binman

Over the journey he has been bagged quite a deal on DL - turnover specialist etc etc. But more recently there have been at least 2 comments suggesting if he gets picked for the seniors it means we are going backwards. Which is silly because it is much more likely to mean terlich has raised his standards to a level where Ross will pick him. Indications are he is giving it a good crack.

He probably thinks he has the right to bare arms as well

It says something about disastrous a pick Cool was at 12 that your comment was a joke.

I agree dazzle. I thought he played some terrific games under Neeld and i thought his ability to run and carry and take some risks of HB were real positives. Yes his skills let him down sometimes, particularly when trying to cross the ball to the fat side but i suspect that is not the reason roos has not picked him. Put bluntly his fitness has been nowhere near the level required but if as Pro Dee suggests he is working hard on that then all power to him. Like PD i also don't get the hate for him, nor for that matter Matt Jones. And comments suggesting either being selected are indicators we are going backwards are just plain dumb. Such comments suggest players in their mid twenties can not go up a level, which may well be true in a general sense but there are any number of exceptions. Jobe Watson is one. A more relevant example is Kyle Cheney who we traded out for zilch. Kyle has gone on to carve out a good career with the hawks and the Crows. Jamie Benell is another.

Did he kick any goals?

So will i. And not only because of the bet. If he can get 30 goals (which if he plays 22 games should be more than possible), Hoges can kick 60, Garlett can get 25 and Kent and Petraaca can both get 15-20 we should be pushing the top 10.

I'll admit that i'm surprised that, based on Watts's comments the plan appears to be to play him closer to goals as i was sure he would play high half forward wing. As Watts says the aim will be to kick goals and as such it is only reasonable to judge his output by the number of goals he kicks. 35-40 goals as a KPI is not unreasonable, though for me feels a little high as Hogan was our leading goals kicker last year with 41 and no doubt will be again this year (and for the rest of his career) but i would be rapt if he could kick 60. There will also be Kent, Gartlett and Petraaca looking for their cut of goals. Also how many goals Watts might/should snag will be influenced by how many wins we get and even more importantly if we play a more attacking game (which seems likely). So i reckon my KPI would be 30-35 goals. Either way what is interesting, particularly in light of our bet, is that if the aim is to kick goals then he is likely to be dropped if he doesn't. Whilst i would prefer him up the ground it is possible that playing deeper will help him by making the coaching staff's expectations crystal clear in terms of what he needs to do to be picked each week - kick goals. This could help free up his thinking and keeps things nice and simple. Also i get frustrated that Watts doesn't back himself more often and have a ping at goals, rather than give it off. Making goals the key aim might see him go for goals more often and given how good a kick he is that can only be a good thing.

In the sense that he can't get off the ground?.

If the appeal does not get off thew ground i look forward to reading Bruce francis's 20 page dissection of their 200 word dismissal (written in French) " the Swiss court made several key legal mistakes in their frankly corrupt decision to summarily dismiss the players right of appeal. Under the Human Rights Charter....."

Good lord please not HM as head caller

Who is the block with Petracca?

Man oh man Francis is out there. Loved this line: 'I am delighted that you have read my response to CAS’s 16 strands in the cable. I am the only one who knows enough to pick up misrepresenting the evidence. and this: 'Forget the legal experts, they know bugger all. They may have worked a few hundred hours on the project. I have worked for over 10,000 hours on it. You know I have torn apart the CAS verdict and WADA and ASADA but you haven’t the guts to say so. Now that my fellow posters is pure comedy gold.

I don't think this is the case. Chris Kais covers this question in his excellent piece WJ has previously provided a link to. He says: 'It is also not true to say that no new evidence was produced. First, WADA submitted new analytical evidence showing elevated TB-4 readings in the urine samples taken from two Essendon players in 2012. For the reasons listed in Point 1 above, WADA wisely did not rely on this evidence in its closing submissions (CAS Decision [150]) and the CAS Panel rejected this evidence. Secondly, and more importantly, new evidence was provided which fundamentally changed the approach of the panel. This new evidence came from one of WADA’s experts, Dr James Cox. Dr Cox ‘wholly convinced’ the CAS Panel that the substance compounded by Nima Alavi’s assistant—and tested at the Bio21 laboratory—was TB-4 (CAS Decision [132]). It was due to this new evidence from Dr Cox that ASADA made a submission abandoning its previous ‘links in the chain’ approach as the presence of TB-4 at the Como pharmacy meant it was no longer necessary to prove the source of the TB-4 (CAS Decision [115]).' A terrific piece and i've been reflecting that the best information about this whole saga has been via new media: Demonland, blogs, twitter etc. The worst information has almost all been provided by the mainstream media.

No. This year he is MFC player serving his suspension. He is one of ours now.

By the by the NAB game against the dogs is out at craigeburn and the capacity is only 6k. With a membership you can get a ticket but have to pay $5. Sounds a bit funny but i reckon it will sell out so i bought my ticket already as even with a membership you won't get in if all tickets are sold Tickets can be bought here: http://premier.ticketek.com.au/shows/Show.aspx?sh=NABCHIG16

Perhaps they'll appeal the knock back of the appeal.

Ughh. Another woeful bit of writing, which fails to make mention of the obvious contradiction: the appeal, even if successful will do nothing whatsoever for the players reputation in terms of being branded drug cheats. Nothing. They are not appealing the finding but the process and a successful appeal will not change the cold hard fact an independent tribunal determined they used banned drugs, or for that matter the fact that players lied to ASADA when reporting their drug use. Two other things: on SEN the other day in that road crash of a radio spot, he mentioned the CAS judgement being shredded by legal minds (yes that's the word he used). He must have been chuffed with his choice of word because he uses the same phrase in this article, this time adding non legal minds (what ever that is) ie the CAS judgement has been shredded by legal and no legal minds. Prey tell Robbo who are these minds of whom you speak? Surely journalism 101 is that a comment like that is backed up or else its just pub talk. The other thing: he couldn't help but sneak in another defense of Hird, in a bit of twisted logic that frankly hurt my brain. I looked at some of the comments in the article and they are almost universally anti the players and Robbo. Ironically this attempt fight for their reputation may just do further harm to it.

Maybe News limited is paying for the appeal. Apart from the lawyers they have the most to gain from this dragging on. I'm only half joking

Copped 1 week for striking Nick Holland and IIRC rightly was dead unlucky to go down. he should have appealed it to CAS. Perhaps they should give Jobes medal to Chris

I wonder how Chris Grant would feel if Watson retains his brownlow

Are there any Gwillians here? Perhap a Wobbo? Or any Wobe Whaaatsons? There is a Wobe Whaaatson? Guards welease him, welease him!

Stop it. Just stop it. I can feel my annual Pollyanna Syndrome coming on again

I don't believe that's the case. CAS don't make those decisons, nor do WADA or in this case ASADA, as McDeviit has made clear. In your example it is up to the IOC to make the call on medals just as it is up to the AFL to make the call on the Brownlow.

Spot on. All organisations benefit from having a diverse work force so its a big tick from that perspective, as you say they are obviously both very talented and driven and it will no doubt be a very positve move in terms of us setting up our women's team. So as you say a no brainer. In the past though no brainers were beyond us (and it appears are now beyond the AFL)

I heard Robbo on SEN and seriously he was almost incoherent. He sounded smashed. It was appalling and you could tell Allen and Harford were embarrassed. Id be sacked if i spoke in an official capacity like that. The article he wrote on the subject was trash, containing not a single logical reason why Watson should not lose the brownlow. Not one. His main thrust is that he is not comfortably satisfied that CAS's comfortable satisfaction the players took banned drugs is sufficient reason for stripping him of the brownlow ie it doesn't prove he is a drug cheat. The other argument is that the AFL have said all along they want to protect the players and now they have the chance. Is he for real? His radio spot was even more random, including the CAS doctoring evidence comment and a long ramble about how impossible the CAS judgement was to read with all of its legalese etc (a document that though long and detailed has been praised for its clarity by John Fahey and others). He clearly hasn't even read it and he is coomenting on the case. Beggars belief. The Chief Football writer at the Herald Sun? An insult to Mike Shean and Alf Brown