Search results for query: *

Essendon to finish its defence.

Is it though? If an athlete fails to comply with drug tests, then the assumption is that they are doping. The onus is on the athlete to prove that they are not by providing clean results. Given the circumstantial evidence that there were banned substances in the club, surely the onus is on...

Think you'll find a large number of Adelaide supporters agree.

Not in the slightest. This is my view too. The absence of records is the single most damning aspect of the whole affair. It lacks any sort of credibility. Moreover, if incompetence was genuinely at the root of it, you would expect to see fingers pointing at who was responsible. The...

I understand a negotiation pre-hearing. But wasn't today supposed to be the actual hearing? If they're not all turning up, pleading guilty, and then getting their (agreed on) penalties, then surely it's a case of charges/defence/verdict/penalties. What's to negotiate? Present your evidence...

When?

Tim is the 'unofficial' spokesman.

Talking Footy is one long interview with Tim Watson who, surprise, surprise, is spruiking the Essendon line. Amazingly, Bruce is the only one throwing in the odd alternative viewpoint.

Actually, I think Essendon's leverage is that the AFL wants it sorted before the finals.

Adelaide were barred from the 2013 draft. I think you need to choose an example you have some idea about.

First of all, Adelaide weren't found to have breached the salary cap, but of administering an illegal contract and tampering with the draft. Secondly, their 'proactive' mea culpa was such a stroke of genius that the AFL took more draft picks from them, suspended the CEO and Footy Ops Manager...

Actually, from what I've read here and on other threads, people are clearly discussing it - and pretty rationally too in many cases. You just don't seem to like that your points are being refuted.