Macca

If steroids wasn't on the banned list then it's ok to take steroids yeah? Let's keep it real ... we're about to find out a lot more about this PED that Maria took and it may not be pleasant reading. If the drug boosts endurance levels to a high degree, I can't see how anyone could view what she's done as being on the 'up and up' Technically I get it but as for the rest of it, I'm dismayed.

You are reading in to what I'm saying in an obtuse way to suit your argument. I've already stated that these athletes who take PED's (that aren't banned) aren't going to be charged with drug offences but in my eyes they are still guilty (if they knowingly took PED's that weren't banned to gain an unfair advantage) So it's not black and white, its my opinion ... and if you don't like my opinion, bad luck. My argument centres around performance enhancing drugs, not long legs or everyday supplements. If you or others can't see that you'te being deliberately mischevious.

With all due respect, I disagree Chris. Certainly outside of this country numerous athletes in a variety of sports have used EPO, HGH and other PED's before those drugs were banned - esp in the USA.

Spot on ... by default an athlete will not be charged with drug offences if the PED's are not "officially" banned but what if they knowingly took the PED's knowing they were gaining an unfair advantage. It's academic anyway because it's more of a morals/ethics/integrity issue.

There's an unfair advantage which is "cheat" based and then there are just plain advantages by default. You're mixing up the 2 ... I understand that athletes are not going to be charged with drug offences if a PED is not on a banned list but how would you feel if Hird was discovered to have taken a concoction of "non-banned" PED's in his footy career?

You and I are on a different page My attitude is that a PED doesn't have to be banned to be still giving an athlete an unfair advantage. An infair advantage = cheating. If you don't agree then so be it.

We could have gone a long way towards having clean sport in this country but that takes real leadership. The AFL passed up on that opportunity and chose to look the other way.

A hard line with zero tolerance is the only way to fight the scourge of PED use in sports. And WADA needs 30-40 times the funding with all the sporting bodies buying in completely.

So if we found out that a "certain"Essendon footballer took a PED for 10 years (that wasn't banned at the time) we'd be ok with that? I know I wouldn't be ... we're talking about a PED that gives a definite advantage. And if people reckon that WADA have got a chance of catching up with the drug cheats, they are dreaming. A underfunded WADA is always going to be many years behind. That is the brutal reality.

All things are possible including that she knowingly took a performance enhancing drug for 10 years to gain an unfair advantage on her rivals - after the drug was "officially" banned she just kept on taking it knowing that there was only a small chance of getting busted - the small chance won out though. So, it was damage control mode (all carefully thought out) The press conference and aftermath has been beautifully stage managed (not that it has staved off sponsors walking) There is a lot of public sympathy for Maria based on all sorts of factors (including the biggie - the "like" factor) It's all so predictable in my eyes. Seen it all before but this one has a number of factors to garner public support - I'm not buying it though.

All jokes aside, he's one of my most admired persons in sport. He rarely slips up and he's allowed to slip up occasionally (no one is perfect) ... The Seb Coe bit looked strange on the surface of it but not all members of committee's and/or boards are in tune with each other - I've often seen honest and hard working individuals get caught up with rogue factions within committee's without ever knowing so. Our boards at the MFC in the recent past are a good example of that - as a collective, the results weren't great but not every individual on a board should or could be blamed equally - however, that's how things are often judged. All involved are seen as part of the problem when that often isn't the case.

The sporting bodies would need to agree to that proposal - and there lies the problem. As an example, when Mr Pound was head of WADA, he initiate contact with the big 4 American sports with a view to making those sports clean - all 4 replied with "thanks but no thanks" They basically told WADA to get lost (or words to that effect) ... and it doesn't end there - FIFA have no real interest in getting tough on their drug cheats and one could say the same about numerous other sports (including tennis) I posted up this link (below) a while ago in this thread but it's worth a re-read if only for what he says about tennis (keep in mind that the article was from 2013) Drugbuster Pound says doping is so widespread that he no longer has faith in sport at the top Prophetic words

For those who mistakenly believe that Maria was taking a huge gamble, think again. The testing procedures and standards in tennis are poor - she was actually fairly unlucky to be caught (in a sense) I'm absolutely convinced that numerous athletes in a variety of sports take the same low-risk approach - many performance enhancing drugs are not actually tested for by the sporting bodies - they'll do a token urine test and most times the athletes will know when the tests are going to occur (especially in the USA but soccer definitely flies under the radar) Many PED's can only be shown up in blood tests and often a blood "passport" is needed to nail the cheats. Urine tests will show up "certain" drugs but almost certainly not the PED's the athletes are using. On top of that, many PED's are out of an athlete's system in 2 or 3 days (sometimes earlier than that) The bottom line is that many governing bodies of the major sports have no real interest in exposing their own drug cheats. The brand and money is of paramount importance. The worldwide PED issue is a monumental one - and WADA are hopelessly underfunded - they are shut out by most of the large sporting bodies and even if they were welcomed into the fray, they'd need a huge boost in funding - probably 20-30 times their current annual income (or more) - and where would that money come from anyway? - there's no money in it for a rich benefactor. It's a sad, sorry tale ... and it's only going to get worse. However, the time is ripe for a major sporting body to get absolutely serious about PED use in their sport ... sadly, it won't be the AFL - it could have been but Gil and his cronies have taken a weak approach. We've missed our opportunity to set a great example.

From wiki (so it has to be true!) ... "meldonium “demonstrates an increase in endurance performance of athletes, improved rehabilitation after exercise, protection against stress, and enhanced activations of central nervous system (CNS) functions.” There's no truth in the rumour that 'meldonium" increases ones ability to "screech" ... however, it is one of Latvia's largest exported products (apparently) Meldonium (wiki)

Got to protect those endorsement $$$$'s More spin that the gullible will fall for ... all done to get people thinking that Maria didn't get an unfair advantage. I'm not surprised though ... however, I am surprised that tennis actually caught one of their cheats ... more by default than by design, all things considered. Edit: Nike have dropped off but they've had to jump off a few athletes in the more recent past (Armstrong included)

And you've got a game in hand too Cards ... what is your run home like?

Vince did play back a bit today so he and Salem feeding off T-Mac could easily work ... Lumumba as well because of his dash. Jetta and Garland as well, even Dunn. Others like White and Grimes are options too. T-Mac has no trouble winning the ball so any of our backmen could back themselves to sprint towards T-Mac when a contest looms and then run and receive a handpass if T-Mac wins the ball - it's not rocket science. Other backmen (or those who are part of the today's massive midfield group) can cover for those who have run to create. Craig Bradley made an artform of doing the above at the Blues. Our half backs and other backs in the Northey and Daniher era's did the same (the Febey's, Lovell, Ward, Whelan, Wight, Walsh, Yze, AJ et al) Meanwhile, T-Mac can work on his kicking technique along with a number of others who need work. I'm a great believer that decision making is related to kicking skills - they are not mutually exclusive to each other. 12 kicks and 6 handpasses today for Tom could have been 6 & 12 instead.

Yeah, I'm officially excited and it's a very strange feeling ... unknown territory. A bit like our Demons in '87 after only knowing mediocre seasons for so long. The truth is we've got 5 very winnable games of the 9 remaining fixtures when considering how well the team is playing (vs Arsenal, @ Leicester, @ Chelsea & vs Man Utd will all be very tough but we might even snag a win and a draw or 2 out of those 4 games) Then, we'll need 2 of the other 5 teams to really slip up but who knows? Sakho is already making a difference after coming back from injury. It's just great to be part of the conversation. The Spurs/Arsenal game had draw written all over it but Leicester gained another 2 points on both sides ... the Foxes are not over the line yet though ... Ranieri will need to use all his experience and guile to guide them through. And yes, it was a wonderful goal by Harry Kane - one of the best of the season.

I can accept his flaws - today wasn't great but he's still a miles better player than most on our list. I reckon you and others want him to be something he may not be able to be. It's no disgrace to only reach B or B+ level ... those 'wanting' A grade with T-Mac might have to accept him for what he is (for now) ... he could end up a much better player anyway (he's still only 23 years old) As I posted earlier, we have any number of players with decision making and execution issues. T-Mac might be better off being under instruction to handball off to other players (who are instructed to run off him) or kick 'down the line' to position. I'd be more inclined in using other players when using the corridor. Salem, Dunn, Garland, Jetta and a few others can all run off T-Mac and create position for a handpass ... we just need to be a lot more creative and spread more from the backline.

And let's not leave out those who didn't get the ball enough to turn it over ... Dunn, Garland*, Vince, Jetta, Pedersen, Kent, Frost and a few others. Jones accumulated (as usual) but didn't do much with it. Ditto for Grimes and Matt Jones. The issue is so much bigger than one player who executed poorly today .. many on our list makes poor decisions and execute poorly ... plus, many are terrible on their 'opposite side' ... quite seriously, it's our biggest issue but many here are more concerned about 'game plans' *Garland turned the ball over for nearly half his possessions and he only got it 10 times ... these threads should never be about one player - context is always required. It should also not be forgotten that (as others have mentioned above) T-Mac does a lot of very good work down back. I'm also concerned about the possession count of a number of our players ... against B/C grade opposition. However, I thought our new players acquitted themselves well - especially Oliver.

We're using the corridor a lot more so therefore the rule of unintended consequences kicks in. We need a lot more numbers in the corridor if we're going to use the corridor - the turnovers happened (and there were a lot of them) because if a player has to move to receive the ball, an opposition player can intercept (especially if we're greatly outnumbered) Our players just don't have the pinpoint accuracy skills but the answer is not to go back to hugging the boundary (which is an even worse option if the skills are poor) ... the answer is to work on our foot-skills (crash-course style) and get more numbers in the corridor. The issue is related to T-Mac but any number of our players can be culprits ... I saw a number of our players turn the ball over today with poor decision making and poor execution. Reading this thread one might be led to believe that the issue only pertains to one player.

The camera is set about as high as the dispensary at a chemist Old style, old school

And so to the big game in just over an hour ... Spurs vs Gunners. A draw is not a good result for either side (especially if Leicester win at Watford later on) A win to Arsenal probably means more to the Gunners than a loss would mean to Tottenham (if Arsenal win then they would draw level on points with Spurs) In all reality both teams need to go all out for a win as they can't rely on Leicester dropping points ... so I'm expecting an attacking game with lots of goal scoring opportunities - meanwhile, Man City should defeat Villa whilst Man Utd have a tough one at West Brom. My Hammers have an equally tough game at Everton but we can win. Anyway, I'll be tuning in to the Spurs/Gunners game on cable but to listen to the live broadcast of the game go here ... talksport.com ... then follow the links. A local derby with it all to play for.

It was quite an incredible morning with regards to the results ... the biggest shock was your team losing but the impact was felt all over ... and now Chelsea and Man Utd are hovering. Does any team really want to win the title apart from Leicester? Here's a decent synopsis of the top 4 teams chances (from the BBC website) ... Premier League: Fate, romance, the perfect farewell? Who wins the title? ... even my Hammers are given some sort of chance of snaring 4th spot whilst Man Utd are now level on points with Man City.

As every year goes by these games will become less and less relevant ... some teams already treat the exercise with contempt and that will only get worse. And once the games reach a level of irrelevancy, it's only a step away from unnecessary. 2 games only is my tip with the coaches getting together to play "modified rules" when it suits ... and certain clubs may not risk their best players at all. That's the future as I see it. As for game plans, clubs may prefer to keep that information away from preying eyes ... the sport has changed dramatically in the last 10 years and because of that, there are always unintended consequences to consider. It's very difficult to play footy practice games in a soft manner ... in fact, more injuries might occur if the teams aren't fair dinkum (there's that golden rule that you've got more chance of getting hurt if you hang-out) The arguments for keeping the games are sound too ... however, we've probably already lost one certain starter (Brayshaw) for the first 2 games or so and we could lose 2 or 3 more (I hope that doesn't happen of course) There's some old-school thinking here but maybe our sport has moved to a point where practice games are just too risky - and if they become way more irrelevant, what's the point? Those who "just want some footy" should not be part of the argument. Some here might want to go and watch the Hawks train - it's a sight to behold. Anyway, my argument centres on having our best 12-15 players available for game 1 of the season proper - how will people view these practice games if we're missing 3 or 4? Of course, injuries can happen anytime but why increase the chances when these games aren't taken seriously anyway? So I'm with 'Tony Tea' ... all our practice, game plans and simulated match practice can be practiced in-house. Also, there are teams that are rusty at the start of the year anyway (even with a number of practice games under their belt) We're probably always going to play these games but more people will end up switching camps with regards to the point of these games (especially if injuries hit) And I'd trade winning the first 2 games of the season proper with 3 losses in the pre-season any day of the week. I posted a similar view a month ago ... here