bing181

Goes to the heart of it.

Hard to see Howe and Vince getting enough match fitness between now and round 1, given that they're not even participating in competitive drills at the moment. If they aren't included against Essendon, would be facing an uphill battle I would think. I'd also question whether Vandenberg and Kent now have enough time to push to be included. With Garlett a definite and JKH doing himself plenty of favours, spots for smalls on the forward line are becoming like hen's teeth. On the other hand, if fit, Grimes, Garland and Watts will be in.

Because he was ... - off the ground

Says who? Watch the Roos' press conference, it's littered with "for a pre-season game" and "understandable in a pre-season game" etc. etc. Further, the coaches wouldn't have been making the decisions they did (Nat Jones on the wing rather than at a centre bounce, Hogan basically off the field from half-time etc) if they were half-way serious about playing it as a Round one game. Sure, the players eased up, but it comes with the territory.

"One of our few good players in the second half" Paul Roos

Salem brings attributes because he's playing off half-back. Very different to being in the thick of it where you have to find your own ball and create your own opportunities. I can see him learning the ropes and building up his engine down back for a season or two. Too often we've pushed younger players into positions they weren't ready for. This is the new Demons ...

Good summary, and bonus points for including a five-syllable word.

We may have had a near first team on paper, but we didn't have a near first team on the field for much of the second half.

A thread for this? Too quick to put the boots in.

Sad and sorry saga. Happy to put it behind us. Jurrah, Mitch Clark, Hogan, Dawes ... wouldn't have been an empty seat in the house. Such is life.

Didn't help Lance Armstrong.

Tease ...

Sorry .. working backwards through the thread. Re the above. Believe you're wrong. 12 month discount for no significant fault needs a lot (lot!) more than "I cleared it with the physio" or "the doc told me it was OK". I cited some examples above. Also, if you're found with a banned substance in your system, you're guilty. However it got there. You may get a reduced, or even no penalty, but you're still guilty. Mick Rogers tested positive for Clenbuterol after (accidentally) eating contaminated meat in China. He was able to establish that, and didn't receive a suspension (though he did serve 6 months of provisional suspension from racing). However, for the race where he tested positive, he was still disqualified - even though he was cleared of deliberately doping.

Yes, as I understand it. I don't have time to dig up the info again, but there are papers out there analysing cases where athletes were able to establish "no significant fault", and it's a very high bar. Being unconscious, or not in a state/position to make any kind of informed decision in regards to what's going on is one example. A quick search turned up this, where basically, being sabotaged without your knowledge by a competitor gave a "no significant fault" outcome, but being administered by your own doctor without your knowledge didn't. This in relation to "no significant fault": "The commentary to the Code gives an example of where this section may apply; in the case where ‘despite all due care he or she was sabotaged by a competitor.’ The commentary also gives examples of where the ineligibility period will not be reduced: sabotage by someone within the athlete’s entourage, administration by the athlete’s physician without the athlete’s knowledge and mislabelled or contaminated supplements." And concludes: "An athlete hoping to prove that they were not at fault or negligent and have their ineligibility period eliminated has a truly arduous task before them." ... equally noted, it's a little easier - but still very difficult - to establish "no significant fault". http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1328&context=blr

As posted earlier by various people (perhaps even me, don't have time to check back ...) the "no fault" one-year reduction is on the basis of a requirement that's very hard to meet. You basically have to be unconscious. Hard to see it sticking in this case, especially as the players didn't even bother to check that everything was above board.

Nor do any of us.

Well yes, but the players also have a "duty of care" in that they - and they alone - are responsible for everything that enters their body. If they'd checked with ASADA and had a record of that check (easy to get), then they wouldn't be looking down the barrel now.

Sounding ominous, all the AFL/team sites are disastrous. Fingers crossed they get this (one) right.

Well, even that won't work, because they didn't attend the hearing. Must be something though ...

Anyone who contacted the club get a reply? Curious why it was moved till 1 pm at all, given the circumstances and prior announcement.

There is no allowance in the code for reduction on the basis that it's a first offence.

They're only provisionally suspended. The sections you quoted are for when they're fully suspended and ineligible, which only happens after they're found guilty. For the moment, the only real restriction is that they can't compete, but as it's the off-season, it hasn't had much visible impact.

It's how he wants it (which is his business of course), but isn't necessarily how it "should" be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_(Dutch) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_den_Berg

There's a difference between Olympic athletes and Olympic sports. World championships happen every year, for example, and in some Olympic sports, the Olympics are not the be all and end all (e.g. cycling, as well as most of the winter sports).

Looks good. Grimes will be in though. If he's to be dropped, it won't be till after at least a few games. He's not in the leadership group without Roos and co.'s endorsement. So: Vandenberg or Salem to sub, Kennedy-Harris out. Also, to make it more difficult, suspect that one of Gawn or Spencer will be included, and if Vince isn't ready, Mitchie or next mid off the rank. Finally, we may look to our Gazza-stopper, Jordie McKenzie - even if it's the only game he plays all year. Getting difficult though.