binman

It

Or alternatively keep this thread open and not derail the training thread?

Nooooooooooooooo!

I don't have an issue with the penalties being backdated and to be honest good luck to the sharks players, they've received a benefit from a preparedness to a deal. I also have no doubt that the deal was such a good one because ASADA needed to clear the decks to be able to deal with EFC. What i find curious in terms of WADAs choice to accept the penalties is that their issue with ASDA seemed to be the time it took them to do the deal not the penalty itself. The implication is 12 months with a reduction to 3 for time served (so to speak) is a reasonable penalty. That assumes that WADA accept the idea the players were duped (because that is the only way a penalty can be only 12 months ban - a penalty that can be halved if the players cooperate and admit guilt, which the sharks did), which given the threshold that has been floated (eg being administered a drug in surgery) seems strange. This is relevant for EFC on two fronts. Firstly if the Sharks could argue they were duped the EFC should have no problems arguing the same thing, in fact it seems to be accepted that this argument will stand up. This means that the maximum the EFC players could cop is 12 months. Given they have not cooperated they won't get any reduction off that however by the time the season starts they will have already served 6-7 months of that time. It will ruin this season but not next. The second thing is that if WADA accept the argument that the Sharks players were duped (and by extension EFC players) they are perhaps more a paper tiger than steely lion when it comes to ensuring appropriate penalties are handed out - their tough talk over cronulla notwithstanding.

Yes i get that EFC were worse than Cronulla and EFC have taken a litigious path that of course will have angered ASADA and WADA. But taking the Cronalla penalties in isolation do you agree that WADA were very soft on them by not appealing the wet lettuce penalties they got away with? And if you do agree what does this say about WADA and their capacity/willingness to ensure appropriate penalties are handed down?

That is all well and good and of course there are differences but the fact remains that the Cronulla players admitted taking banned PEDs. In comparison to the sentences many athletes have received in the last few years (eg the ones WJ listed above) 6 months is extremely generous. Wade Lees cops 18 months for inadvertently importing a supplement with a banned ingredient which he never even used. Ahmad Saad 18 months (and ASADA wanted more) for an inadvertent single use use of a banned PED in a protein drink. Both missed whole seasons of footy. The Cronulla players used illegal PEDs on multiple occasions and get 6 months and miss bugger all games. Fair? i don't think so. Sending a powerful message/disincentive? I don't think so If WADA were so hot to trot on making sure players copped their fair wack and laying down a marker then surely they would not have let the penalties Cronulla negotiated through to the keeper. Yet that is precisely what they did. I call [censored] on the whole WADA are the tough guys who will reign down vengeance on EFC palaver you are spinning.

You've said a number of times that if the AFL go easy in terms of sentencing ASADA and then WADA will appeal and enforce longer ones. However that view is contradicted by the decision by WADA to tick off the penalties for Cronulla, penalties that were very light (six months i think). Whilst they admitted guilt and cooperated 6 months for use of banned drugs is pretty light by any measure, particularly given they will hardly miss a game. It is worth noting that the Cronulla players were less able to argue they were duped as they did not go to the lengths ess players did to get assurances what they were being administered was legal. As i understand it the standard penalty is 2 years, halved for cooperation and admitting guilt. Its only 12 months (and by extension 6 for cooperation ect) if they successfully argue they were duped.

In the Hun there is an article confirming use of top up players and games going ahead. Article is by Mick Warner (nuff said). Loved the final line: 'And classy onballer Brendon Goddard ran two laps and then a series of sprints along the boundary line during the final workout that reiterated the Bombers are ready to go when the issues are resolved.'

I'm assuming you mean surprised if does not play in most

I don't agree with this at all and -not having a go - i am surprised there seems to be a number of posters who think he might drop to the magoos. Leaving aside the issues of being picked number 1 and his lack of intensity last year he was one of our most consistent players. He is also without question our most skillful player by foot and i would argue also by hand. He has also has exceptional vision and creates scoring opportunities. Given we are not blessed with a team full of great kicks who have great vision and set up goals i think he is safe in the side. Barring injury i would be very surprised if he does not play every game.

Chip le grand just on 774 discussing, at length, the issue of use of ped's. Missed most of it but at the end was asked if players would be missing part of the season. Chop said well players lawyers don't believe asada have the evidence. Well they would say that would'nt they. He is supposed to be a journalist

I'd like him to be taller

I agree Since when do professional athletes get to decide if they opt out of a scheduled game? Those that are provisionally suspended should not be able to play, full stop but why do the others who were at the club in 2012 and didn't get jabbed get this option ? It is plain bad luck (and of course a consequence of the clubs decision to go to the high court or for that matter not cutting a deal 2 years back) for them that there is not an outcome yet. If that means that the charged players (who have already been identified mind you) have their identities revealed then tough luck.

Caro said on 3aw tonight that she and Gerard were aware of tension between Bartlet and pj

100% agree. I was suggesting something similar with players hedging their bets. But as you say it must be so hard to play attacking risky footy when you are worried about your man getting easy turnovers

I'll add a third element - poor kicking skills, particularly of the half back where errors/turnovers are most damaging. Poor kicking means that in addition to the obvious (straight turnovers) players up field might hedge their bets to provide cover for a turnover, but most significantly players are not confident with the long kick, perhaps across the face of goals, to a player who has busted a gut to make space, for fear of turning it over. Really of our defenders only Dunn (and perhaps Garland?) is a reliable long kick. Last season there was a number of times McDonald didn't honor the leading players, not because he didn't see them but because i suspect he was worried about turning it over. Jetts is an accurate kick but not a long one. And Grimes is nether particularly accurate or long (though i don't think his shorter kicks are as bad some make out). Roos is working on this no doubt but it is good to hear that Frost and Junior Mac are both good kicks, whilst H is a serviceable long kick

No i don't

I agree. Bail is similar and Jetts even more so. Jones and Bail will continue to be best 22 and it goes without saying Jets is is a lock. Jones and Bail personify the sort of two way runners the Roos game plan demands and both are the sort of solid citizens/role players Roos loves.

Fair enough. I suggested something similar some months ago - admittedly half in in jest. I see the bickering as unresolved sexual tension al la the trope in American movies and TV shows (eg moonlighting). Seen through this lens it is quite funny.

To be honest i'm getting a little tired of the woe is Saty /please come back Saty/Saty is being forced off the DL etc etc comments. Yes much of the back and forth between Saty and his detractors can be tiresome but for Pete's sake Saty is just as much to blame for derailing threads into bickerfests - perhaps more so. Why more so? Well mainly because he has admitted on any number of occasions that he deliberately winds people up for his own amusement. I repeat he admits he winds peole up for his own amusement. Borderline trolling. So forgive me if i don't feel all sorry for him and beg from him to continue posting. I actually had Saty on ignore for a long time precisely because of his trolling (the final straw for me was his vociferous defense of the ex casey coach's very public and out of line comments about MFC players x 2: apparently it is not on for DL posters to bag dees players but perfectly ok for a Casey coach to do so. But i digress). But i took him off ignore because i enjoy his training reports and don't bother reading the back and forth so i could care less about them derailing threads. No one is compelled to read anything. But please peeps by choosing to deliberately wind people up he rescinds his right to play the poor wounded, hard done by club stalwart.

Whatever.

Roos 1 Lyon 0

Sorry wj peanuts are not paleo. They are a legume

Strange isn't it. Why would the AFL want to destroy any club let alone one as important to the viability of the competition as EFC. Bizarre. Similarly its weird how Demitriou allegedly calling Evans to give them a heads up is used by some as evidence the AFL have it in for EFC (as opposed to the more logical conclusion that if true he was wanting to protect them - and course protect the AFL).

Just needs an uninterrupted pre season