bing181

For those that way inclined, there are some posts on Bigfooty that perhaps suggest where things are, and even, what the hold up is. Speculation, perhaps, but no worse than anything we're not seeing here either. Basically, seems we're playing hard ball on an AFL-proposed compromise. "Apparently very close to an agreement, possible inclusion if we agree is that the AFL commits to a similar investigation into all other teams suspected of tanking." "Apparently we're still refusing to make a deal and firmly believe that there isn't enough evidence, keep hearing that we're offering to pay for Bailey's legal representation if it goes to court, which I'm very happy about, many cashed up supporters have come forward to assist with it." "Melbourne are continuing to turn down the offer, I strongly believe that they will definitely take it to the courts if it goes against them"

From a place pronounced Fah-ka-tah-nee apparently. Which is slightly odd given that the official spelling of his hometown, Whakatane, starts with a "W" ... someone pulling our legs? (slow day, sorry ....)

Pope's resignation? Gotta have a big impact as well ... Lots going down at the moment, we'll be pushed off the back pages yet.

Just to note, the team-wide withdrawals that have occurred in cycling have been done by the organisers - or the teams themselves voluntarily - not by WADA or their affiliates, or even (in the case of cycling) by the UCI, the governing body. WADA and related penalties only apply to individuals. Also worth noting, is that in the Festina affair, the biggest team-wide drugs bust in cycling, that there were no positive tests, nothing was found on or with the riders, and it was initially only the trainer who was driving the car carrying the "products" who was arrested. Riders subsequently confessed, and were banned based on those confessions.

No, but we don't need it to either. The big difference with a schoolyard dispute is that the school rules are (usually ...) clearly defined. "Tanking" isn't, it's just a point on a line somewhere between two extremes: at one end we have leaving no stone unturned to try to win, a the other, we have deliberately manufacturing a loss i.e. match fixing. As such, as with much that's involved with the AFL, the teams rely on precedence and accepted practice to establish what is and what isn't permitted, both within the laws of the game, but also, within the spirit of the game. It seems to me that the "they did it too" argument is important here, simply because it's one factor in establishing where the point on that line is between committing an offense or not.

Administered by a nurse, and taken off-site ... of course.

Not disagreeing, but actually, with the quarters that short (15 mins plus time-on), I thought pretty well everyone was in and out of the game, simply because there wasn't as much game to get into. Regardless, I thought Aaron looked fairly switched on and pro-active - let's hope he can carry it into the MFC games.

Perhaps what we could do with on Demonland is the equivalent of Bay 13 over on Bigfooty. A place where people can just go for it, no mods, no holds barred, where they can say what they REALLY think without hijacking every other thread with this internecine sniping. We could call it The Cage.

Jay Clark ‏@ClarkyHeraldSun Chris Connolly spent a long day at AFL HQ yesterday. Great footy person, would be tough if an individual took the brunt. Dees will fight.

Next week apparently: "Gill McLachlan has told triple M that the AFL will deliver its tanking verdict on Melbourne next week. Dees were at AFL yesterday"

Pot, kettle etc.

FWIW: Dees' secretive way 'best' " MELBOURNE president Don McLardy has defended the scarcity of information the club has provided to members about its response to the AFL's tanking investigation, insisting the secretive approach had been adopted ''in the best interests of our club''." etc. etc.

Even if true, it's still a fairly large camel to be threading through the eye of a fairly small needle. Not much room in that story to get it wrong. Increasing discussion around Bovine Colostrum, which I have to confess, until today I'd never even given a moment's thought to. Plenty of info on it out on the net if anyone's interested, but is in that "grey" area where it's not technically illegal in itself, though it contains an illegal substance (IGF-1). And ... freely available online at places like Amazon. On the other hand, I for one am showing my ignorance and perhaps naivety, in the discovery that players in the AFL are having injections of calf's blood etc. etc. as part of routine supplement intake. So much for the old ice bath and protein shake after a workout, seems that even that application of sports science is now both old hat and insufficient.

Not just in the arm it seems.

Opened this thread hoping to find some serious footy discussion. Still the silly season it seems.

Not so fast: "VETERAN football commentator Sandy Roberts denies reports he has left Channel 7 after 34 years to work for rival television station Fox Footy." Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/im-not-off-to-fox-sandy-20130205-2dww8.html#ixzz2K3LgTqqE

... and prosecutor and investigative body.

Mind-boggling indeed! And there are some here who criticise the way we handled "not deliberately trying to win". At least people weren't asked to sign waivers.

No, but I believe that the AFL can appeal any bans to the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport). It's a bit like in the Armstrong case, where there was conjecture that the UCI (the governing body for cycling) would appeal the bans applied by Armstrong's drug authority, USADA. The big boys, WADA, can also get involved and override ASADA if they feel that any ASADA response is too lenient (or hasn't followed correct procedure). Interesting times.

But seriously off her game ... she missed any number of opportunities to insert references to Melbourne/tanking/The Vault ... in a piece on the CEO's and drugs.

How do you know who's lining up with baseball bats ... or if there's even a line at all? Lots of speculation, followed by conclusions based on speculation. In reality, none of us know who's actually said what.

Just re training and the photos, is there any readable logic in the blue/white tops that they're wearing? A team/B team or whatever?

Until all the info is released and we know what actually happened, hard to say how we conducted ourselves.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/teams/melbourne

I didn't mind the Gysberts posts, it's a valid discussion. In the Training thread? On one hand hard to justify, but on the other, we don't want new micro-threads every time there's the least Melb-based subject that anyone wants to bring up. Perhaps someone could start a kind of holding thread for ex-Melbourne players (still playing), that we can add to when the need to discuss Gysberts and his friends arises.