bing181

Thank you.

Actually, that's what many (most?) are suggesting: "we should have released this statement in February". As for lying, I don't know that any of us have the full facts, but on what I've read, hard to see where we actually lied. The AFL likes to be seen to be irreprochable model citizens, but on everything from player payments to rotations etc., the clubs are always going to push against this. This seems to be another case where we've pushed up against that line, but whether we've crossed it ... I don't see it at the moment. Not to mention, AD is against the growing influence of sports science, and we've certainly touched a raw nerve in that regard.

Too obvious. Gotta have that "shakes head in disbelief" element.

For the same reason we don't give out the results of the pre-season 3 km time trial, why we have closed training sessions, and why the injury list is always a bit of a furphy: we don't want other teams to know what we've been doing, what we've been taking, and who we've been working with. This wasn't originally about who was working with Dank. It was - and primarily still is - about who was taking illegal substances. If Essendon are penalised here, it won't be for working with Dank, it'll be for specific breaches of the ASADA code. We addressed all that back in February, and didn't (and don't) need to go further. It's a competitive sport. Even off the field.

I just don't get any of this. In the dog-eat-dog world of sports science, why should we give out any more info than what we've been asked for? As someone pointed out elsewhere, the reference to the "cream" in the MFC statement is the real give-away. a) we don't say what it is and b) we don't even say if we used it or not. We simply point out that it's permitted. Why let the other clubs know what we're doing/taking? At the time, we obviously checked and responded appropriately: nothing illegal, and all under the watchful eye of the club doctor. So ... why go further? It's a bit like last weekend. It was revealed after the match that one of our talls was under an injury cloud. We didn't say who it was, or what it was - why give that information out to other clubs? Same here. As long as it's all legal, who we we work with and what we take is no-one else's business, and the club were right to play their cards close to their chest.

He would be in the know - of course, it's part of his job. Ever watched the Misson Injury Report or whatever it's called .... brought to you by xxx pharmaceuticals. Supplements in various shapes or forms are part of elite sport - even not-so-elite sport. The issue here is not about taking legal supplements, it's about hiding (or not?) information from the AFL that we were asked about, and the possibility that we were less than full and truthful in our replies. So then, I would presume, the question becomes, did Misson know about Danks' involvement, and if so, did he offer up that info when the AFL came knocking and the Essendon story broke?

Evidence?

Don't think Dawes would come straight back into the firsts, he hasn't played anything approaching a proper match since a half in the first NAB cup game. Could depend on how we go this week!

Well, sometimes, and when it suited them, mainly against the easybeats or when they were prepared to be "on". As for the rest ... well, maybe. I don't know, but then, neither do you (just saying, not criticising). I think post #308 earlier sums up what was really going on, and what's in part behind where we are, including who was/wasn't part of the the turnover last year. We can throw all this around as much as we like. We can even sack the coach. But sooner or later the players (and the club) need to put this behind us/them and move forward.

There was no compo for Byrnes, so he didn't cost us any picks. We did get a third round pick for Moloney and Rivers - though we (and most observers) thought we'd get a second round pick. I suspect clubs will be a lot more wary of FA next year, as everyone was expecting better compo. "HAWTHORN has received no compensation for losing Tom Murphy to Gold Coast and only a third-round pick for the defection of Clinton Young to Collingwood. Murphy, Shannon Byrnes (Geelong) and Chris Knights (Adelaide) were all deemed not worthy of compensation picks by the AFL. The Hawks gained just pick 66 for their pair of losses, while the Saints and Port were the only clubs to rejoice the AFL's announcement tonight. St Kilda picked up pick 13 for Goddard's move to Essendon, while Port Adelaide snared picks 30 and 31 for the loss of Troy Chaplin (Port Adelaide) and Danyle Pearce (Fremantle). West Coast was handed pick 62 for Lynch's move to the Pies, while Melbourne was given just pick 49 despite losing Jared Rivers and Brent Moloney."

... by investing in talented kids and under-agers. Which we have done, in spades. We've also topped up across the boards with some solid younger players from state leagues. If Neeld was only interested in saving his job, he wouldn't have picked up Hogan, who can't even play this year. In any case, drafting and recruiting is a club-wide activity, with input from the entire FD, and includes the coaches, list management, recruiting etc. etc.

Byrnes was the only FA, and there was no compo pick for him: GEELONG Gained: Jared Rivers Lost: Shannon Byrnes Compo: None

It's obvious we're getting nowhere here, but just in the interest of accuracy, of the 4 players you refer to, only one was a draft: Rodan, down amongst the dregs at pick 88. As for the actual draft, I would suggest that as early as this weekend, round 4, we could be the only team in the AFL where all of their previous year's draft picks will have played in the first 22. (Toumpas, Viney, Terlich, Jones, Kent, Nicholson, Evans). If Kent gets selected that is ... Must be some kind of record, and credit to Viney and his team.

Come on Robbie, you can do better than that (or you are better than that ...). People just see things differently. I don't have a problem at all with the 4 you mentioned, and for whom - as has been pointed out - we basically gave up no draft picks of any real worth. We turned over 14 players ... that's Fourteen. Kids? We got kids coming out our ears - we took more "kids" this year than we ever have, including even a 17 year old (plus a 17 year old from NZ). It's not as if we had the regulation turnover of a half a dozen players - in which case, yes, taking 4 senior players who may not exactly dominate could be questionable. But they're bonus players on top of about 10 other pickups, stopgaps, some guys to add a bit of experience around the place, if not on the field. If it bothers you, forget that they're there ... whoever we took at pick 88 would NOT have been doing even what Rodan is. Upgrade Magner? Maybe, but in spite of his grunt, he was shown to be a bit one-dimensional and with questionable disposal last year. In any case, he'll get his chance, but let's not pretend that any of our problems will have been solved if we'd upgraded Magner and not taken Rodan. Pedersen? Had a good first year at North, and seems to be able to play really well in the VFL (B&F last year, really good game for Casey 2 weeks back). Not yet doing it at senior level, and maybe he never will, but definitely worth a punt. Byrnes? I'd wait until we have a few games with more than 20 or 30 I50's before we write him off. In any case, leadership group, good club man ... a handy pick up off the field. Rodan, adds a bit of spark off-field, a good mentor for the younger guys it seems, and for a season or two, not a problem - it's not as if we have a heap of 30 year olds. Gillies. Depth KP defender - which we don't have. Give him a season, then let's see, once again, if it doesn't work out, no real cost to us. In any case, re the defenders, hard to get a feel for where they are when they're under the cosh the whole game because the opposition mids are running riot.

Because there were no other reasons.

We have an experienced coach doing reviews (and reporting directly to the Board).

No, that would be too simple. Also, it doesn't involve sacking someone, so obviously not the solution.

No, we need change from the bottom up. Grass roots, attitudinal, cultural change, Which, as this thread illustrates, starts in places like the spa baths and the recovery sessions. I think a few here should have a look at Martin Flanagan's recent article in the Age re all this. He covers it very well, even though I don't agree with all of it: http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/culture-not-simply-a-word-20130412-2hr1o.html

For starters, it's not 3 years, it's 3 pre-seasons which isn't quite the same thing. Secondly, it's not about getting fit, it's about getting to the extremes of fitness needed these days to play professional AFL footy. Which takes time, because there's only so much loading the body can take without injuries.

Grimes will be 24 next month, Trengove is 21.

Not looking too good for Brad Scott then. Or Sanderson: Adelaide were 6 goals up half way through the third. By half way through the last they were 5 goals down, that's an 11 goal turn-around. Buckley's comment after the game was that Collingwood had only played a half of footy. etc. etc.

Yes, because the kids we might have got at the tail end of the draft would be cueing up for Rising Star nominations.

And if they don't (yet) have the skills or fitness (and I'd throw into that, experience)?

I don't believe I said that we should be behind GWS and GC in our development, simply that they've had a free run at the best players going for the last few years, and sooner or later, we're (all) going to start seeing the results of that.

"the heroics of those who anonymously attacked him behind keyboards and secretive firewalls is not going to achieve a single thing on the field but weaken us off it." See above. And they talk about blind.