bing181

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.

Agree. In better teams though, the grunt played are made to look better by the quality and skills of the players around them. As for our grunts, I don't mind Rohan Bail, and until he's overtaken by others, I can imagine him holding down a place, even if it's 22nd. Similar to some extent for McKenzie, hard to judge on the limited time he had tonight, but he did have 100% disposal efficiency (admittedly on only 6 disposals). Suspect that his place will depend on match-ups and the role he can play, can imagine him being in/out. He'll get 30+ disposals at Casey each week though ... Can't say the same about Matt Jones, feel he's probably looking at his last season, but Grimes and Garland - too early to say on the basis of one NAB cup game. Garland in particular would be justified to be feeling nervous.

He didn't actually. Carry on though ...

Heritier Lumumba.

You started a thread just for that?

Or a 3 year old boy.

Frost: well worth pick 23.

Salem forward, Frost back.

Oh look, it's the same old hogans_heroes.