bing181

You don't have to have taken anything to be guilty of a doping infringement - ask Wade Lees. It's enough that there was intent, even accidental intent or unintentional intent. As has been touched on elsewhere, a large percentage of doping infringement cases go through without their being a positive test.

Hogan's Heroes. See you later.

Once again, 3/4 time and we're in it with a chance.

McKenzie - possessions, zero. A bit of a step up from the VFL.

Too kind.

FWIW: Sam Landsberger ‏@SamLandsberger 14m Don't be surprised if Dustin Fletcher joins Jobe Watson on the sidelines against Melbourne tomorrow night. Late change firming for the Dons.

Not disagreeing, but you'd have to wonder what might have been if they'd had Roos and co. from the beginning. At least everyone knows what they have to do.

Agree with your post Bob, though the above has always been questionable in a "The dog ate my homework" kind of way. Either they (the club, or people at the club) knew but the records have since been destroyed/lost, or they "forgot" to take notes. Given that the players were sent offsite to a clinic, someone must have given instructions on what to administer to who and how and when. 30 or 40 players on a program of multiple injections etc. over a long period ... something had to be on paper.

Mr. Hird would probably indeed say that, French being another of his failings, but in the circumstances it should be "allez vous faire enculer". On the other hand, given that there's no mention of recent events in this morning's L'Equipe, perhaps he's eating his croissants in blissful ignorance. Don't know how anyone from the AFL or Essendon can pretend that this won't lead to sanctions. Show cause notices are the last step before the axe falls, they're way beyond "come in for a chat" which is what the AFL are trying to make out.

You're.

I am relaxed, I don't need a beer, but Stretch wasn't BOG. Another report from the same game only had eyes for Pickett, while I saw a punter's review of the players in that match that didn't even mention Stretch, but also had Pickett BOG. Someone else who was there described Stretch as very good, but very outside, only a receiver. Stretch is a bigger story and gets the headlines because of his background. And sure, he's developing nicely, but BOG. Nah.

"The show cause notice is a preliminary procedural step, which gives recipients the opportunity to argue why they should not be placed on ASADA’s register of findings and charged with a doping offence." i.e. Unless they've got very good explanations (or very good lawyers?), charges will follow.

99 times out of 100, 8 goals won't win games either.

No they won't. And that's the point. Not that you and your brethren are getting it.

People here are right to point out that we won't go winning many games kicking only 3 goals. But: How many games are Collingwood - or any side - going to win kicking only 8 goals? We're getting it half right.

Possessions: Salem 3, Tyson 4.

You said BOG. Where does it say he was BOG? Go back and edit your post. It's factually incorrect, and not even based on any information other than what you've picked up from reading a single report. It's not as if you were at the game.

Nowhere in that article does it say he was BOG. Based on the report, Pickett or Johansen would get that jersey.

Post #19. Makes sense.

With Riley having not played for two weeks (bye and travelled to Alice) he probably needed the certainty of a game at Casey. Not sure why one of Toumpas or McKenzie haven't been held back. Maybe one of the above to be pulled out at half time, or play reduced game time?

We would only need to use pick 4 if the teams in front of us (1-3 on selections) made a bid on him. His stocks may be rising, but that far? I'd be surprised. What we have to hope for is that a) no-one bids in the first round after us, but then also, b) no-one bids in the first few picks before us in the second round. In which case, we'd get him as a third-rounder. Nice.

But you didn't.

You're presuming he had a mystery condition. He could have just been omitted in preference to Toumpas.

Sounds reasonable, but not sure if it matches with the club's approach, which is more to do with careful than reasonable. Fingers crossed, but Jesse is a long-term project, a couple of extra games this year aren't really going to change anything - though I accept it'd be a nice positive in selling the club to supporters.