. Hard going for more skilled players, while the more dogged players come into their own. On the basis of a dodgy video feed, Mitchie, Riley, Toumpas looked decent. Not sure of any of the talls, none looked dominant. Not sure if we'll see Matt Jones or McKenzie back in the firsts, but Grimes looked like the senior player he is - even if he did miss a goal he should have scored.

Credit to the coaches: quite a turn-around in effort this week, and for (almost) 4 quarters as well.

Missed Viney, and didn't help having Frost subbed out so early - though gave Brayshaw a bit more match time, which isn't a bad thing. Didn't lose through a lack of effort, but we're still too rough around the edges, especially with disposal.

I don't think he's scared of contact per se, I just feel he doesn't "get it", that he just doesn't have a feel for body-on-body or how to make it work. He often gets out positioned in these contests, doesn't seem able to get on top physically.

But at least we're showing something - just not good enough or classy enough for long enough. A few really poor disposals - Howe earlier was one as well - and all the good work is undone. Good to see Vandenberg back amongst it. Plenty to work with going forward, just going to be a frustrating ride.

Ruling on Dank seems inconsistent: how come he can be charged for trafficking a range of substances without any evidence/proof that the substances were what they were purported to be, while he and the players are cleared of TB4 because there's no proof it was what it purported to be? Have to confess to being somewhat gobsmacked by the Tribunal's decisions, and the only thing that will surprise me more is if WADA don't appeal to CAS. The outcome/conclusions just seem so at odds with the precedents set in any number of WADA cases.

Well, makes a change from the usual Youtube links ...

Just to put the Tribunal's decision in context, here's a case that emerged today: hearing on May 7. Concerns a Belgian rider, Greg Van Avermaet who rides for BMC, Cadel Evans' old team. No positive test, the whole case rests on an email exchange. According to the AFL Tribunal, this would prove nothing, because though he was prescribed Diprophos, and took Diprophos, we can't be sure it was actually Diprophos. "... according to reports in the Belgian media, the Royale Ligue vélocipédique Belge accusations against Van Avermaet focus on the use of two medicines: the corticoid Diprophos, which is only banned in competition but can be used with a medical certificate, and Vaminolact, a fortifying baby food that helps improve recovery. This is banned if injected. Van Avermaet's defence claimed he was given a prescription for the substance but never took it to a pharmacy. A report by Sporza suggests that the case against Van Avermaet is based on an email exchange between Dr. Mertens and Van Avermaet. It appears Van Avermaet was treated with Diprophos, under medical supervision, for a heel problem that still causes him problems. His lawyer insisted that he used the corticoid for treatment, not to boost his performance in races."

Judging by recent reports, that's about the only place his current VFL form is.

I don't think anyone disputes that legally speaking, they were entitled to do so - the question is whether they were right to do so.

1. No, it's the same, "comfortable satisfaction". But it's for the panel/judges to decide what that level is. The suggestion is that the AFL Tribunal members were considerably (impossibly?) harder to be comfortably satisfied than what the law requires, or what precedence establishes (e.g., the Armstrong case). 2. It's not so much about new evidence, it's about a) what evidence is admitted and b) what weight it is given. CAS could decide that Dank's interview where he admitted giving the Essendon players TB4 is all that they need for a guilty - or they could decide, as the Tribunal did, that as it's an unsworn statement, communicated by a third party (the journalist), they're going to pretty much ignore it.

So progressive they omitted spelling?

The level of proof of guilt is the same ... but real people have to decide what that level is. As the Social Litigator column pointed out, judges with a background in criminal law (beyond reasonable doubt) may well see things differently to judges with a background in civil law (balance of probabilities). The suggestion from that column is that the level of proof applied by the Tribunal is (much) too strict, and as has been pointed out since, is in fact so strict that it renders a non-presence ADRV almost impossible to prove without a confession. The reality is that Lance Armstrong might well have walked free had his case been heard by this Tribunal, because "I saw Lance with a vial of EPO" becomes "you can't prove it was EPO". There has been a suggestion that WADA-related cases should be heard by judges and/or panel members with a background in sports law. Which none of the AFL tribunal members has. Further to that, the CAS case isn't just an appeal, they re-hear the case from scratch and can include or exclude any (new) material/evidence/witnesses they want.

You would think so. The case proper wound up back in January, and closing submissions were 2 months ago now. The tribunal must understand full well the situation with the 21-day deadline on the appeal, and the urgency to have the Dank case settled. Not leaving a great taste in the mouth.