bing181

Not working for who? Not working for the self-selected group that is Demonland, or not working for the club? It's a competitive sport, it would seem logical to give out as little information as necessary. When they're injured or unfit, they don't play, when they're fit they do. About all we need to know, surely.

Memorial service at Adelaide oval. A few present and past Melbourne players in attendance it seems: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/around-800-people-gather-at-adelaide-oval-to-pay-respects-to-former-afl-coach-dean-bailey/story-fnia3xzy-1226855168576

Which contained an amphetamine.

These are not bad laws, and are framed as they are in response to more lenient laws having been abused by people peddling exactly the kinds of arguments that you are.

They haven't called him in to give evidence, that part is - it seems - finished. What they've done is issue a "please explain" … …. issuing the sports scientist with a show-cause letter in relation to his controversial supplements program … It's understood the notice alleges there were 34 anti-doping breaches by Dank during his tenure at the Bombers. Dank's legal team is now expected to respond and ASADA will then determine whether an infraction notice should be issued.

See myself more as forward flanker than a winger.

That's not actually a defence under the WADA code. Which the AFL is signatory to, as are all players: 5.3 c) It is the obligation of each Person to whom this Code applies to inform himself of all substances and methods prohibited under this Code. It is not a defence to any claim that a Person has breached this Code for that Person to contend: (i) ignorance that a substance or method is prohibited; (ii) an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief that a substance or method is not prohibited under this Code; etc.

The young footballers ARE professionals.

Perhaps we should have just played intra-clubs, and/or matches against Casey?

That's a bold prediction regarding a 20 year old who's just completed his first pre-season OD!

Really happy to have Jimmy at the club.

You don't know that that's the case. There are any number of sports and diet supplements not available outside their countries of manufacturer, usually the US. And as i'm sure you'd agree, the range of many supplements available in pharmacies is small to non-existant. Sure, Lees was taking a chance doing what he did, but as he himself has said, and as others have tried to point out on this thread, he really didn't grasp the ramifications or the responsibilities of his actions. Not that that's a defence of course.

After today, we already have a better idea of where we're really at.

"All the evidence that ASADA needs to collect has been collected and the people they need to speak to have been spoken to ..."

Football. Contact sport. Injuries.

I'm not quite sure people are really getting this. The only real rule of law here is the WADA code, policed by ASADA and applied by those who are signatories to it (AFL in this case). Abbott, Essendon, Hird or anyone else with a vested interest can think what they want, but at the end of the day, it's irrelevant. In the Contador case (Clenbuterol), the Spanish Prime Minister came out and said that he was sure Contador was innocent, and he was then cleared by the Spanish cycling Federation (surprise surprise). At which point WADA stepped in, appealed to CAS, and after a hearing he was banned.

Not the desert, south pole I believe. Clark hasn't been heard from since he left the tent with a parting "I may be some time".

It goes much further than that, they can start banning Australian athletes and teams from participating in other competitions.

Perhaps. But the other body with an active interest here is WADA, who review all cases whether notices are issued or not. If they feel that notices should have been issued and weren't for whatever reason, there'll be some explaining to do, and appeals if necessary (from WADA).

The Kazakstan cycling federation gave Vinokourov a token ban (1 year) for a blood-doping infringement. UCI then came in over the top, and appealed to CAS, who imposed the standard 2 year ban. Similar in the Shoaib Akhtar case, but CAS wouldn't take on the WADA appeal, as the Pakistani Cricket Board hadn't signed up to the WADA code. There are other examples, though none of late to my knowledge. The message seems to be getting through.

Calf I believe.

Agree, but we could never have managed those chains of possessions last year, excessive or not. Clearer game plan, better positioning, even better skills are all major contributors. Still a way to go though.

Richardson was a highly rated assistant for a lot longer than Neeld was a highly rated assistant. And at more clubs. Don't think he'll be falling over in the same way, but hell of a job ahead of him I would have thought.

Rhino wins today's "above and beyond the call of duty award" for persisting long enough to make sense of the original post.

See Jack's response. If they want to appeal, they need to go to CAS. Since time immemorial the AFL have been beholden only to themselves, and have been able to act in a sense "above the law" simply because they ARE the law - given that Ozzie Rules is not an international sport, or part of the olympic movement etc. etc. But for the first time perhaps, there is now a higher power, WADA, and the AFL and the players are just going to have to toe the line. This is a "no barristers" zone.