bing181

And more: Darren Hibbert aka the Gazelle, brings forward interview with Asada

Just not enough threads to cover this snowballing mess ...

I don't know that AD sees it as lying. More "problem management".

Coming thick and fast: Now the good Ms. Hird weighs in: AFL distorting facts, says Tania Hird

"Sources close to the investigation claim ASADA will probably not be in position to determine the players' fate until early next year." (from the Cronulla report).

Slightly AFL-centric p.o.v. there …. He's not contracted to an AFL club, but it doesn't mean that he hasn't been playing under another contract or set of rules/agreements. Which would appear to be the case here.

As someone with a heart condition myself, I don't know that I'd be jumping to too many conclusions without knowing more. There are heart conditions and heart conditions, and just because playing AFL football might be a risk, it doesn't mean he/one can't live a full, more-or-less normal life. If you Google him, it seems that he's hopeful of finding a solution so that he can return to footy, but for the moment, it seems to be not possible. Back to the training reports …. thanks to the couple who braved it.

Young Freemantle mid, only played a few games. Forced to retire this year due to a heart condition.

Sue: Like

His trip, his call, don't see that he's asking anyone here to change their names. Wonder if there'd be the same reaction from the negatives if his father's surname had been Smith.

The Saad appeal is by ASADA, as was the Matthew Clark appeal, and basically for the same reasons: the penalty is set at two years. WADA would only get involved in an appeal process if there's no local anti-doping organisation, or if there had been a failure by the local body to see that WADA rules were implemented. The latter is rare, and AFAIK, there has never been a WADA appeal in Australia. I agree with you in regards to "shot across the bows". The AFL are learning that in least in some aspects of governance of the game, there are higher powers at play.

Except that a) WADA aren't directly involved, and b) the local anti-doping body, ASADA, don't issue infraction notices. In the AFL, infraction notices come from the AFL: ASADA agrees that the AFL retains all functions and powers relating to this Code, including all functions and powers relating to the issuing of an infraction notice, the convening of hearings, the presentation of allegations of an Anti Doping Rule Violations at a hearing and all matters incidental thereto. and ... As soon as possible after the AFL General Manager - Football Operations has received notification from ASADA of an Adverse Analytical Finding or he believes on other grounds that there may have been committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation or a breach of this Code, he will give to the Person an infraction notice, together with a copy of this Code, and refer the matter to the Tribunal for hearing and determination. http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Schedule%206%20-%20National%20Anti-Doping%20Code.pdf

Armstrong is the poster boy for a massive problem that has been entrenched in cycling from the year dot. It's nearly 50 years since Tom Simpson died. But this isn't the the thread for it, and I can see that you've already made up your mind in any case.

Well no … Armstrong, as well as all/any of the cyclists recently prosecuted or "outed", have all taken responsibility for their actions and apologised. The reports from the recent meeting between Armstrong and Emma O'Reilly make sobering reading. Which is part of the problem here. No-one is really taking responsibility, and in both camps (Essendon and AFL) they see this primarily as an administrative and public relations issue. It's about managing a problem, as opposed to addressing it.

Neither you nor I know how far down the track this is. Which I believe is also one of the points Rhino was making.

In the global reality of what they do, it's just another case and will take the time it takes.

To most of us, "can't be employed by" is equivalent to "can't be paid by". He's not allowed to work, would seem fairly obvious that it follows that he's not allowed to be paid. Only in the AFL would any of this happen, both at the AFL itself and the clubs, they're all so used to being a rule unto themselves.

Hmm. Not quite. WADA sets the protocols, oversees the research, certifies the labs etc. etc. However, they do NOT do any testing themselves. ASADA and equivalent organisations in each country do the dirty work in making sure the WADA code is followed and implemented by the national sporting bodies. For example, for the US version, USADA: "Its work includes in-competition and out-of-competition testing, the results management and adjudication process, the provision of drug reference resources, the therapeutic-use exemption process, various scientific research initiatives, and athlete and outreach education."

There's no problem. You don't have to be found guilty of illegal drug use to be guilty of a WADA/ASADA infringement. Exhibit A: Wade Lees. Never took anything, in fact, never even had the products he was connected with in his possession. There are plenty of similar cases. Further, the onus is on the player/athlete to prove their innocence, not on ASADA to prove their guilt.

That's true of every newspaper in the world these days.

There are no circumstances where breaking someone's jaw "may well be considered reasonable". None.

You mean the footy matches that start in 4 months? That no-one is ready for yet, those footy matches? CD has had a knee op/clean up, has been cycling, working on aerobic fitness - also presumably in the gym. Apparently ready to start running etc. from Xmas. Maybe see how he's travelling in February.

Lots of experts on Altitude training out in force today.

On the basis of what I've experienced with mine, would agree with the first part (natural leaders), but not the second (personality). My son grew up with the same band from kindergarten through to high school, and the leader for the whole time was a little kid that you'd hardly even notice, at least on first meeting. He was the quietest and tended to always be in the background - but he was also the quickest at sizing up a situation and working out what was what, and especially, the best at making things happen. He also knew how to stay out of the quarrels. I know nothing specifically of LT, though I get the gist. Certainly, with so many new faces around the group, would have thought it had considerable benefits in fast-tracking and driving the kind of culture we need to be putting in place.

Remarkable thread for Demonland. I feel calmer just having read it.