Bluey's Dad

Would love to have a separate thread for Hogan's contract head-banging and one for Hogan game play so I don't have to read through the crud to get my Hogan fix.

Merchandise and DLC? https://minecraft.net/store

Ooooooooooh snap.

So.... Did you show him your unit?

Ah, of course. My mistake.

I think you'll find that's 9. Unless you rotate after the game is over.

HAHAHAHAHA! Wanksy! Nice find Moony.

Looking through Emma's list in hindsight, I think Viney is probably the pick of the bunch. And we got him with F/S at 26!

I see what you're saying RPFC. I just think we have a bit of a double standard where because these guys play football, they can act unethically and keep on playing after a ban, but the same can't be said of acting unethically in other professions. I guess in this case the unethical behaviour affects only them, and not clients/patients/the public. I guess as Needly says, it is what it is, but I'll still find it hard to cheer Jake on knowing what he did.

I don't see why football shouldn't be seen like any other profession. If you violate the ethics of a lot of professions, you can't work in that profession any more. Doctors can have their medical licence revoked, lawyers can be disbarred etc. Then they go out and have to start a different career. Life bans from football only really prohibit the player from being a footballer. Nothing to stop them going out and getting any other job.

I think CAS got it right in terms of guilt, and pretty much right in terms of what punishment they were allowed to give out. The maximum was 2 years, they got 2 years backdated. CAS has now increased their maximum to 4 years, so even they think 2 years is too light as a maximum, but with the Essendon 34 case, they were tied to the lower amount because those were the rules at the time of the infringement. Personally yes, I would prefer life bans. I have very little tolerance for drug cheats. Lets remember here that this is not a ciminal case. They aren't being sent to gaol, nor are they doing community service. If they get a life ban, it's essentially telling them that they can't work in their chosen field any more. Well, too bad, go work somewhere else. You cheated at your chosen profession and now you can't do it any more. Go re-educate yourself and go work somewhere else. People do it every day. If a doctor contravenes a medical code, or a lawyer is disbarred for unethical behaviour, they go get a different job. Why does a drug cheat get to go back to work after a year?

Yep, the EFC were fined for that and governance failures I believe. The AFL have not yet punished them for the drug program itself though. I don't think they will either, as they said that if the EFC come last they'll get the #1 pick.

We got fined for bringing the game into disrepute. It was the AFL's political way of punishing us but not actually saying it was tanking. If they said it was tanking they'd have to punish everyone who did it (Hawks, Eagles, Carlton). Also, this is the AFL we're talking about. They are hardly a bastion of consistency when applying fines or penalties, I don't think "you only get fined if you do something wrong" applies to them. Edit: Demitriou actually said what we did was fine. The only reason we got fined was because Adrian Anderson overstepped the mark as a response to Brock McLean's interview. Had Demitriou not been overseas as the time, we would not have been fined at all. We had the tacit approval of the man in charge at the time, and a draft system set up to incentivise precisely what we were doing. Very different to contravening the WADA code.

I actually find it pretty simple. Tanking isn't cheating. Taking performance enhancing drugs is. Also, I didn't say I wouldn't follow the club. I said I'd find it difficult I also note the complete lack of a statement from Jake. A simple "I done [censored] up, I'm sorry, I should have known better" would go a long way.

Quotes not working for some reason. Stuie: Because tanking was within the rules. Everyone could (and many did) do it, and the AFL incentivised it. Hell, teams still do it towards the end of the season to get better draft picks. It's part of a flawed draft system and until that is fixed, tanking is part of strategy of recruitment. I'm not happy we tanked, but I don't think it's cheating. It's certainly not on par with taking performance enhancing drugs. Wiseblood: Fair enough I guess. I just see an athlete's personal responsibilities as an overriding factor. The conspiracy of silence against Reid and lack of disclosure on drug testing forms to me speaks volumes. If it was on the up and up, there is no reason to not tell Reid and the drug testers.

I take cheating seriously. I don't want to support another club, I want to keep on supporting the club I have all my life. I just want the club I love to not have a drug cheat on its list. Honestly I struggle to understand how some of you guys are ok with it. Melksham noew being at the MFC doesn't mitigate what he did.

It's an opinion forum Stuie, you of all people should know that. I think if we have someone on our list who is a confirmed drug cheat, and he passed our character test, then our character test needs updating.

I had to dig around to find this: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2012-11-20/dees-clear-about-draft-targets-viney Viney's 'fourth pillar' of recruitment is a 'character test'. I believe Melksham, as a confirmed drug cheat, fails this test. Even if you're being generous and say that he was deceived by the club, I still think he fails this test by not having the character to stand up and say no. He did not 'handle being in an elite environment', as Viney requires, as he failed to act in an ethical manner whilst at the EFC. I don't want him at our club. He tarnishes us and any wins we have with him in the team. I am struggling to come to terms of how I can support the club and NOT Melksham. It's going to require some good cognitive dissonance on my part to keep my membership knowing he's on our list. Maybe if he makes a statement saying something like "I cheated, I was wrong," or something similar. Some sort of contrition and an apology would be good.

I don't want to hijak your conversation with dc nasher, but for mine, even if Melksham turns out to be the next Ablett Jnr I think it was the wrong decision. He's a drug cheat. He doesn't deserve to wear the red and blue.

I won't be cheering Melksham when he takes the field in 2017. I'm extremely disappointed that we have a convicted drug cheat on our list, and would prefer that the club find a way to delist him out of principle. I don't care that it'd mean we made a loss on the trade. This is bigger than that.

What's the reason they are giving for not providing the data? If the data correction methodology is sound, just release both the raw and adjusted datasets along with an explanation of the modifiers and why they were used. Those links show the request for the data and their website, I am curious to know what the NOAA's actual response was.

Looks similar to Petracca in that "[censored] dance" video. edit: t i t t i e is censored?

S. Marsh. Selectors have a sense of humour.

Sorry, was looking for the 'good stuff'.

Lol, Todd maybe, but did you see Jack's hair when we recruited him? Ludicrous.