bing181

Is someone disagreeing?

How good are a lot of these players ... Port/Swans ... two-tier AFL.

You've got to be kidding. Excepting Jones, they're potentially talented, but nothing more at this stage. Hogan has played 2 games, Salem and JKH not that many more, Viney, Tyson and McDonald are still learning the ropes, and Vince is approaching his last season or two. You can't even begin to build a team around players like that, but to a large extent that's what we're being forced to do. Dees' supporters have got to stop kidding themselves about where our current list is at. Seriously.

He didn't single out lack of talent, he specifically singled out lack of effort and lack of 4 quarter effort. He made the perfectly valid point that if you aren't Hawthorn, Swans, Freeo, you can't afford to slack off, even for a moment.

I look at the free run the Giants had at the draft, the 17 year olds, the NSW players, the extended list, the salary cap allowance ... and shudder. There was never a worse time to be looking to rebuild through the draft than what existed over the years we so desperately needed it. All of the cream was taken off the top, as was obvious in what we saw running around against us today. Against that, the drafting we've done over the last couple of seasons has been potentially great, with hardly a foot wrong. But, as with the Giants, it will take 3 or 4 years.

No there's not. We have perhaps one player in the best 50 in the comp.

Not sure. Vince and to some extent Dawes short of match fitness/practise, so I wouldn't be moving them on. Perhaps the same for Howe - he missed the back half of the pre-season, obviously busted a gut to make it back for round 1, maybe paid for it all today. I liked Brayshaw in what time he had, definitely keep him in for mine, even only as sub. The two I'd look at would be VDBerg and Kent. Both have great upside, but Kent has disposal issues - too often just a panic disposal, and should have had one or two goals more than he did. Vandenberg needs to get a bit more experience away from the pressure, and it's going to be nothing but pressure for the coming weeks. I'd consider playing them at Casey with specific goals/tasks to focus on. But ... who really knows!

A new low in game-day posting? They didn't get 9 goals to zilch because of Chris Dawes.

Only downside with H is that everyone knows what he's going to do. They've managed to not give him any of that space he needs to do his best work. Be interesting to see if Tyson and Jones can lift, that's probably the match right there.

No.

Beat me to it WJ. Some interesting content in that article: While the Essendon players did not test positive, there is international concern that the weight of evidence against the AFL players was not sufficient for the sport's tribunal to be "comfortably satisfied" to return a guilty verdict. The heads of anti-doping agencies in the US, UK, France and Germany have all contacted McDevitt with messages of support, including raising the possibility of appeal. ... While McDevitt has been under siege from sections of the Australian media, he has received support where it matters most – the current federal sports minister, Sussan Ley, and her predecessor, Peter Dutton. ... Sports disciplinary tribunals, while well intentioned and qualified generally in criminal law, do not have the CAS-type expertise or experience in dealing with the nuances of increasingly complex sports anti-doping law.

Watts. Looked confident and in control. The tap back to Garlett was inspired, as was the mark on the line that he went back and turned into a goal. He's always been a kind of "I see what's going on here" type player, but he hasn't always been the "I"ll do what's needed here" player to go with that. Agree with the others listed above as well, great to see Garland back up to speed. Also impressed with Viney, he was a bit so-so in the NAB cup series.

And to add ... Ablett: - handpass directly to opposition player standing in front of goal, resulting in a goal - drops handpass while standing in the goal square. opposition clear, resulting in a goal at the other end. But of course, it's only Melbourne players who make mistakes.

Is that you Ben?

To give him his due, he managed to get into the right place to receive the ball 10m out in the first place. Given that Ablett also messed up a handball/play in a similar position, not quite ready to throw Jimmy under a bus yet.

Social Litigator article has been updated, has more background material and some interesting input/comments. http://sociallitigator.com/2015/04/03/a-question-of-proof-might-an-asada-appeal-have-legs/

You too eh ... but you should move across the water, we only have to get up at 4 am. A great day. So this is what it feels like to support a football team. A real football team.

Selections all working out - so far.

Not sure if this has been mentioned, the Social Litigator comments on the decision/appeal. Interesting read for anyone interested: A question of proof: might an ASADA appeal have legs? "Consider this: Those teammates who testified to taking a banned substance (c.f. participating in a banned practice such as blood doping) could not know that the substance they took was EPO. Instead, they thought it was. Now consider this: Evidence which to USADA was so compelling it was overwhelming, might fail to satisfy the AFL Tribunal, according to its reasons published to date. So too, whilst this evidence met the standard of beyond reasonable doubt (the highest criminal standard) for USADA, for the AFL Tribunal, such evidence might not even reach the lesser comfortable satisfaction test."

Exactly. Which is why programs like the Blood Passport scheme have been introduced, but also why cases without positive tests can be difficult to prove - as we've just seen.

1. No they wouldn't. You can't be proved to have used or intended to use if there's no reliable evidence that it was a banned substance. There was the case of the Belgian cyclist who was caught importing what he thought was a banned PED. But the case was dismissed when it was analysed and found to be harmless. If you can't establish that a product is or contains a banned substance, there's no case - as happened here. 2. You're surprised? 3. It wasn't proved, which is why they weren't found guilty.

That's not how it works. To be found guilty of use or intending to use, you don't need to know that what you intend to use contains a banned substance. The players got off because the tribunal weren't convinced that the "TB4" they were injected with was actually TB4.

Bob, the only reason Brayshaw didn't get picked in the earlier NAB games was because of concussion (and fears of concussion).

That's not how it works. There's a presumption of innocence until your case is decided. At that stage, you can't be "not guilty", because there hasn't been a ruling on your guilt. Subsequently, once there has been a ruling, you're proved to be either guilty or not guilty. You aren't proved innocent. Or, as sharper minds than mine have put it ... "The presumption of innocence is actually a misnomer. It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence." The players have been found not guilty. They haven't been found innocent. (FWIW, I accept that they're not guilty. I also accept the tribunal's verdict.)

Woah ... Hang on a minute: Wade Lees attempted to use "a product". He didn't intend to use a banned substance. Identical to the players. They intended to use "a product" (whatever they were being injected with). They didn't intend to use a banned substance. In both cases, ASADA's position was that the product was or contained a banned substance. Only difference was that in the Lees' case, ASADA had the product and could verify the constituents. Also, getting into a really narrow definition of intent here that just doesn't apply in terms of the WADA code - this is very different from a criminal court and a case for attempted armed robbery or attempted GBH. If you turn up to Dank's office at the appointed time to be injected with something that unbeknown to you is illegal, that's intent (you stepped into the office, intending to be injected). But even if you don't make it to that appointment because your car breaks down on the way, that's also intent (because you intended to have that injection). If ASADA intercept Dank's car as he drove into the Essendon car park with an Esky full of TB4 and a diary full of appointments with players for injections, that's intent (on the part of both the players and Dank.) If you place an on-line order for TB4 or CJC (http://www.maximpeptide.com/peptides/) but your shipment gets lost in the post, that's intent. If you place an on-line order for "GoFast" that is advertised as containing no illegal substances, but which ASADA stop at the border and discover is shot through with banned amphetamines, that's also intent. You don't have to intend to take a banned substance. You just have to intend to carry out a course of action that would result in banned products entering your system - knowingly or not. Though also not sure of its relevance here because the Essendon players did have injections, it's not just an intention to have those injections. Thus, there was no charge for attempted use because they actually used - unlike Wade Lees. No-one disputes the fact that the players were injected (with something). Perhaps I'm missing something, but not sure why this is posing a problem for people.