binman

Bb one of the things I find frustrating with both your and dees2014s commentary on this issue is the repeated line that the fix is in and the afl will in fact determine the penalty not the independent tribunal. Essentially what you are suggesting is 3 much respected members of the legal fraternity are corrupt. Also you seem to suggest it is fact not a fantasy of yours.And don't get me started on the doomsday scenarios involving mutiple appeals, the big bad wada wolf and the all powerful cas

Honesty what a load of ill informed tosh. Average defenders don't get runner up in b and fs

Good post good vibes. I'm a sucker for the watts and toump shares and happy to speculate. I'll leave the hogan shares. Too expensive and it will take me a couple of injury free years to stop being nervous about that investment. Happy to buy some Grimes, Basil and m Jones shares and invest heavily in the blue chip dunn and Jones shares

What a ridiculous post

So do i

Two weeks to d day

Steveman I read once on here about confirmation bias theory. I wonder if that might apply a bit with your assessment of Grimes. He was one of our best players. Hitting short targets should not be underestimated. He nailed his unlike Tyson and Salem who both had some right clagers. But more significantly Grimes nailed some attacking kicks really well, one of which (a bullet into the forward fifty) set up a scoring shot. To my eye he seemed to have made some technical adjustments to his kicking action.

The Crowley bust no good for the efc spin machine. Hard to reconcile a likely 18 month ban with lesser penalties for multiple use of peds

I see little told the efc faithful at their season launch that they are confident players will be cleared. Funny how this pronouncement gets full back page treatment

That's not as crazy as it sounds

Gws, st kilda and mfc. Bottom 3 sides. And Newbold complains about equalisation measures.

Funny you should say that wj. Matty Lloyd, doc Larkin's and g Healy were bagging asada for their tardiness on 3aw tonite, which I thought was ridiculous

Toumpas: better than wines

Bontempelli looks a star doesn't he. Huge for a mid and will fill out even more

Heezus bb are you serious? Credit where credit is due. Good job mfc. Sounds like all did a top job

Oh...

%100 agree nasher. However I'm wondering if you meant to post this in another thread. Can't see many puns in this one

Watched the game today for the first time. The toump was terrific. Not sure where this tackle stuff comes from. One he laid some great tackles himself. Two yes he got caught with it a couple of times but so do m Jones and viney (who seems to escape critisim because of his attack on the ball). Instead of the photo of him being tackled we might have equally referenced the play where he brilliantly avoided a tackle and won the ball in the forward pocket setting up an easy goal. Class

Ta, i looked yesterday but it wasn't there

Replay available at http://bigpondvideo.com/. Note it will only be at that site for perhaps rest of today. Go to AFL TV tab on sport video. Bigpond only has last 2 games up. The other option is AFL live pass but even you get a four week free trial you have to enter credit card details and if you don't cancel it roll over into weekly payments after 4 weeks

Anyone know if there is replay somewhere?

Though ones got a dodgy knee and the other a dodgy foot. She might have done us a favour

Just read it. Incredible. Warner has shredded what was left of his reputation. Even if true - no particularly if true - surely you have to back up a statement like 'The maximum two-year ban will not be imposed because of the unique circumstances surrounding the two-year investigation.' But no he adds nothing to that sentence, not a single explanatory justification or note. He also says that 'The players have been provisionally suspended since infraction notices were issued on November 13. Any bans would be backdated to that date.'My understanding is that whilst that is likely is not a certainty, its up to the tribunal He goes on to say 'A six-month ban would sideline players to May 13, missing the first six rounds of the season. But ASADA could push for a one-year ban.' Could push for a one year ban? Apart from the fact that the tense is wrong in that sentence (the AFL and ASADA have made their cases as to penalties i think) on what grounds would they be pushing for 12 months. By the rules 12 months is a minimum sentence - and then only if the tribunal accepts the duped defense and halves the automatic 2 year ban. The only way it could be less under the rules is a discount for a guilty plea and/or significant cooperation and those horses have well and truly bolted. The article ends with a list of the bombers first six matches, implying missing six matches is the most they'll cop. Pathetic. Do the Hun editors really think such rubbish will influence an independent tribunal? Or is the game to set up the faux angst the Hun will almost certainly foment with 1-2 year penalty? Wind up the poor delusional bombers fans and play into the conspiracy EFC as victims narrative. Pathetic. The Hun should be called out. Or at least not be able to call themselves a news paper.

I always loved this logo. Not sure why. He does look like a Derek. Derek the accountant