bing181

This is a thread that will be worth revisiting in about 18 months time.

No. Nature of the draft.

Brayshaw is not our saviour. Yet. And contrary to popular opinion, he's not better than the other fringe players we have running round in the firsts. Jordie McKenzie was trotting out 30+ possession games at Casey last year. Kent, JKH, Mitchie etc. would all be ahead of him, and I suspect that Roos and co see Bail and M Jones ahead as well. We also have Vince and Howe to come back. In the longer term, all this will change, but let Brayshaw, ANB, Stretch and co. find their feet and fitness at a level where they can build skills, experience, and confidence.

This warrants a separate thread???

He was Obe-wan kenobi. Sees the big picture. (which is what too many of the players don't ...)

Good: No injuries The draftees, especially HL and Garlett Roos' press conference Casey play tomorrow Bad: Still a long way to go Matt Jones still can't tackle without giving away an in-the-back. As Roos' said, too much "me" and not enough "team"

Great presser from Roos. Worth watching.

Not sure. Apart from a lack of experience - still a problem for us - my reading is along the lines of the players, in a sense, trying too hard to do the right thing. They're very aware of the game plan and what they're supposed to be doing - as opposed to just "doing". Further, you get the feeling that at times they're not actually focusing on what they're doing at all, but rather on what they need to be doing next - thus the dropped, straight-through-the-hands marks (Bail, Hogan and Frost all dropped sitters in the last quarter ...) There's also definitely a problem with trust (= fear of making mistakes). It's remarkable the difference you see with HL - he just goes for it, not matter what. He's not afraid to kick to a one-on-one, because he's played all his footy in a good/strong team, where even with a one-on-one, you'd back your team mate to get a win, and even if you do lose, there's a good chance you'll be able to win the ball back. Our players hesitate, consider, reconsider, wait, and then find themselves under even more pressure. I also suspect that it must mess with your mind somewhat playing Essendon. We know it's a patched-together side, and in some ways, the expectation that you should always win, and win easily, is perhaps not the easiest place to be.

Looking forward to the off-season.

A good reminder that while Hogan, Tyson, Frost, McDonald, Viney, Salem, Toumpas etc. are very much our future, they're still comparatively young, inexperienced players, prone to mistakes and poor decision-making. At times.

No-one's polishing any turds, it's just that some of us choose not to respond with one word dismissals and wrist-slashing. It's a football match. We're not playing very well. There could be any number of reasons for that.

St Kilda ... wooden spoon? Hawthorn. 3 in a row?

Well yes - but they don't remain suspended past the duration of the suspension.

Great. Now for Howe ...

Just to clarify, do you mean "next week" as in 10 days time, or this coming weekend?

Yes. There's probably a way around that, but i don't see that it would be worth it, as I believe it's the same as the AFL's local streaming service. The international service is $179 per year if you do it through the MFC, or €99 (in Europe) directly through the site. NAB matches are free, but once the season proper starts, there's only access if you have an account.

Only for the duration of the penalty. If it's 4 games, they'd be able to resume playing after that, even if ASADA is appealing. An appeal doesn't change the status or duration of a sanction. On the other hand, if they start playing again, and are subsequently penalised additional/further games, this would only start from the date of the hearing/ruling ... unless the players took voluntary provisional suspension, e.g. from when the 4 game penalty is up. FWIW though, I can't see how this scenario could become a reality, as I can't see how the players - if found guilty - could get less than 12 months. They wouldn't be able to satisfy enough of the conditions (no significant fault PLUS provide substantial assistance). Perhaps, as has been rumoured, a couple of the players have confessed and provided info on the program, in which case they might just be able to get it down to 6 months. Might. But for the bulk of them with their "stick it up your ASADA" approach, that's not going to work.

Still scheduled and free to watch on the AFL international streaming site: http://watchafl.afl.com.au/schedule/day_view

I don't know that we're in a position to be that choosy - we need to give ourselves the best chance we can in every match, especially against teams who aren't Hawthorn (or similar).

Believe that the B sample was tested on 11 Sept, but it wasn't till the 18th that the result was confirmed. By which time, his season was over.

Well, he did test positive, so not all that much he can say, except that it wasn't intentional. But then, that was also the case with Saad and Wade Lees. Quite why any professional athlete would go outside/around the club medical staff is a bit beyond me.

Both his tests were positive. Not sure what I was thinking of when I wrote that ... probably still glorying in our first half against the dogs. My apologies. Re clenbuterol, you're right re Spanish farmers and Contador. But it's apparently rampant in China ... and Mexico. (amongst others ...) Rogers was presumably able to show that the Clenbuterol came from contaminated meat - whereas Contador couldn't. Contador should have visited China for a couple of races, he might have got away with it ... There has been a WADA warning on meat/clenbuterol in China since 2011, and even the locals have warned against it - this from 2012: "China’s General Administration of Sport has issued a warning to all athletes hoping to compete at this summer’s Olympic and Paralympic Games not to eat certain meats in China for fear they could accidentally ingest the prohibited substance clenbuterol. The national team has been advised to stop eating beef, lamb and pork, due to fears that they could consume the banned substance. When dining in restaurants, China’s athletes have been advised to eat either chicken or fish." Plenty of wriggle room there.

Because the WADA code has evolved over time and in response to athlete's actions. If there is a loop-hole, athletes will find it and exploit it. But Crowley knew all that.

Me again ... Actually, Rogers had negative A and B samples. He was guilty (banned substance present in his body), and disqualified for the race concerned - but not penalised, as it was shown that it was ingested through contaminated meat (in China, where there's an ongoing WADA warning ... also Mexico if anyone's interested). There was a Belgian rider in the same situation - who subsequently tried to commit suicide ... Re Rogers' suspension, in cycling, riders are provisionally suspended after the first (A) positive, and it's implemented by the governing body, the UCI. Not sure that you can call it a voluntary suspension, he didn't have a say in the matter ... Just re Crowley, he was provisionally suspended after the B sample, which is what happens in most sports. Whether it's fair or not is a separate discussion, they're the rules as they stand.

Short of morphing into Hawthorn overnight, no.