binman

Sorry did i miss something above. I'm not sure why the baove info puts the AFL tribunal in any context. If i read it correctly the Royale Ligue vélocipédique Belge will argue Van Avermaet was treated with Diprophos, with the evidence being the email exchange. What was the outcome? Was Van Avermaet found guilty?

Walking down the bleachers looking at the pleaches

Good idea. The second tier comps would be strengthed by having the best kids in them. Afl clubs would also have an incentive to assist these clubs to enhance their development programs. The product would be more attractive to TV stations. Also like the idea of a national under 23 state of origin carnival which would showcase the best 18-19 year olds and give those overlooked in a draft or late developers to show their wares. The best Under 23 year olds (excluding afl players) playing proper matches with something on the line would be great to watch and probably of interest to TV (whereas under 18s probably isn't). It might revive state of origin as well

The good thing about this win is that hopefully it will scotch the rubbish about 25 odd players missing the NAB cup games being disastrous or their fitness, which seems to have become an accepted fact based on getting smashed late against the Swans. It of course suits the narrative the AFL, Channel 7 and EFC are keen to dive, ie the heroic players overcoming adversity, come watch them live and on telly! That Hamish [censored] was saying with 10 mins o go that a comeback was impossible and that a win would be their greatest in two decades. Please. Seems they had sufficient fitness after all, though the AFL, Channel 7 and EFC narrative will probably be thye won it pure mental fortitude and grit alone ANZAC day will make me puke

Great post. Best I've read in a while

What drills are PJ and Bartlett doing?

If trenners come back near his best and petracca also returns in good nick that's two pretty handy recruits to to go with the 18th pick in the next draft

Two articles that reflect many of my thoughts on this issue: http://www.smh.com.au/afl/greens-senator-richard-di-natale-warns-afl-drug-reform-may-endanger-player-health-20150408-1mgweb.html http://www.smh.com.au/sport/the-fitz-files/why-sports-war-on-recreational-drugs-is-pointless-20150408-1mgsvq.html

1. Completely irrelevant 2. He was punished for breaking team rules. 3. Protecting players from themselves? Seriously? Does your employer do the same thing? Again protecting the players from themselves, punishment etc is not the purpose of the testing. But perhaps if you think they should protect themselves from themselves then I guess you'd support random breath testing of players and testing for legal prescription pills

Could not agree more PRB. It infuriates me. I love Paul Roos but he is way off base with this. Forget the moral element for a second (and it seems to be impossible for many to do so - the amount of shrill commentary i have heard from mostly 50 year old plus ex players) and focus on the reason for the testing. Under the WADA code players are under no obligation to a have out of comp testing for illicit drugs. No obligation. The AFLPA agreed, in 2005 to improve the capacity to help players who developed an issue. It was never intended to be process to punish players I said at the time they were insane to do so (and even more insane to agree to hair testing) because as some point the self interest of the clubs and AFL would become trump that of the welfare of the players. That time is now. And there is no doubt that time has come because coke is being cut with PEDs and suddenly clubs are in danger of losing valuable assets for 2 or more years. The players should simply say stuff it we don't want to be tested out of comp for illicit drugs because we are compliant with the WADA code and it doesn't require it. Then set up their own treatment programs (eg an AFLPA EAP). Roos is right about one thing. It is a legal issue. Leave it to the cops to bust drug users not football clubs.

Stupid comment

Just about your best post H_H, mainly because i 100% agree

Don't agree. Technically poor. Decision making ok

It was for jesse

Indeed. In DJ terms it was a pretty savage mash up. Demonic to jaunty

My only gripe was that they didn't play enough of it

Unless he cops a training injury Dawes is a lock to be selected this week. Not so sure about Vince. Just think that he had a interrupted pre season with that shoulder op and they might decide to give him another game at Casey and two more weeks on the track and get him cherry ripe for round three. I would like them to stick with the Toump. In fact i'd like them to start him on the ground and make Brayshaw the sub. I admit he didn't seize the day on sat but had limited time on the ground. I know Viney played great but for some perspective made 6 clangers, a game high by a mile (across both teams) and both Jones and Watts made a couple of howlers. Given that i'd drop Frost, albeit acknowledging he'd be stiff.

Does anyone know if it is all day parking on Alexandra av on Saturday. I'm pretty sure it is but not 100%

It has one. I'm using it now. It is excellent. Buy a DL membership and you'll have it too

But red we know that they did, we just know it. We don't need evidence. We can can come to the conclusion they are guilty based on the information that is in the media - yes the same media we slam for being selective and full of agendas and mouthpieces for the EFC camp and the AFL, but sstill we know. We don't need a month of deliberations. We don't really need any reliable info. The players are guilty and this is one big AFL conspiracy......

Yes exactly. And they were found not guilty of using banned drugs. Not guilty. You obviously believe they did use a banned drug but that is completely irrelevant to your argument. How could they be charged with intent to use a banned drug when they've been cleared of using it?

Are you serious. I mean really. You have been so blinkered on this topic that you seem not to be able to understand how illogical much of what you say about it is. The players intended to take supplements they had been assured - in writng - was not banned. So their intention was to accept being administered with drugs they had be told were ok. But no you say this doesn't matter because they intended to use banned dug (evn if ignorant of this). Really? Ok for the sake of the argument lets accept this. The tribunal found that there is insufficient evidence to prove they took a banned substance. They were found not guilty of taking one - how on earth could they found guilty of intent to use one. Sheesh

True but that is very hard to prove. The point remains it is a completely different scenario to the efc players. Lees imported the supplement himself with the intention of ingesting it

Honestly bb you talk some a grade tosh. Intent? The players? Are you saying they had intent to take a banned substance. Not efc, not hird,not dank - the players. It is accepted the players had no clue what they were taking. They signed forms saying nothing was against code. Where was their intent? Lees (not his doctor, ciach, parent) attempted to import a banned substance to use. That's intent.

Howled down because in real life conspiracies are fairy tales. But good to have one of the afl are corrupt zealots back on board. So much more fun seeing a not guilty verdict as evidence of afl corruption rather than the mundane reality that asada ballsed it up (eg by not getting sworn affadavits)and were unable to make their case