rumpole

南航官方网站，中国 China Southern Airlines Co.,Ltd.公司简称南航，天合联盟成员。 南航是国内运输飞机最多、航线网络最密集、年客运量最大的航空公司，荣获中国 ...

The onus of proof is with the authorities. In doping cases it's not as strict as in criminal cases or even in normal civil matters but the case still needs to be proved. That which you consider a "defence" (i.e reliance on professionals) is unsustainable because, as we've seen, there is no shortage of rogue professionals in the world.

Fair go. Let's not consign this noble profession to the scrapheap as we seem to be doing to vehicle manufacturers and airline personnel in this country. There is going to be plenty of work for the legal profession once the tortoise-like ASADA investigation process reaches the end game position. Essendon will undoubtedly mount a legal challenge if it loses players and it will inevitably suffer defeat if judges properly do their jobs and declare they lack jurisdiction because the AFL and it's players have willingly and voluntarily accepted the primacy of the WADA Code but that isn't the end of it by a long shot.The players and their managers will rush to the courts to claim loss and damages including loss of future income from their (possibly former) employers, the snakes who instigated and executed the programme, the doctors and those charged with their well being whilst employed by the club. They're already doing that in NSW. Then there's the issue of the potential future harm to their health from taking these drugs and soon the WorkCover people will come sniffing around. More prosecutions, lots more ambulance chasing and litigation against the club and the possibly the AFL and perish the thought, the insolvency lawyers might come into the picture. I don't imagine that the organisations that pay in the billions for media rights to an 18 team competition involving nine games most weekends would be happy if one of the teams is half made up of scrubbers from the Essendon District Football League so the lawyers will be perusing through these contracts and looking for ways to eke out some compensation for their clients. I'm already frothing at the mouth over the prospect of being able to send young Fauntleroy Rumpole through his senior school years at the Grammar courtesy of Mr. Dank as a result of this nefarious "supplements" programme. With a little bit of luck he might share a classroom with one of the Hird offspring and the two of them could dream of their futures as stockbrokers or esteemed members of the bar.

You'll get over that when we start beating them.

This is not about the AFL giving away money. It's about the AFL giving a competitive advantage to one club over all others. It's about the AFL teaching Sydney a lesson for having the gall to steal Buddy from the GWS clutches. It's about allowing GWS to do other clubs what it did with Tom Scully - allow it to poach a player from another club that has absolutely no chance of matching their offer. Let's hope it's not that GWS is not allowed to use this weapon to steal Chip away from us.

The red and blueprint had winning at its ultimate end as well. Sadly, we fell down badly on the footy side but the cynics are having their day anyway.

Gosh. We have absolutely no idea what it was that was in those injections but we can assure you 100% that it's safe.

Surely you mean his predecessors in the plural since the main example he has publicly highlighted was how he was "appalled" by Jack Watts debut? He also makes it clear the midfield deficiencies desperately needed addressing and that many of the poor traits the team developed have been evident for a long time viz bruise free and 186 which preceded the last coach. Our record as a losing team stretches back as far as 2007 and didn't develop overnight and, as you yourself point out, you're excited about the coming season "for the first time in years".I'm also excited about the coming season but I see the current publicity coming from the club as part of a clever and necessary PR exercise to distance ourselves from our past failures. You read the same every time a new coach takes over in these circumstances (look at what Richardson is saying over at the Saints) and it's too early to get carried away by it.

Absolutely hilarious in the way that the chicken crossing the road joke used to get peals of laughter in prehistoric times. Trouble is that the majority of us don't live in caves any more.

The other being Greek Cypriot wouldn't exactly be doing cartwheels either.

The first time, it was funny. Maybe the second time but now ... ugh.

If you're at such a loss, have a look at their own internal report and look at the charges laid against them. So far, they've been lucky as far as I can see.

Didn't see that coming.

I don't have a problem with a big bloke taking a bit longer than the usual 3 weeks to get over a hammy whilst out of season but it's the silence from the club that concerns me. It might be a lack of communication with the members or something more sinister but the silence leads one to suspect that something is being covered up.

I generally like Peter Ryan's articles but this one highlights why many of us have little faith about the dissemination of news about injuries sustained by our players. The article covers his foot injury and the fact that he "had a solid block of training before Christmas, so he can afford to be managed through January, running alone at training and rebuilding confidence in his body". What it doesn't tell us about is why, after putting in that "solid block" did he go back into the rehab group? I thought it was a hamstring but in light of this article, it seems to be a bit of a mystery - does anyone know?

Tasman can do the job if he's Abel.

I don't know about cost effective yet but hiring Paul Roos as coach sounds like an excellent innovation to me. http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/roos-announced-as-demons-coach/4940876

Would it be any different if he insured a legal practice?

I don't think modified programmes are necessarily the ogres that many people might think. These days sports medicine recovery programmes are scientifically based so that players actually derive great benefit whilst on them and this is particularly so in the off season. Generally, during the season a hamstring injury might mean missing three weeks but why take risks during the off season? You can afford to be more conservative and keep players off the actual track for longer while, at the same time, give them programmes to aid long lasting recovery. This means we don't see them out there at training and think the skies falling down when the opposite might be true.

Have you considered the other possibility put forward by some analysts (but which I don't subscribe to) that it was bound to happen anyway because it's all cyclical?

Is there any evidence of this "cyclical" folly? Are all "cycles" similar? Is there a rule that applies to "cycles" and, if there is a rule, why are there so many exceptions? The Swans should have been struggling after Roos retired as coach, surely?

How anyone can think Daniher left us in a good shape is beyond me and the team from that night backs this up to the hilt. I love my players but when you talk culture there were a number of players in that final team who had behavioural issues while at the club, mainly related to alcohol, aggressive behaviour and/or gambling. Moreover, a number of others have been criticised over time for poor attitudes including selfishness on the field and the training track (there's some overlap between the two categories). Others never reached their full potential after displaying enormous promise early in their careers. If the task of the coach and your football department is to turn out better players and better people from the material they're given then this is not a good example of what we should expect. Nor is there any support for the claim that this sort of thing inevitably happens at the end of any football cycle.

It has to be remembered that the legal opinions held by both the AFL and MFC related to the evidence gathered by the Clothier investigation which was considered to be insufficient to enable a conclusion to be reached that the club breached any AFL rule. A challenge in court would involve an examination only of the evidence gathered by the AFL and in all likelihood this would prevent examination of witnesses to obtain new evidence. Members of the commission (including Demetriou) and the investigators would have been open to questioning because, among other things, the tactics of the investigators would have been very much an issue as well as how any decision was arrived at by the Commission.

LIKE

Good luck with that argument. It's unlikely to wash - you need to eat about a dozen cows in a day to register a minimal trace.