binman

Who by the by looks pretty fit. Playing nab gamed apparently

C'mon stop it. Ya messin with me DL. Has to be dunny

Don't invite Col Sylvia then. He's gotta focus on getting back to the seniors

Credit where credit is due. Good work mfc

Yes. Annoying posting using the phones. I quoted you because you made the point I am trying to make. It is up to adada to make the cade players are guilty. The burden of proof is theirs. Not sure what you mean the onus is on the players to defend themselves. That's a funny way of stating the obvious. In any cade it is not entirely true. Asada may not mount a credible case in which case the players would not need to respond. As for DC. He quoted the relevant legislation that made it 100% clear burden of proof is on asada. It is impossible to argue otherwise

The onus is simply not on the players. I think I'll believe the former CEO of Masada rather than random DL posters. Or a sports lawyerhttp://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/asada-has-its-work-cut-out-for-it-in-proving-a-case-against-essendon-players-20131220-2zqr9.html

Wj we need your help

Sue good points well made. My main point is that it is simply not the slam dunk Bb and others make out. Asada will have a hard task getting a guilty verdict

Yes but you make it sound easy to prove this. ASADA has the burden of proof to establish to the tribunal comfortable satisfaction they players actually were administered banned drugs. Its not a simple matter to do this. Its up to ASADA to make a compelling case not up to the players to make a case why they didn't used a banned drug. They get to defend themselves and make rebuttals.

Whilst it is not a court of law the burden of proof falls on ASADA where there is no positive test, despite what BB maintains. BB you asked for evidence and i haven't had time yet to find it. Just put a big comment up with links but stuffed up and navigated off the page and lost it all (annoying). Anyway this google page has tones of articles clarifying this issue. Page 2 includes a thread from Richard Ings twitter feed that addresses this very issue. he is adamant that ASADA has the burden of proof to establish players took TB4 not the other way around. Comments on the thread note that Sam Lane appears to be confused about this issue and that perhaps this is because at the show cause stage the burden of proof does indeed fall on the players. But not at the tribunal stage. link here

...or test their players every 12 hours

Further to this discussion I reckon they should consider having training on sat morning in the pre season. This would allow many more fans to come along and would help with fan engagement. Have a demon army BBQ and occasionally some added extras for kids like a mini clinic or team mascot and make it a ritual. No reason why players couldn't have the Monday off instead. Tyson (or frost?) said gws train sat

I don't think it is a massive issue but i think this comment sums it up - as do the others that noted it was an opportunity lost. They could have - and probably should have - done better. And the concerns raised they didn't are completely valid. Like another poster i went past the Pies intra club game last Thursday night. The place was rocking and you could not help be jealous of the buzz. It is worth noting it was held at night, when obviously players would not ordinarily be training. Which implies the maggies were thinking of their fans when scheduling the game (and perhaps also an opportunity to show of the impressive ground and lighting set up) as opposed to not deviating from the regimented pre season training routine for fear of impacting on player performance. I went to the AGM and listened with interest to PJ's overview of the new Strategic Plan. Two key planks of the plan are building the membership to 50,000 and reengaging with the supposed supporter heartland in the south east and bayside suburbs. All decisions an organisation makes should be done using a lens of the Strat plan and the question asked - how does activity x contribute to achieving specific strategic goals. If you apply that lens to the decision to hold the intra club game at Casey on a Thursday arvo this decision can only be seen as a fail. Hold the game on a Saturday or even under lights somewhere (if available) in the South Eastern bayside area - an area which by the by is very accessible to people living in Casey. Pump it it up in those suburbs. Put a bus to and from the Casey ground to show support for that area and the club. Provide entertainment, food, access to players not involved etc so people are encouraged to bring their kids. Have merch and membership sales available. In short make it an event. This approach would have supported the achievement of two of the clubs brand new strategic goals that the CEO trumpeted at the AGM to members and would likley not impact on the overarching goal of winning more games of football. Again it is completely reasonable to question the clubs decision on this one.

Now that's funny

I am the anti stretch

Perhaps his nick name should be Paul

Whach ya talking about willis? Don't you mean pick 18?

I second that, fascinating insight and i've learnt a lot fro your posts. I also second the idea of raising the draft age. For me its a no brainer. However for many reasons it may never happen (though it is interesting hat it has happened in the NBL) so perhaps an alternative is drafted players are not allowed to play an AFL game 'till their second year and their training loads are modified (as i guess they are to an extent already but if there would be limit to how much you could modify it currently where there there is an expectation they'l play AFL footy). Webber i'd be interested to know if doing the above would decrease the likelihood of injuries such as ligament damage, ACLs, PCLs, osteo pubis etc.

The jackovich

Will be fascinating as u assume players will remain suspended whilst any appeal process is underway. In which case no value in players appealing and pressure on afl not to go too light

My thoughts as well. Would explain his technique of hand parallel to body and two grabbing. As someone above noted the thumbs are the shock absorbers. If you had a suspect thumb you would compensate to protect it i assume.

BB i think you're wrong on this and Its Time is correct.

It

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