Macca

Good work DD, funny as. The links to the other 'Bad lip reading' videos are also well worth a look.

Have watched the 1st interview twice . Oprah was very good and full credit to her. She researched well and her opening 'rapid fire' yes/no questions set the whole thing up nicely. She allowed Armstrong to 'cook his own goose' so to speak. By not being pushy she achieved quite a lot out of the interview. Eagerly awaiting the next installment. (Sat 1.00pm on the Discovery channel) Here's an excellent in depth story of the wider implications of Armstrong's admissions (from Sports Illustrated). You can scroll about a 3rd of the way down on the following link to read about the possibility of Armstrong facing more than just the public shame of his actions ...the links included in the following article are well worth reading as well ... ...Armstrong's confession to have stark, wide-reaching impact And here is an interesting article on the meaning or interpretation of Lance's answers ... ... Five key quotes from Lance Armstrong

ESPN columnist Rick Reilly has an interesting take on things in this 4 minute video. Quite scathing really ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5zDAi5yYcw

Not sure we've had anything posted from 'Good Charlotte' Anyway, here's one of their hits from 2007 ... Macca 12.1

Good wrap up. Like the later Pats/Ravens game, your match against the Falcons is fascinating on a whole lot of levels. Will Ryan have a big game? Likewise Kaepernick . It's in a dome so field goals could be important. Maybe it will be harder for Atlanta to figure out the 49ers game than vice-versa. Atlanta's defence is the weakness that stands out . San Francisco are strong in all the important areas - if the 'Niners' bring their 'A' game then they'll be too strong . Jim Harbaugh is a very good coach who seems to be making all the right moves. I favour a 49ers win more than a Pats win (though the most likely match-up in the Super Bowl is the 49ers/N.England one. The Ravens win against Denver was a fair surprise to me and from all accounts, Baltimore are relishing the chance to take on the Patriots. They will do whatever they can to get at Brady and the New Englands offensive line will be tested. If Brady is protected well, then the Pats should win. Flacco's deep throws could be dangerous as well.

So you can you use any of the 'other' 3 picks anytime, as long as you don't exceed 2 players from any one nation ? There's 5 Proteas gone already ! Round 2 Pick 12 Saeed Ajmal (Pakistan)

The Oprah interview with Armstrong is on Friday at 1pm (our time) on the 'Discovery' channel (for those who have cable)

Here's a parody of 'Homeland' from a recent Saturday Night Live show ... Anne Hathaway plays 'Carrie' ...Homeland skit

ESPN are reporting that Armstrong has come clean ... accompanying video with the following story ... ... Report: Lance Armstrong confesses

Who is this legal representative and how accurate are these supposed comments? That's if this 'legal representative' even exists. Once again it's another vague column from Pieric. It's hard to take these things seriously when there are these constant 'Phantom' people passing on this stuff. For all we know Pieric could have just made this stuff up. Do we trust this bloke to write things in an accurate way? Nearly all the quotes attributed to CC in this article have come from this mysterious 'legal representative'. Of course, it's written in a way where the reader could be fooled into thinking that they are direct quotes from Connolly himself.

New England should win although the Ravens could run them close and they might even pinch it. They match up alright and their last 3 meetings have been decided by a total of 7pts. Baltimore won the last encounter 31-30 (at home) The war of words has already started with Ravens LB Brendan Ayanbadejo (that was hard to type) coming out with some 'choice' words about the Pats in this article .... Patriots approach a Gimmick Can't imagine Colin Garland carrying on like this about the Hawthorn forward line (even if we did match up well with the Hawks!) It's certainly different in the States ... Don't hold back Brendan !

Yeah, the Atlanta/Seattle game was a beauty. Ryan was good at the death (I thought they were 'gone' to be honest) Seattle were brave in their comeback but getting behind 0 - 20 was too much to give up. A fair bit closer at half time and it's possibly a different story. The Falcons were very good in the 1st half but got the 'staggers' in the 2nd half. If the 'Niners' bring yesterdays form to next week then you should win. Not sure that Atlanta's defence is all that crash hot and I can't wait to see the 'Kap' in action again. Talk of the town hey? Or the Nation! As for the other game, the Patriots did what they often do when they're up and about - score heavily. Once it got to 38 - 13 early in the 4th quarter it was 'all she wrote' until .......... the Texans nearly recovered an onside kick after clawing their back to 28 - 38. Houston losing 3 of their last 4 regular season games helped kill their season. Hard to win in New England - Brady had another stellar game. He threw for 344 yards with 3 TD's and a QB rating of 115. A 49ers / Patriots Super Bowl would be a 'box office' dream - hope we get it. Next weeks games ... click on any team for further news and stats ... MON, JAN 21 NFC Conference Championship 7.00 AM San Francisco at Atlanta AFC Conference Championship 10.30 AM Baltimore at New England and then ... MON, FEB 4 10.30 AM Super Bowl

Yes rjay, I don't reckon too many of us are in denial about what actually transpired back then. We were all witnesses. It's the connotations that are connected to 'what we did' that is the problem. There is no clearly defined definition of 'tanking,' so many of us have our own versions. And because there is no clear definition of tanking it means that conflicting views could all be close to the mark. Confusing isn't it? What could be really important is Vlad's definition of tanking. If, by Vlad saying 'There is no such thing as tanking' he meant 'There is no match fixing going on' then his version of tanking could be clearly defined and that in turn, could help our cause. Of course, if that was how Vlad viewed tanking back then, would he be prepared to admit as such now? This whole thing is just so murky that they're going to find it hard to find us guilty of anything.

If tanking is the Coach telling the players to lay down and the players following those instructions then we didn't tank . Is this Vlad's definition of tanking? If it is, then his definition in the end could well help our cause. Obviously a lot of this whole inquiry may depend on the definition of tanking - and there isn't a clear definition. It's a vague term which includes vague practice's. 1 - We tanked = list management etc 2 - We didn't tank = we didn't fix games (Vlad's version?)

Well, whatever we did at the time, whether we want to call it tanking, list management or whatever we want to call it, it was accepted practice at the time. All under the watchful eye of the AFL. Why, if it was such a heinous crime, didn't the AFL do something about it then? The fact that the AFL are acting now doesn't change the fact that they turned a blind eye back in '09. And that's where we will eventually end up. The retrospective nature of this inquiry is it's own achilles' heel. Many clubs had embarked on this 'accepted practice' before our team did and in fact, last year the very same 'accepted practice' was undertaken by GWS. The AFL's own love child. Will the AFL turn the blowtorch on Allan, Williams, Sheedy and GWS? We are meandering through a lot of unmarked roads and in the end we will reach a dead end. At some stage an impasse will be reached and it will fall into the 'Too hard basket' . Edit: spelling

From this article 'dl'. It's from late October 2012 ...3 months after the investigation started ... Collingwood president Eddie McGuire doesn't believe Melbourne should be punished for tanking

What you might be missing is the retrospective nature of the whole thing dee-tox . Whatever we did back in '09 was under the ever watchful eye of the AFL . Most of what we've heard that might be in the report was known at the time or can be dismissed as nonsense (e.g. fumbling, 'Zulu' references, winning tank(Port), CC jokes, the 'Vault', Watts etc etc) . The AFL will need new evidence that has a large element of 'smoking gun' about it. Where is this new incriminating evidence? It has to be new and it has to be incriminating. Where is it? If you get let off from a speeding fine from the police, they are not going to come knocking on your door 3 years later and charge you. Won't happen. If 'list management' was rubber stamped and viewed as 'accepted practice' back then, then those 'endorsements' can't be reversed years later. By the way, GWS 'list managed' last season - under the the same ever watchful eye of the AFL. In all manner of fairness, shouldn't Sheedy, Williams(now at Richmond), Allan and their club come under the microscope? If we get charged and suffer sanctions then this whole thing will end up in court. We haven't come this far to give up now. Our whole FD (I think) and more than half our players weren't even at our club in '09. Should they be punished? There are only 13 players left from our senior list from 2009 . 27 are are now gone ... 2009 Senior list

Couple of big games tonight with Manchester United vs Liverpool on just after midnight followed by Arsenal vs Manchester City at 3.00am. For the current table you can visit this site ... standings In the following article, Alex Ferguson had some interesting things to say about his team's opponent tonight ... ...Ferguson 'surprised' by Liverpool position Finally, here's a match simulation for tonight's encounter between the Gunners and City ... Video

All times AEDT ...you can click on any team for that teams ESPN page (stats and news etc) Sunday, Jan. 13 (divisional round) 8:30am — Baltimore 38 at Denver 35 12:00pm — Green Bay 31 at San Francisco 45 Monday, Jan. 14 (divisional round) 5:00am — Seattle at Atlanta 8:30am — Houston at New England Monday, Jan. 21 (championship games) 7:00am — NFC title game 10:30am — AFC title game Monday, Feb. 4 10:30am — Super Bowl

Agree with nearly all that DD, although the Ravens do match up ok against the Pats (that's if N.E win tomorrow of course) It's a strange one with injuries - others get an opportunity and often step up. Your team has now got all the weapons. QB was the question mark - not any more.

The 'Kap' could have jumped up to elite status in one game . Wow, was he good ! To do that on the big stage says a lot about his temperament. Gore, Crabtree and your defence were very good. Big 'Offence' today from the 49ers - very impressive . What do you prefer - Seattle at home or @ Atlanta ?

Who wins tomorrow? I'd like to see Seattle win and then go to San Francisco. Surely the Pats win although the Texans would take heart from today. Houston win and they host the AFC Championship game.

Kaepernick has been like 'Superman' today - game of his career this one ... good on Harbaugh for making the switch. It's done now - 45+ points is far too many to concede. San Francisco have been way too good and the Packers have been disappointing. An up and down season with some bad losses and some excellent wins. No excuses

Righto Rodgers, do ya stuff (it's gonna be tough now!) 38-24

Yep, good post Cards. I posted a BBC audio doco via youtube that references a bit of what you had to say. It's included in post #25 on the previous page in this thread. You may have already noticed it but it's well worth a listen in the lead up to the Oprah exposé (?)