binman

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?

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