bing181

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.

FFS, make your point, have your little snipe, then drop it. You're the king of "I don't care what anyone thinks", yet you're like a dog with a bone when anyone disagrees with you. If in reality you didn't care, you wouldn't even deign to reply.

Would suggest that evidence to the contrary is fairly widespread. There are a raft of reasons why players change clubs. Or don't.

Though one salient difference is that Matt Davies did test positive for the substance concerned … whatever it was. A bit different to the Essendon case as there are no positives, but whether in the longer term it'll make any difference, we'll have to wait and see.

"comparatively few caught doping". Too easy. If there are "comparatively few caught doping" that would tend to reinforce my point, not yours. Outside of (baseless) conjecture in threads like this on forums like these, Craig hasn't come to attention. The Charlie Walsh and AIS programs that Craig was part of have never been part of any doping allegations, yet alone doping infringements. But this isn't the place … back to Essendon, and this (as a for example): http://www.insideathletics.com.au/sprints/14088-matt-davies-speaks-out-about-his-doping-ban "I have been sanctioned for a substance that I had not intentionally or consciously ingested, on the basis (as ASADA described it) of a "possible anti-doping rule violation". Inadvertent use, of an unlisted substance, which had no information to even suspect it would be a concern."

Craig worked in track cycling, where there have been comparatively few doping infringements. Just saying.

Ah, silly me. I thought you meant, well …. "the world". My mistake.

Given what a snake in the grass Flack turned out to be with his destructive role in both the Mifsud and Tanking affairs, I'd be marking his dismissal down as a positive on the Neeld scorecard. Suggest you're being selective and/or somewhat disingenuous with some of your other points as well. For mine, WJ did a good job of presenting the for/against Neeld arguments.

Can you just stop with this line unless you can back it up with something concrete I live overseas, and I can assure you, no-one outside Australia gives a damn about doping infringements in the AFL. Meanwhile, I'm sure we're all on the edges of our seats wondering whether the Irish Tug-of-War federation has managed to clean up the sport there after 3 positives in 2012.

By who?

Well, Rogers hasn't come out with an excuse. But given that there's an official WADA warning, it's obviously more than just smoke and mirrors. Also, it's basically a training drug, used for weight loss, not a performance-enhancement drug per se. The conjecture re Contador is that he'd had a blood transfusion on the rest day at the Tour de France, and that the stored blood (extracted during a training period) contained Clenbuterol. Anyway, I wasn't saying he is/isn't innocent at all, was just commenting that it seems very odd: no clenbuterol cases in cycling all year, then suddenly two in the same day from guys who have been racing in low-key events in China at the end of the season. And just to keep this on-thread: marked difference here between the treatment of the cyclists concerned and the Essendon players. Even though there aren't yet confirmed positives (waiting for the B sample to be tested for that) or charges, the riders have been suspended by their teams. OK, no Essendon players tested positive, but then neither did Tiernan Locke in the UK, and he's been suspended as well.

Yes, understood, was just commenting on the Rogers' situation rather than the AFL/ASADA situation. AA didn't even need to say anything, as it's nothing to do with Cycling Australia, but you're right, makes an "interesting" parallel with how the AFL view things. Though not for much longer one imagines.

I'd just be careful on this one. Two riders (Rogers and Breyne) tested positive for Clenbuterol after racing in China for something that's a known problem in beef there, so much so that WADA have a warning out on it: http://www.wada-ama.org/en/media-center/archives/articles/athletes-must-show-caution-due-to-contaminated-meat/ Taking a weight-loss drug at the tail-end of the season for a no-name race - and by riders who have ongoing contracts? Doesn't quite add up. As Robbie McEwen tweeted "one thing for sure - not many riders will put their hand up to race there in '14"

Not the style though.

Confirmed.

You just replied to him.

If you're going to start accusing someone of something, get your facts right. And if you get them wrong, then be man enough (or woman enough) to admit you got it wrong. And people accuse some of our players of being gutless.

No he hasn't. "Jurrah was charged with driving in the Northern Territory while disqualified in another state, driving at a dangerous speed and manner, failure to obey signal of a member and exceeding the speed limit by over 30km/h."