bing181

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.

Perhaps, but this was retrospective testing of products for which tests had been subsequently developed. The samples were taken during the 1998 TDF and stored, the test for EPO was put in place for the 2000 Olympics. Not sure that there's a fridge full of Essendon players' samples, just waiting for tests for AOD 9604 and Thymosin Beta 4 to be developed? If it's about testing, I'd imagine they'd be safe with their secrets, unlike O'Grady. FWIW, O'Grady couldn't have been charged in any case, as the 8-year statute of limitations had expired. Similar to the Ryder Hesjedal situation. Also interesting is that though the French enquiry confirmed that Pantani and Ulrich both used EPO in the 1998 tour, their first and second places still stand. Watson to keep his Brownlow whatever happens?

David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne, said 2013 was ''an unprecedented year'' for Australia. ''These record high temperatures … cannot be explained by natural variability alone,'' Professor Karoly said. ''This event could not have happened without increasing greenhouse gases, without climate change.''

Believe as you want, but ASADA don't do deals - except under specific conditions outlined in the WADA code. These mainly centre on coming forward with information, which doesn't seem to be the case here. If they find that x players have committed infringements, then x players will receive infringement notices.

They still need to prove intent, and the burden of proof for an infringement still remains with ASADA: "… the burden of proof for establishing an anti-doping rule violation remains with ASADA. The Code states that: The Anti-Doping Organisation shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organisation has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction ofthe hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For the …. violations specified in the Code, which are established by non-analytical means (i.e. other than a drug test), ASADA is required to establish intent on the behalf of the athlete or support person in order to demonstrate that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred." http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/bill_em/asaaab2013545/memo_3.html

- ASADA have denied ever advising anyone that AOD was in some way or other authorised. Richard Ings (ex ASADA head) tweeted that he doubted any such advice exists. - even if it's the case, it wouldn't change anything: a banned substance is a banned substance, and AOD has been banned since 2011. - Dank's exchanges with WADA re AOD (as per ABC/4 Corners) came AFTER they'd starting using it - though it probably should be remembered that all concerned have done all they can to muddy the waters on dates - ASADA aren't dragging their feet any more than usual for these kinds of processes. Even when athletes confess, penalties etc. can easily take a year - and that's for a single athlete. Overall though, there's a massive amount of disinformation floating round re all this, exacerbated by plenty of (deliberately?) sloppy journalism and general misunderstanding by all and sundry.

People should go back and look at the first few seasons of some of the current AAA players. Short memories. It takes time, and some take more time than others. Meanwhile, if Toumpas can regularly earn his place in the team for 2014, he'll already be doing more than OK.

That would be "multiculturalism" I believe.

We were.