bing181

Really? AFL strike and getting around a PED conviction maybe (though ... very maybe!), but their careers would be finished. They're still young, better to lie low, stick with the "we don't know how it got there", cop the 2 years, and come back through a State League or whatever.

Brayshaw wasn't pick 3 for nothing, and given that he's tracking OK, I'm sure we'll see him sooner rather than later - spots permitting. I think the biggest question mark wouldn't be over his ability, but his tank - it takes years to build up to full AFL fitness, but none of us know how far off the pace he might be. Happy to let the selection committee decide, but not going to be jumping off any tall buildings if he's not included.

Don't think anyone really is expecting them to get out of it. There's always a chance of it not being deliberate, but the chances of them being able to prove that without some really solid evidence would be slim to zero.

If guilty, they remain provisionally suspended, and the time they've served will be deducted from the total of any penalty. If there's an appeal (by them), they remain suspended for the duration of the original penalty, or until the appeal tribunal/CAS rules otherwise. Believe that ruling on penalties will come fairly shortly, though how long that will be, there doesn't seem to have been any clear information. I'm thinking a week or two, but don't quote me ...

Hard to see the contaminated meat angle working. Mick Rogers got off because he was/had just been in China - where the problem of contamination is so bad that WADA has an ongoing warning out. The other country where the same situation exists is Mexico - there had been a Danish cyclist who got off after racing in Mexico. But the half-life of Clenbuterol is fairly short, 36 hours or so, so unless they'd been in Mexico/China just beforehand, this isn't going to work. You can't just say you had a beef in black bean sauce down in Chinatown ... and in any case, you need to provide solid evidence, which would mean getting meat tested etc. etc.

The AFL needed to have ASADA's evidence in order to charge them. Presumably, Gill doesn't have access to any additional/further evidence from the tribunal. Agree on the question of independence, he shouldn't have commented.

THYMOSIN BETA 4 IN COMPETITION Route of administration:Status: all routes Banned in sport OUT OF COMPETITION Route of administration:Status:all routes Banned in sport

Names?

How is it a concern? The players concerned (sorry ...) have been injured and are, yes, "short of a gallop". Which is why they were allowed to play for Casey in the first place.

You're a brave man P-Man. Given where we are, seems to be half a dozen vying for the last few of places: Brayshaw, Vince, Howe, JKH, Kent, Vandenberg ... then throw into that Mitchie, maybe Bail, Toumpas, M Jones, toss up between Gawn and Pedersen etc. etc. V. hard to pick.

It's independent. We've got two respected ex-judges and a barrister. If they're seen to be acting in a way that's outside the law or the application of the law, or that they acted under or were swayed by external pressure, it would be the end of their careers. They also know that they need to dot their i's and cross their t's and come up with a CAS-proof verdict, and that regardless of how big the AFL think they are, WADA are bigger. Further, if it wasn't independent, the AFL wouldn't have had to make a submission. And Gill wouldn't be running to the press with his "hint hint" interview. Though for the CEO of the AFL to be commenting publicly about an ongoing AFL Tribunal case as serious as this, just goes to show how little he "gets it". If Ben McD from ASADA gave an interview like McLachlan just did, he'd be out of a job.

Fairly comprehensive and, for once, balanced article on what went on at Essendon from the HUN. Nothing new, of course, but still shocking when you read through it all in one place - though even this doesn't touch on Alavi, Charter etc. etc. Essendon drugs saga: How Stephen Dank ran the controversial supplement program

Arbitrary figures. Also, the inconvenient fact remains that we only won 4 last year, so 6 year would be an improvement. Hard to argue against. You can't set up a fictional "we should have won 6-7, so need to improve on that". If we'd won 6-7, we would have been better than we were. Which we clearly weren't. As to 8, we managed to win around that in the Bailey years, but they were for the most part "easy" wins against "easy" sides and/or in "easy" situations - but when the pressure came on, we collapsed like a house of cards, and it was clear that we had no real future as things stood. For there to be an improvement, there needs to be an improvement .... in more matches for longer, greater consistency and an improvement in our "worse" as much as our "best", fewer really poor performances even for a quarter, more forward entries and more of those converted into scores for an overall higher percentage, some of the younger players stepping up, an ability to win more clearances on a regular basis, an ability to limit any blowout opposition scores, etc. etc. Get some of that going in the right direction and the wins will sort themselves out.

Followed closely by hiring a throwback to the seventies in Sheedy. And they talk about being credible.

Nor has the AFL. Until one day, 34 players from the same team get hit with doping charges ... The AFL has been a signatory to the WADA code for 10 years. During that time, there have been two reviews by WADA, with calls for submission. The AFL have submitted nothing.

1 free against on Friday. Might as well at least make an effort to stick to the facts.

Discuss away. But the topic heading isn't a neutral "Let's discuss Paul Roos", it's framed as a loaded question. We're in the realm of "when are you going to stop beating your wife?"

There are what, 120+/- players who come on to AFL lists each year for the first time, around half of those as rookies. If we go back over 4 years, that's 480 players, say 240 not on rookie lists. And in that time, out of all those, you've listed ... 14. Even allowing for GWS, you're making sweeping generalisations. Most first year players do NOT have the tank to play regular AFL footy (apart from the skills and know-how).

The OP didn't say "top 10 draftees". It was a sweeping generalisation about first-year players in general, with the implication that "many" of them were regulars in the first 22. Happy for Brayshaw to play where the coaches see fit, imagine he'll get a chance at some point.

How many first year players are regulars in their club's 22?

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 ...)