binman

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

Oh please - judge him by his actions? And what might those actions be? Clearing Barry hall and efc players?

Some more intellectual brilliance form Slobbo (who writes as if he has been personally vindicated): 'Some will try to argue “insufficient evidence’’ doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It is the defence of the desperate' Hilarious article (check the smug grin of Warner)

You can't countenance an argument they simply did their job and based on the evidence were unable to conclude, to their comfortable satisfaction, the players were administered a banned drug? Or perhaps you have seen all the evidence? Guilty people go free. It happens in courts and tribunals all over the world.

'A long-time friend and former housemate of Carlton's Tom Bell and Collingwood's Josh Thomas, Hickey in recent months has added about six kilograms to what was a relatively light 94-kilogram frame.' http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/thats-reality--saint-tom-hickey-prospers-from-london-calling-20141108-11j030.html

Well if a group of players bought their charlie (not brownlow) from the one source.......

Father-mutant rule?

I wasn't - though i hedged my bet

ASADas evidence wasn't compelling enough obviously. End of (this part of the) story. Now lets see if Dees2014 and BBs big bad WADA wolf enters the picture

Not guilty http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-verdict-afl-anti-doping-tribunal-rules-on-supplement-saga/story-fni5f6kv-1227285913343

On Tim Watson i reckon more fool anyone that thinks he could be balanced - as opposed to knocking him for being unbalanced. Its his son after all. I listened to SEN this morning, which i rarely do. I find bizarre how on that station so many of their presenters argue that the media have shaped a perception that the EFC is guilty, something Watson and that other clown (not Gaze) ere banging on about again today. Crazy given most would say the opposite is true, given the relentless pro hird, EFC pap the Murdoch press has been pumping out for 2 years, not to mention the influential voices of Tracey Holmes and Gerard Whatley

That's an interesting thought and one i hadn't really considered. More than possible i guess.

I honestly reckon it's 50 50. A not guilty finding is very possible as whilst there seems to be circumstantial evidence no one outside the hearing (well almost no one and most likely no one on this site) has a clue as to what has actually been presented or argued. It funny though because both possibilities - guilty and not guilty - will lead the zealots on both sides to say this is clear evidence of an AFL conspiracy (even though one conspiracy disproves the other). The pro EFC Hird kool aid drinkers will argue a guilty verdict is proof positive of the AFL's vindictive conspiracy to get EFC and Hird. The feverish anti Hird camp will argue a not guilty verdict is proof the fix is in and the AFL has corrupted the independent tribunal and got the result it always wanted. If the verdict is guilty the penalties will be determined at some future date which when handed down will provide more opportunities for both camps to cry conspiracy.