bing181

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.

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.