Macca

Rotten news mate ... I was expecting Teddy to take it to another level this season too.

I'd forgotten about the Bengals blowing that game against the Steelers ... post #3983 in case you missed it. Anyway, here's the other 2 wildcard games ... Packers @ Washington NFC Wildcard Highlights Seahawks @ Minnesota NFC Wildcard Highlights

Not long to go now ... final practice games on Thursday night and then we're into it. In the meantime I'll post up all the playoff game highlights from last season ... 2 games at a time for the next week and a half. The links will take you to youtube where you can full-screen the highlights. Chiefs @ Texans AFC Wildcard Steelers @ Bengals AFC Wildcard

Yeah, he's been quite impressive by all accounts ... regardless, that division (NFC East) is always a total mystery anyway. Any team can win it but Dallas will miss Romo ... I picked them to win the division but I'll stick with the tip because they've probably still got just as good a chance to win it as the other 3 teams. Be interesting to see how the Eagles go with their new QB (Wentz)

Well here goes ... NFC North - Vikings NFC East - Dallas NFC West - Arizona NFC South - Panthers AFC North - Steelers AFC East - Pats AFC West - Denver AFC South - Colts Wildcards - Seattle, Packers, Bengals, KC Super Bowl - Panthers MVP - Cam Newton Passing yards - Carson Palmer Receiving yards - Julio Jones Rushing yards - Adrian Peterson

I assume that any given player at any given club might be tempted with PED use. I also believe that a large majority won't be tempted ... but which ones? Anyway, I never said that a club would or could go down the path that Essendon took. My posts in the last page or 2 of this thread were referring to would-be cheats at any club or perhaps small groups of individuals who might use PED's ... again, at any club. But mostly individuals. Many or most drug cheats act independently and whilst the AFL's policy is to only test (on average) one player per season with one urine test, that leaves the door open for any would-be drug cheats at any club. The low levels of testing probably led to Essendon taking the path that they did too. And the levels of testing hasn't changed since the Essendon scandal broke. Nothing has changed. There's probably greater awareness but a player having greater awareness could use that to his own advantage. It would be dead easy to take PED's as an AFL player and get away with it based on the lack of testing and the fact that the testing isn't thorough enough. Blood tests on a weekly/fortnightly basis (and by default blood passports) is world's best practice and we are miles away from those sorts of levels of testing. And you won't be seeing or hearing many opinions like mine either - rusted on footy fans generally don't want to know about this sort of stuff and our sporting media is often hopelessly compromised as well. If anyone thinks that our sportspeople in Australia don't or won't cheat like others do overseas then I'm going to disagree with that type of thinking. I'm by no means saying that drug cheats represent a large majority of sportspeople in any country in any sport ... I reckon it ranges between 2% and 5% but that figure can vary from sport to sport. However, in the whole scheme of things, those numbers are way too high. I also believe that the large majority of clean athletes shouldn't have to compete against cheats. Why would footy be any different? ... after all, we've seen a whole club and most of it's players get done for PED use ... same goes for the NRL & Cronulla. The players of those clubs had a choice and they took the wrong option. And they ended up paying the price.

Whilst looking at a Harvey or even a Dal Santo type the MC would have to look at the choices they would otherwise make instead of recruiting this type of player ... with regards to this type of player we know that the salary can't be large, the player has to be absolutely fair dinkum about playing on and we also know that it can only be a short term thing as well. The other important facet is where the MC sees the clubs list right now ... we've got an extremely young list and we could do with some real experience in the short term in a type of 'bridging' fashion. But that experience must have previously been of a decent quality. Many of our current experienced players can't get a game and any number of those experienced players are facing an uncertain future. So we could replace 'like for like' for 2 or 3 of those players rather than bringing in 7 or 8 more youngsters. Previously this current football dept has brought in many players who have had 2-4 years in the system or have been mature-age recruits - apart from a few misses that didn't cost the club a great deal (e.g. Georgiou & Riley) the results have been quite good to very good from an overall perspective (so far) When recruiting in this sort of way the strike rate can rarely be great. Here's the list of those types of players as a collective ... Tyson, Newton, Michie (now a rookie), AVB (originally a rookie), Wagner (rookie), Georgiou (rookie), Lumumba, Frost, Melksham, Vince, Riley, Cross, Bugg, Kennedy & Garlett. I may have missed 1 or 2 players who come under the above category. So if the match committee do decide to go down the path of recruiting in the short term like we did with Cross, then their track record tells us that they're probably going to get it right or close to right. It should be noted that recruiting any sort of player has a risk attachment.

Trengove played a number of games when clearly under duress so those games don't really count in my eyes. In fact, there is no real form line for Jack unless we want to go all the way back to 2010/2011. I see him as a talented mature age type who has been out of the game for a long period of time who has been offered a 1 year deal on a probable lowish salary. With a total of 44 players on a clubs list, the risk in re-signing Jack for one year is low-risk from the clubs point of view. There just aren't that many proven 'AFL ready' players in the system - more than half of all the 800 listed players & rookies have question marks over their heads. So there is plenty of room for project players or role players by default. Same as there's plenty of room for unproven youngsters. There is no unlimited talent pool. The issue with Trengove is recapturing a yard of pace, confidence and match day experience. As others have indicated, some sprint training can help but I reckon his main issue is restoring his own confidence. His main attribute is footy smarts and to display those footy smarts requires confidence and big match experience.

To sell newspapers ... there doesn't have to be an end game or a real purpose. Meanwhile, the real issue gets ignored or pushed aside. I'm of the belief that PED use worldwide will never be reeled back in but we might be able to have clean sport here in this country. But we're doing no more than anywhere else except with the agreement we have with WADA re penalties. As for testing standards and procedures and the amount of testing .... it's token. 1 urine test per player per season in the AFL isnt going to get it done.

I'm not sure that many genuinely care enough for change to happen. For instance, attitudes to PED use in this country is largely one of denial and/or ambivilence. Who talks about "clean sport" in this country? Most are either blissfully unaware or they don't care anyway ... or they simply don't believe or don't want to believe that we're capable of cheating like athletes do overseas. The whole Essendon & Cronulla scandals hasn't changed the thinking much either. It should have but many just want to blame Dank and not that many want to blame the players at all. Yet when it's about overseas athletes we often point the finger without a moments thought.

The AFL were given a perfect opportunity to up the ante when the Essendon scandal first broke. Instead of that, nothing has changed and the door has been left wide open for would-be drug cheats.

Journalistic standards are dropping and have dropped because newspapers are becoming a thing of the past (in real terms) It's more about what 'Sells' more than it's ever been ...TV & radio tend to follow the story and tackling hard issues gets relegated in the name of ratings. The misrepresentation, misreporting and withheld information during the 3 years of the Essendon saga highlighted all that ... most of the public were kept in the dark because of the cheerleading that went on ... more so in protecting brand AFL rather than Essendon. By default Essendon were protected because they are a large part of the AFL ... "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" is at the heart of the matter. 'Clean sport' became an irrelevancy. About the only time our media arks up about PED use is when it's about the Olympics. When it's closer to home it's time to clam-up. The double standards are astonishing. And those double standards are also quite prevelant with the general public. So the media feed the masses what they want to see and hear.

Speak of the devil ... Great Britain is already spending 476 million per year and there's lots lots more to come. And the funding won't be increasing incrementally either - increase will be extremely significant. Meanwhile, we're self imploding with little or no understanding of how far we've fallen behind and how further we'll probably fall behind. Baying for blood in the current environment will solve nothing - what it will do is make matters far worse. Cool heads are required but I'm not seeing it. Team GB aim to top medal table at Tokyo Games following record-breaking Rio 2016 Olympics So, as expected, Great Britain are going to up the ante - watch for Germany, Spain, France, the Netherlands & Italy to follow suit. And what are the Australian public & media going to do apart from having an almighty dummy-spit?

"We can't have our cake and eat it too" If we acknowledge that the big 3 (Russia, China & USA) have a PED culture either state sponsored and/or various individuals and if we also acknowledge that those countries are spending billions on their Olympic programs (that also includes Great Britain) then what chance do our athletes have? That's not taking into account other countries that spend up big on their Olympic programs and that's also not taking into account the rampant PED use in various countries (including the former Eastern bloc nations) Let's face it ... the average Australian believes that the Olympics is full of PED use and many have turned away from the event as a result ... take this thread as an example - 2 contributors (you and I) So where does that all leave our athletes? Pushing the proverbial uphill in my belief. Forget the silly projections ... that is just nonsense. Some examples from our club ... Mark Neeld ... "We'll be the hardest team to play against" Dean Bailey ,,, "This list will win a premiership" Cameron Schwab ... Whiteboard Wednesday & the red and blueprint nonsense Peter Jackson ... "We'll play a final in 2016" Glen Bartlett ... "We want to be the next New York Yankees" That's not to say that I want to lambast those who make predictions ... I just don't take those projections seriously. And there lies the problem ... many do take those projections seriously and then get angry and lash out if the predictions don't happen. Why else would people be so dissatisfied about the results?

I'll have a go at the division winners etc on the weekend ... the season kicks off in just over 2 weeks - that came around quickly this time probably because of the footy team still being thereabouts and getting all of our attention. Does anyone take any notice of the preseason games? I'm well and truly hooked on the real stuff but barely even look at the scores in the preseason games. The games are ultra important for formations, schemes, running routes and what not but the importance of the winning & losing is probably reserved for the real stuff. Anyway, we can do the tipping comp again if we have enough starters (5 or 6 or more) ... thought it best to leave it as it is (tip 3 road winners from 3 picks) but may throw an extra bonus point round in (or 2) Bonus weeks can be the odd numbered weeks starting with week one ... 2 points max except week 17 which traditionally carries 3 points.

Or both with regards to China, Russia & the USA. Not to mention any number of Eastern bloc nations from '68 through to '92 ... and who knows who or what else? If the average Australian had a greater understanding of what we're up against (extensive PED use & huge amounts of funding) then they would then be more measured with their comments about the outcomes that we get.

One could argue that we're definitely trending downwards from Beijing and why would that trend not continue? Beijing 46/13 then London 35/8 and now Rio 29/8 (total medals/gold medals) Commonwealth games ... (2010) 177/74 Aus 142/37 Eng (2014) 137/49 Aus 174/58 Eng From one Commonwealth games to the next ... we got 40 less medals & 25 less gold whilst England got 32 more medals and 21 more gold. That is a significant turnaround in 4 years. I refuse to believe that we suddenly got poor at Olympic sports nor am I going to believe that Great Britain suddenly got great at Olympic sports without one major factor ... funding/money.

Forget Great Britain, England will probably kick our butts and might end up with twice as many gold medals. They are going from strength to strength. And that's even with an incremental increase in funding for us. We are miles behind the 8 ball and we'll probably fall further behind ... and it's all related to funding levels. Things might only improve for us once the proverbial really does hit the fan. 18 medals and 5 or 6 gold in Tokyo is my 'pessimistic' tip unless the levels of funding improves dramatically. Edit: added some more detail & clarity

We ended up with a top 10 finish and 8th overall in total medals ...

The SBS game this week is the lunchtime match ... Tottenham vs Liverpool Saturday 9pm (AEST) Bit early to post up the standings but this table does update & reorganise itself as the results occur ... so I'll make sure to post it up as we move on to a new page on this thread.

You're right of course 'faulty' but it shouldn't be all about the money and that's what sports of all sorts has become. It all runs at about 85% for me and the bit that often isn't there is the emotional investment - although it is there sometimes. Like when we defeated the Hawks a couple of weeks ago or when Kyle Chalmers won the 100m freestyle. I watched Usain Bolt win 3 more gold medals with an ambivalent attitude and I won't watch the Bombers play and haven't done since the start of the 2013 season (except when we play them) So we can all protest in our own unique way I suppose. I myself am influenced by the money that could come our club's way if we were to have a regular home game against Essendon ... but our club shouldn't suffer because of the misdeeds of others should it?

Where will it all end? Whilst many want to move on from the Essendon saga the bit that disappoints me greatly in the aftermath of the scandal is the AFL's approach since. Instead of taking a tougher stance with more stringent testing and way more tests, they've ignored the wake up call and are effectively doing much the same as what they've done in the past. Which is not much at all. And why isn't our media leading the push for a tougher stance? And what about the footy public or the general public? It all got too hard once they realised how hard it actually is to catch drug cheats. What is needed are weekly/fortnightly blood tests (Paul Roos actually suggested that a number of years ago) and by default, blood passports. Instead of that we have the miniscule measures that are now in place. And a number of 'Substances' are also performance enhancing drugs ... fairly sure that is now recognised under the WADA code - another reason why that part of the drug code isn't transparent in the AFL (?)

I suppose I just quoted you at the tail end of the discussion because it was convenient to do so and also because we've discussed this matter before ... I knew that you would at least respond which allows the conversation to flow on. I'm broadening the discussion on PED use but I won't necessarily let the Olympics off the hook ... this issue is broad but very few people will acknowledge that and when it gets a bit closer to home, they don't want to know about it. That's not all people but a large slice of people in this country believe the issue of PED use lies elsewhere. Look at how our media protected the Bombers for instance ... the truth was withheld, lies weren't questioned etc etc etc. And out of it came that many people truly believe that the EFC or it's players did nothing wrong. I would say the large majority but that's just an educated guess. But when the same sort of thing happens overseas we collectively point the finger of guilt without question (again, not everyone) We are miles off having a consistent stance on PED use.

Agreed Chris ... we as Australians need to look in our own backyard if we're happy to point the finger elsewhere. But we don't and we won't (and I'm not talking about people like you and I) Our love of our footy codes stops us from doing so ... we're hopelessly compromised and biased. The double standards are astonishing and there are very few people even remotely interested in broadening their outlook & knowledge of PED use in sport. Fair enough but your original comment re the Jamaicans looks damning in isolation. For what it's worth I agree with your comments about the Jamaicans but I reckon we do even less here in this country to catch drug cheats. Especially in the AFL ... it's like people are thinking the whole PED issue has now magically disappeared because Essendon got done ... how do we not know that the problem is now worse? The AFL does very little testing and they don't test properly = they're not going to catch the drug cheats. But I could be talking about soccer, the NBA or the NHL or any number of other sports as well ... I'm pointing the finger everywhere.

And 1 urine test per player per season is ok in the AFL? Putting aside your love of footy, can you not see the double standards that we have?