bing181

If it's compounded, it can be legally prescribed. But that doesn't change its approval/authorisation status. As such, it remains prohibited under WADA section S0: "AOD9604 has not been granted approval by Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration or any other government health authority in the world to be marketed as a pharmaceutical product."

Still going to be a long season - albeit with perhaps some glimmers of light up ahead.

Both Bailey and Neeld had their strengths and their weaknesses, though not all of our (massive) failings can be attributed to them alone. But neither was ready to be head coach of an AFL side, and I suspect that there won't be too many more senior coaches appointed after only a few years in the system. The career paths of Hinkley, McCarthy and Richardson are more what we'll see in the future I imagine, as we move more into line with other sports where head coaches are often "senior" in every sense of the word. Coaches are going to need to spend either a lot longer as assistants, or longer in the lower leagues - though for the moment, that's not a recognised career path either. Will be interesting to see where Nathan Bassett ends up.

If it's on the prohibited list, WADA rules are pretty clear on when/what/how there might be mitigating circumstances, and the answer is pretty much "never". One of the main reasons WADA came into existence was to harmonise penalties internationally and across different sporting codes, and as a result, "leniency" is not a word that figures largely in the WADA regulations.

Back in the day, a lot of people got in "just in time".

A lot has changed since then. WADA only came into existence at the end of 1999, and ASADA was established in 2006. In 1999 the AFL was only beholden unto itself.

Melbourne players as "decent free agents" is surely an oxymoron? Frawley would just about be the first, so it'll be a good test for your hypothesis. I grant you Sylvia and Rivers as "decent", though both have injury/fitness concerns, and I don't know how hard the club really tried to keep them.

Just believe in me Yoko and me That's reality. - John Lennon

Impressive work.

On top of that, ASADA have denied ever having issued such advice to anyone connected with the AFL or Essendon. It's a story spread by Dank and co., presumably to try and cover themselves.

Agree with Rhino. Neeld took a mauling last year, and hard to imagine that he would be wanting to go back into an AFL position at the moment. If this is where he feels he can find his feet and contribute, then good luck to him.

Anyone wondering whether or not AG is a worthy (and perhaps necessary) winner only has to look at this thread.

Ba boom. I'm here all week, try the veal.

It's not 12 months since ASADA started their enquiries. Interviews with Essendon players were in May/June. Given that even in the straightforward case of a positive test for a single athlete it can take up to a year, I don't know that I'd be reading anything into it. But …. could be very messy if they started to bring in infraction notices once the season got under way, though equally, I don't know that that factors anywhere in ASADA's thinking.

Missing an "e" at the end of the good gentleman's name. And if you'd managed to get one more letter wrong there, we'd have very a nasty mess on our hands.

Just re Riley (an easy one …) "Riley fractured his fibula and sustained damage to his right ankle in a contest in the opening minutes of Adelaide’s game against West Coast in Round 15"

Exactly.

a) I recall him being dropped back to Casey twice not "several times" and b) you don't know why specifically he was dropped. But I get it, carry on.

As per Rhino's post, that's not actually the case. They're very different kinds of organisations. For example, ASADA don't make any rules and WADA don't do any testing, undertake enquiries, or hand out penalties. WADA monitors cases, but only once the process is completed. If at that stage they have concerns about the (disciplinary) process or the result, they can appeal to the CAS. Their role at that stage is very much about harmonisation and consistency of penalties.

Getting OT here, new thread anyone? As an overseas supporter (!), agree entirely. But from what I can see, broadcasting of sport in Australia still lags considerably behind what is possible via newer medias, especially streaming, primarily I suspect because of revenue and ownership issues, plus the dominance of "TV Culture". By way of contrast, there are countries where the main sports are ONLY available via streaming. FWIW, the AFL do stream all their matches live - but only to we overseas viewers. Against that, it's simply TV-on-your-computer, and doesn't even begin to exploit the possibilities that streaming offers as an interactive experience. It's also fairly flakey, and a bit Heath Robinson - though that sums up the AFL's confused and bumpy relationship with the net as a whole. Casey? Great, if it's technically possible. But I believe ABC have the VFL broadcast rights, and live streaming of sports events when there's no TV feed and OB van is not as easy as it might appear. Anyone who watched some of the draftees highlights, shot by non-professionals on a single camera and with no ancillary equipment would know just how low the bar can be set.

Following on from this, interesting that a number of "professional footballers" were cited in the patent application for AOD 9604. http://www.fisheradamskelly.com.au/2013/09/too-much-information-examples-and-case-studies-in-patent-applications/ "(media) reports went on to allege that players at the club were deceived into taking part in a clinical trial involving AOD9604, which is a banned substance for professional athletes according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The applicant has since denied using players as guinea pigs in a secret drug trial, but confirmed that the case studies involving the professional footballers were derived from anecdotal case notes regarding the historical use of AOD9604 provided to the company by the former sports scientist at the club."

Any experts here could no doubt cover this in more depth, but basically, there are two systems aerobic and anaerobic. As you need 8-10 minutes for your body to settle into aerobic work, 3km+ is a good length/test. Anaerobic workouts are shorter, but they can't be too short because your heart rate and metabolic system takes time to react. At the other end, this needs to be balanced with the buildup of lactic acid, which is minimised if you stay around/under 30 seconds. Taking all that into account, repeated 300m runs give the best bang for the buck as anaerobic workouts - but perhaps someone could clarify all this with Dave Misson one day at training? Also worth noting is that none of these systems are totally independent. 300m intervals will also improve longer term stamina and endurance, longer intervals have other benefits such as increased capillarisation. Speed off the mark is neuromuscular as much as anything, so it's something that can be worked on in the gym.

Cale Morton has joined his two brothers at Perth in the WAFL.

… and people talk about the "loony left".

Watt bikes are still there I believe. They're just spinning bikes with a few bells and whistles aimed at cyclists.