bing181

Not disagreeing, but with a changeover of 20+ players in the last 18 months, especially the mature/solid players who have come in, plus changes to the coaching staff, I'd suggest that there's probably enough of a change of scenery gone on without him having to look outside his present club if that's what he needs.

But so what?

Smaller leadership group = more competition to be in it plus more responsibility when you are. Win win.

Looks like our game against them in the NAB cup might not be all that challenging - or as challenging as what our players need. Far from ideal.

I copied from the repost on another part of BF, so didn't see the original - which had already been taken down. Was just wondering who had posted the original, by way of forming an opinion on how genuine it might be, and understanding where it might have come from.

Understand, though my understanding is that the original on BF was deleted because it could be connected to someone involved, perhaps through the poster. But my question was in regards to who that was, over on BF, who posted the original ... but no matter.

Just curious, who was it who posted the deleted info/post the other night? Wondering about how credible it could be (though seems legit).

Apparently it's a recent development.

Just to follow up on M_9's post, this from the Essendon (only) Board in response: It's true. ASADA has a player who has admitted to being administered what they believe to be TB4. I've seen an excerpt from ASADA's case summary which confirms it. Names of players and those who corroborated the admission are redacted. ASADA have a player who has admitted to being administered what he believed to be TB4 and also named every other player administered with it.

Wondered whether in any of your conversations anyone has mentioned when McCarthy will be starting?

What's remarkable about that is that half of those are new (including Hogan, as he wasn't available last year). Even seeing Kent, Jetta and Michie up and about is encouraging. Getting harder and harder to imagine what the Round 1 team is going to look like, especially for the last few places.

Not the first info from "the other side" to suggest as much. I posted a copy from another post from BF from a week or so back in the same vein as the above. According to that, at least some of the players have been told to expect penalties based on the fact that ASADA have all the info they need to place TB4 at Essendon (and more).

Even this is untrue. The only rider that could even begin to be applied to was Christophe Bassons - in reality, the whole peloton wanted him out, and told him as much. Armstrong was just one of many, and relayed the message on that famous TDF stage where the whole peloton decided to ride slowly - but not tell Bassons. Bassons' biggest problems/issues were from within his own team, where the pressure on him to juice up, shut up or ship out became too much. Not wanting to sidetrack this thread, but the Armstrong/Hird comparisons are just spurious, and even moreso when they're based on untruths. Armstrong was a kid from a trailer park who grew up with a chip on his shoulder to become a fighter and at times a thug and bully. But he wouldn't be the first elite sportsman to display those characteristics. Much as I dislike Hird and his behaviour through all this, I would say he was just pushing the envelope, while not actually trying all that hard to make sure things were above board. At another club, at another time, where he wasn't given free reign because he was seen as the new messiah, the outcome would have been different. On the other hand, every cyclist in the 90's who doped knew exactly what they were doing and that it was illegal.

Not true. The riders who came onto US Postal were already doping beforehand. If you didn't dope, you didn't get the results to earn you a pro contract. Well documented.

Well, I guess we should be thankful for small mercies. We made it all the way through to page 2 before it started all over again.

That is just not a factual statement. Every rider at US Postal at the time was doping before they got there, or doping to get there. In fact, almost every rider on every team was doping in one way or another at the time ... as they had done the year before, and the year before, and the year before and ... I know this "Armstrong the ogre, corrupting innocent riders" plays well in the press, but it's just ignorant of pro cycling and its history, and has about as much credibility as Chip Le Grand's pro-Essendon articles in the Australian. BTW, in regard to other posts above, both Bjarne Riis and Jonathan Vaughters are ex-dopers currently directing pro cycling teams, and Australia's Orica-Green Edge team is directed by two ex-dopers (White and Stephens).

Not sure that's right. 17.2 of the AFL code covers appeals: "17.2 Appeals from Decisions Regarding Anti-Doping Rule Violations, Consequences, and Provisional Suspensions." and includes: " …. a decision to impose a Provisional Suspension may be appealed exclusively as provided in this sub-Clause." followed by: "(e) Persons Entitled to Appeal The parties having the right to appeal to the Appeals Board shall be as provided in the NAD Scheme but, at a minimum, shall include the following parties: ASADA and WADA shall also have the right to appeal to CAS with respect to the decision of the Appeals Board. " (i) the Player or other Person who is the subject of the decision being appealed; (ii) the other party to the case in which the decision was rendered; (iii) AFL; (iv) ASADA; and (v) WADA.

Which can be contested by ASADA/WADA and taken to CAS.

Not just training reports, but reports on the training reports. There you go. We don't muck around at Demonland. (Going the extra yard.)

FWIW, CAS can sit in Sydney. Same rules though.

Could be right. I popped over to the Bomber's Board at BF, and the poster who made the original claims doesn't believe it's the contact he has (Crameri or Prismall). Still, much guesswork, would imagine all will be revealed sooner rather than later. I see the Age has run a piece - wonder if that's based on a briefing from both sides, or only one?

With no-fault plus substantial assistance, the two years could become 6 months, backdated till when the SCN's were issued (October?), so out until March or April. Penalties are by time, not matches. Seems light, but they can't train with the club in that time, so no match practise, etc. etc. Would make the season hard going.

Just to follow up earlier post, it seems that the info is from one of the two Essendon players who has their own lawyers and are not working through/with AFLPA. IOW, the "independent" defense lawyer thinks that it's all over bar the shouting. It would appear that the "on-song" lawyers/players/club are still pushing the line that they believe they'll get off.

Important differentiation with illegal streaming I feel.

Well, it's just taken off BF, so buyer beware ... but hard to see why a loyal Dons fan would post that. I don't know that it confirms anything we don't know or didn't suspect, though the "no evidence the drugs were disposed of" angle is a new/interesting one.