Dees2014

I'm inclined to go tall if dry and smaller if wet. I think WC defence is their biggest weakness and so to stretch it if dry makes sense. I think because also it will be hot, and that WC are likely to play both NicNat and Sinclair, both over 200cm, I think both Spencer and Gawn have to play. I would therefore go with IN: Garland. Hogan. JKH (sub) OUT: Riley. Bail. Matt Jones (if dry). Dawes (if wet) There could also be a case to play Fitzy, in which case he could replace Spencer and play second ruck and match up on Sinclair either in defence or attack. He would be a better proposition than Spencer in the wet also because of his mobility. Now if we could get him to hold his overhead marks like Maxy is starting to do, he would be a very valuable edition. The other possibility is to drop Toumpas instead of M Jones given his serviceable game on Sunday. I still worry about Toumpas's poor disposal and decision making, although I admit he is a good ball getter.in the end I think it depends on match ups.

Well Dawes is 25 and Pederson is 26. Personally, I think Pederson is no better than a back up, but I think Dawes is quality when injury free, and a smart, intelligent leader, something we lack.

Try Hogan, Dawes and Howe - better than most teams, and we have potentially high marking forwards/rucks in Gawn/Spencer. Personally, I think our deficiencies are elsewhere.

I totally agree. Some of the replies on here simply do not recognise there is such a thing as a salary cap. Of course our list can be improved, but what I am saying is that our current talent is not nearly as bad as we previously have thought, and indeed the "ins" next year will make it so much better. I think we have been very guilty in the past of not developing the talent we had rather than looking for magic bullets

I agree with the possible exception of Dawes, but all teams have second and third tier players. The point I was making is that we are better of than many of us think and have the basis of a very competitive, extremely talented young team. This does not mean though it cannot be improved by further recruiting. For me though, what the Roos era has shown is that we have a lot of under developed talent on our list, a lot of then high draft picks, who given time and great mentoring and coaching, will allow them to develop. We have a great base. We need to nurture it, not go for magic solutions.

I do not understand this obsession with recruiting another tall forward. We have hogan, Dawes, as well as the rucks/forwards Gawn and spencer. We cannot fit in all of these. In addition we have Fitzpatrick, King, and Pederson. I would have thought tall forwards are the least of our problem

By the second last round, Lyon will have locked in top spot and he will be playing the juniors and the seniors will either have their feet up or fear injury prior to the finals. This is no certain loss at all.

I guess one of the outcomes of Sunday is that us long suffering Demon supporters dare to dream. I think it is very interesting the media reaction to the win on Sunday which has been universally positive - seen almost as a "turning point" or "a line in the sand". Whatever, most commentators seem to see it as much more than simply another victory., I guess as much as anything it was the way we won, and the emergence of exciting new talent who showed their wares (Brayshaw, Stretch, Neal Bullen) and the not-so-new who are showing up as major talents at last (Watts, Gawn, and the return to form of Tyson). Add to this the addition of the wunderkind Hogan, and the yet to appear Pettracca (supposedly better than Brayshaw which I find difficult to believe), the recent resigning of Jack Trengove (who must have a positive medical outlook or he wouldn't have been resigned - we must all remember his first and second years, he was seen much as Brayshaw is now, an outstanding talent, and someone who would emerge into one of our top half dozen players), and the return of proven performers like Garland and Grimes, and emerging talents like Vandenberg and Salem. Add to this the vast improvement of players like McDonald, Viney, Vince, and even veterans like Dunn, and the consistency and brilliance of Captain Courageous Jones, we have a lot to be excited about. In effect, by next year, we have four "new" top ten picks to come into the side from Sunday (Petracca, Hogan, Salem, Trengove). But I think in the long term, the most significant performance to emerge from Sunday, and the most promising from our ability to become a top 4 side, is Maxy Gawn's breakout game. It is something a lot of us thought Max had the capability to do, but the fact he did it in such a dominant way, not only in the ruck, but also around the ground and his dominant marking, makes him a player of a level of importance akin to Jeff White in Neil Daniher sides of the early 2000's. It was an awesome performance, and one which will make a number of sides cringe in fear. Max after all is the second biggest player in the AFL playing in the seniors, and on Sunday's performance one of the most dominant. Paul Roos has set us up wonderfully for the next ten years. Let's all enjoy the ride.

By the way, the conclusion of this very authoritative article states: "While Cas has stated that it is not bound by the rules of evidence, it is required to examine and apply standards, burdens of proof and presumptions. it is suggested that the manner in which this is done is consistent with that of the common law, with the one minor departure being the establishment of a clear third standard of proof, that of comfortable satisfaction, which is defined as being between the two common law standards. The standard of proof for the athlete is,however, based upon the balance of probabilities, which Cas has defined as being 51 per cent". Lance Uppercut might like to read and absorb this conclusion since he has continually accused me of mis-stating this position. It is much more complex and nuanced than you make it out to be Lance. Get used to it.

And being "helpful" is the point. That will be clearly part of the bargaining process with WADA. I agree WADA will only want the ringleaders, except I can't see how they would not include as well as Hird, also Thompson, Reid, and at least some of the Executive and Board. If Workcover execute eventually they will be after them rather than the players. Goodwin may well escape - I hope he does. My point being is he will have a better chance if he tells WADA everything he knows rather than staying in solidarity with the HIrd mafia.

Fair points OD. To clarify, I am not suggesting he says anything now, but as this process emerges over the coming months it will become obvious if it is going somewhere, and in that process i have no doubt WADA wil be looking for insiders to testify. He would obviously only cooperate if on balance of probabilities he was better off cooperating than not. After all, if he were sent an infraction notice post the players' hearing as i think hird, reid and thompson will be, he is unlikely to coach melbourne anyway.

Yes if you were in Goodwin's position, and knew what REALLY went on, wouldn't you come clean to ASADA? He has no need to protect Hird's mafia any longer. Indeed it may protect himself from going down with them when this whole sorry saga is exposed by the CAS enquiry and its aftermath.

Why do you presuppose that OD? I would have thought that was a given after this episode.

They can get coaches as well, if they are responsible for sponsoring and supporting such a program eg armstrong's coaches. They do not have to do the injecting themselves. It is as much as anything "intent". I have been predicting for some time that the CAS case will be folloowed by a number of Essendon coaches/administrators being issued with infraction notices by ASADA. I still think this will still be the case. Hird, his assistants, the essendon admin, and the Board are in much more danger from the like of Worksafe and the law in general. Directors could come under scutiny from the company regulator if the WADA appeal succeeds for neglect of directors' duties, and hird and coaches under general anti-drug laws. As i said in my earlier post, there is still a long way to go in this

IMHO that has always been a possibility. When this thing explodes after the CAS verdict is delivered, the whole of the Essendon operation from that time will come under examination by ASADA, Worksafe and even the police. It is far from over, and I don't think anyone will really escape completely. Since 2013, we have wisely stayed away from recruiting Essendon players. We took a chance on Goodwin. I hope it is the right choice, but I fear it may have consequences. One thing we should recognise though, we cannot expect justice to be done across the board at Essendon from that time, but expect those from then and now affiliated to the MFC to get off. It would be somewhat hypocritical. Let's hope there can be proven to be at least some innocent parties out of the Essendon coaching staff from that time.

I think the choice of Speigelman is a result of having the least worst appointed by Essendon players. He is an outstanding jurist and man.http://www.saxton.com.au/james-spigelman/ I'm sure the Essendon players were looking first for an Australian Arbitrator, preferably at least an Essendon supporter, or someone sympathetic to Essendon's plight. Their initial effort to draft an ex High Court judge, and a known Essendon supporter onto the CAS panel, was never going to fly. Their choices from there were very limited if they stuck to the Australian list, as either most of the rest were either involved in some way with the case (and therefore excluded), or were affiliated with Olympics sports which would mean they would have very little sympathy for the Drug taking in sport. What they have got, is someone of outstanding integrity, and who, given his record, will at least come to the task with an open mind. There is no evidence of his AFL affiliations that I know of, and since he has lived most of his life in Sydney is probably a rugby supporter and a Swan's man if he has any leanings towards the AFL at all. By the fact he is on the CAS list of Arbitrators would indicate some interest in sport, but no evidence of bias that I know of. Interestingly, my brother is an ex Olympian, and a lawyer himself, as well as being an ex demon supporter and now a Sydney residing Swans fanatic, and close to the Swans board. When I spoke to him at our annual get together at the Swans/Demons game, we discussed the Essendon saga and he initially at least thought the Essendon players should get off, but Hird, the Essendon management, coaching staff and board should all be banned for life from sports administration, and that Worksafe should throw the book at them. It was only after I showed him the Demonland discussion on the topic he agreed there probably was a case for at least some of the players to go as well. I understand he also knows Speigelman through Sydney legal and business circles, although I have not talked to him about this issue since Speigelman's appointment was announced. If his (my brother's) attitudes are indicative of senior swans supporters' attitudes to the Essendon saga, then I don't like Essendon's chances of escaping, but the players may get at least a sympathetic hearing. However, I think in the interests of a fair outcome, Speigelman is about as good as we could have hoped for as the Essendon Players appointment, and probably the sole Australian on the panel.

Twitdoc by name, and twitdoc by nature. Of all the nonsense I've had to read over the almost three years of this saga, this crap just about takes the cake. It is wrong in al most every line. I couldn't help thinking while I was reading it: "God we have some d**kheads in this country". No doubt it will incent WADA to act with haste, since we clearly are incapable of doing it ourselves!

Quite agree Nutbean. We haven't had a bad record in bringing in and developing Ruckmen. The problem is we lose patience with them and trade them just as they become stars (eg Jolly, Martin). Don't let this happen to big Max. Max showed what he is capable of on Queen's Birthday. He IMHO will be as critical to our rise as Sandilands has been to freo. Let's not stuff it up.By the way, there are good reasons why Max lacks a tank. He has been at the MFC I think 6 seasons, and he has at the most one full preseason. He is now acquiring not only the tank, but also the skills to become a top ruckman. To me, it is Max by a mile.

I generally look forward to the 3 word descriptions, but this one is just too much. To described jack watts as a "bipolar performances" is absurd, apart from being hugely insulting about this very unfortunate condition. The Regs should censor this immediately One of my relatives is bipolar, and I can tell you Jack Watts is so far away from bipolar that it is not funny. If this poster is determined to insult our number one draft pick, thereby ensuring he leave, then it may give him varcarious pleasure, but it makes this demon suppiorter extremely angry. All it will do is ensure he leaves. God we shoot ourselves in the foot sometimes.

Yes and Tracy Holmes has been one of the worst offenders in the media in pushing the ESSENDON/Hird line, including being the ABC producer responsible for wheeling in Hird apologist academics nearly every time ABC News wanted "expert" comments on the subject. Listening to that interview again, I'm sure she did not realise what she was getting when she agreed to interview Paul Hayes - clearly an authoritative person on CAS and the Law. He certainly shot down much of the line she had been pushing for more than a year now

Mmmmm extremely interesting. This has clarified a number of issues which have been argued here, some of which I admit I had misinterpreted. Let me summarise briefly:1 the CAS tribunal CAN compel witnesses to appear under oath through an Australian court and because CAS is essentially an arbitration tribunal it will more than likely be granted this time. The AFL tribunal was a tribunal hearing which were the grounds given by the Victorian Supreme Court for not compelling witnesses to appear last time. If they refuse to appear this time, they will be held in contempt of court which lead to criminal sanctions which will be enforced by an Australian court; 2 because it will be a de novo hearing, all the evidence will be heard again from the beginning including fresh evidence, presumably some of which will come from people who refused to testify last time, but others may also come from people who WADA do deals with to get to the truth, an outcome which is very likely according to some of my sources; 3. the level of comfortable satisfaction is likely to be similar to the AFL Tribunal, but clearly in the face of new evidence extracted from reluctant witnesses under oath the case will be so much stronger; and 4 there is the possibility that any outcome can be appealed to what is in effect the Swiss High Court, and if the judgement is deemed outside CAS juristriction, or it is deemed to be contrary to Swiss law, then it can be over turned, and apparently several CAS cases have been in recent years. So, does this make a positive outcome to the appeal more likely or less likely compared to my previous position? In my view I think it makes it more likely simply because there is a much greater chance that it will get to the truth via being able to compell witnesses to testify under oath, and to admit new evidence from people involved previously who may deem it in their interests to this time tell the whole truth rather than obfuscate. Very interesting interview from someone who has real cred in this area of the law, and especially how it applies to the workings of CAS. Certainly clarified many issues for me. As far as WorkSafe is concerned, I agree it is puzzling that no hearing has been held yet. My understanding was they have been waiting for the ASADA/WADA processes to be completed, but with the CAS likely to take another 6-12 months to complete can they afford to wait that long and if they do, will effectively the evidence have gone cold? I have no answer to this, but what I can say is that they have begun I understand collecting evidence via questionnaires, albeit on a voluntary basis, but I have not heard of any other activity. It is I admit highly suspicious. The fear in all this is there is political interferance from the state government. Daniel Andrews is after all the Convenor of the Spring Street Bombers and is on record after the AFL Tribunal brought down its findings that he thought this whole episode should be now closed and "we should all move on". However, if the CAS judgement goes against the Bombers, I do not see how they could justify not opening a WorkCover case.

Lance, we are dealing with semantics. "Kicking out of the code", to use your words, to me means a permanent ban, as many on here have advocated. If a team is suspended for two years it is exactly that - suspended, not banned forever. Whilst I said a suspension might happen, I have consistently argued against it, unlike many of my fellow DLers who advocate a total permanent ban, as I think it would be disastrous for the AFL competition, and for Aussie Rules in general at a time of increasing competition from other recreational activities, particularly soccer. As far as CAS's power to bring off such a suspension is concerned, again I suggest you get your facts straight. Teams may be suspended if two or more players are suspended (11.2 of the WADA code) but it is initially up to the supervisory body of the sport (in this case the AFL) to enforce such a ban. If WADA disagrees with the AFL's decision on this, then it is up to then to appeal it to CAS, so CAS does ultimately have the power to suspend teams but only off the back of a WADA appeal. In any case, Lance, we can argue here until the cows come home. It makes no difference to the ultimate outcome, apart from you getting vicarious pleasure from your nitpicking. Fortunately, all the power resides in the official court in Switzerland (or are you going to argue about that as well?), in the hands of objective, dispassionate and highly qualified observers, well away from the Hird's bully boys, and his lackies in the Australian media and the AFL. And Lance, there is zero you can do about it mate. Get used to it!

I'm not disputing that at all. I specifically said in my post that any team sanction has to go back to the AFL tribunal for the sentence to be imposed, but after that if WADA disagrees with it then they can appeal it to CAS. I think we agree. Not sure what your point is. Maybe you need to read my post a little more carefully.

Read Chis's entry Lance. As usual, you are dealing in half truths and distortions. Facts are not what interest you.

See my last post....I explain the details. But then again, you have never been very interest in those.