ictchris

More Paul Bradshaw http://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+won't+be+scared+to+snub+Kenny%3B+says+superkid+PAUL+BRADSHAW.-a061265554 http://www.thefreelibrary.com/FOOTBALL%3A+Brad+boy+out+as+fed-up+Forres+put+AWOL+Paul+up+for+sale%3B...-a0101089852 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2000/0117/00011700132.html

He scored his first goal in a 5-0 win over Brechin. According to soccerbase the other scorers that day were Steve Hislop, Barry Wilson and Ross Tokely (2).

Very very poor performance. Defensively we made basic errors, Meekings was culpable on a few occasions and Graeme Shinnie again didn't cope with Humphreys. We really missed Ross Draper in midfield, without him we aren't as forceful and don't apply enough pressure in the middle of the park. Just a horrible showing all round. Lucky we've got Celtic next week, easy three points I'd say. I hope we don't change things, the back four has been good on our run and we don't want to get back to last seasons musical chairs.

Liam Keogh was released in 2007 and signed for Peterhead and then Elgin City. He packed it in at that point and went to work offshore. I remember when we got promoted in 2004 people thought he could push on into Scotland contention! Didn't quite work out like that. I was there when Keogh scored his first goal btw. Paul Bradshaw ended up playing for Forres again. I'm sure I heard that during one season he stopped showing up for matches and training when the Can-Cans were out of contention for the title He really was a waste of talent. If Steve Paterson releases you from your contract for being unprofessional, it's time to re-evaluate your life.

I take it Draper is still out? If so then -------------------------------------Reguero------------------------------------- ----Raven---------Meekings----------------Warren--------ShinnieG------ ---------------------Tudor-Jones------------Foran-------------------------- -------Doran-----------------ShinnieA---------------Sutherland----------- ---------------------------------McKay------------------------------------------ If Draper is fit then I'd play him alongside OTJ and push Foran up to the left hand side of the '3' in place of Sutherland.

Nice and subtle banner from Millwall fans the other week http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2231687/Marvin-Sordell-Six-released-bail-offensive-banner.html

Banners are a bit cringey.

Horrific proposals.

Just got his name tattooed on my neck. Probably our best player this season.

I was watching on TV. It's disappointing to lose two points so late but we can't really claim to have deserved three points. We started well, getting Andy Shinnie and, espeically, Doran into good positions on the ball and threatening Hearts. Tudor-Jones and Foran did well in midfield, with OTJ using the ball well. Anything that Hearts offered up our back four dealt with well. We probably should've done better with a couple of chances, Shinnie could've taken a touch when he had a sight of goal and I thought McKay could've gone on a few paces before shooting when he beat Zaliukas. The goal was a peach, a cracking shot by Jones after excellent, determined work by Shinnie. Towards the end of the first half Hearts came back into it but in the second they started to make more headway. They attacked us most often down our left, where I think we are bit vulnerable playing ShinnieG and Roberts. Shinnie is an attacking full back and can find it difficult to cope when teams overload on him and Roberts doesn't offer much protection. Hearts also put more pressure on us in the middle and Jones and Foran dipped in their performances from the first half, especially Jones who didn't dictate the play the way he has been doing. Hearts didn't really threaten us that much, there were a few nervy scrambles but I don't think they really had any clear cut chances. The penalty was a sickener to concede but we would be asking for the same if it had happend at our end. We can't complain about our season so far but one area of concern is the number of leads we give away. We've drawn five games after being in winning positions, with some of those also featuring a drop in performance level from us (today and Kilmarnock at home spring to mind). The type of football that the management has this team playing is a high tempo, pressing game, it could be that it's a challange to maintain that for 90 minutes.

How many tickets can each season ticket holder buy on Saturday?

Reguero Woooo-oooooh Reguero Woooo-oooooh He comes from sunny Spain He's never heard of Tain. etc

I'll be there.

You can't pay at the gate. Anyone know how many tickets we've sold?

Heres's a list of doping cases in football - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Doping_cases_in_association_football The only Scot on the list is Willie Johnston

Juventus' team doctor was done for EPO offences in the 1990s and Vialli has admitted that he was doped during his football career. Pep Guardiola failed drug tests (although he managed to get it overturned) for nandrolone. I'd be amazed if EPO usage wasn't common at certain clubs during the 1990s, when there was no test. I think there is a cultural issue with doping in football. Fans don't really care, they support their club or country and want to win, bollocks to the rest of it. Look at the reaction to Rio Ferdinand's doping test (he missed three out of competition tests, the equivelent of a failed test). Gary Neville just about took the England national team out on strike in protest! If, for example, Wayne Rooney was found to have suspect blood levels does anyone honestly think that Man Utd or the FA would ban him? There's no chance, Man Utd are a business and Rooney is a commodity for them and the FA know that if they took action he'd just pull an Alan Shearer/John Terry and stop playing for England, the FAs cash cow. Also, Man Utd and England fans wouldnt' care, they just want their team to win the Premiership or World Cup. Also, there's a culture of thinking that physical prowess and fitness is someone less important than technique and football, particularly in this country, is stuck on the idea that there's an untouchable, genius and magic in football that is above considerations like fitness, stamina. Whenever a manager wants to be passive-aggressive about losing and pay a backhanded compliment they say that a team are 'big and strong' or well organised, as though that's somehow a bad thing. The idea that you can take a player and dope him to make him a better, more effective footballer is not a popular one but the fact is drugs like EPO would be ideal for football. It would actually benefit our team, we try to play a pressing game but have lulls during games simply because it's such a demanding system. Get the blood bags out Terry! (only joking of course).

Incidentally, Eufemiano Fuentes, a doctor who has been widely implicated in Operation Puerto, is supposed to have said that he had many Spanish footballers as patients that Spain could be stripped of the World Cup if he talks. Juventus' club doctor was convicted of running an EPO ring in the 1990s. I wonder if we'll ever see something similar to Armstrong's fall happen to footballing figures?

Not everyone who gave evidence was a doper. Some had retired from cycling, some weren't professional cyclists, some were cyclists who refused to dope. What did his former massuese have to gain? Also, you say they were backing up each others stories, its worth stating (again) that the evidence was given to a grand jury. If this large collection of people, not all of whom know each other, somehow collaborated to fix up a story don't you think the US justice system would have something to say about it? Do you think that such a conspiracy is even possible, dozens of people perjuring themselves without contradicting each other? Judges and lawyers are qualified to pick these things apart, I doubt a motely crew of former racing cyclists could outwit them. In addition to this admissions of doping have cost a lot to some of those involved. We are seeing people losing their jobs in cycling teams because of this and Floyd Landis nearly got put in prison for fraud after confessing he doped. He and his manager started a 'Fight for Floyd' fund for people to contribute to fund his legal actions following his doping in the 2006 Tour and when he subsequently admitted he'd doped the US government prosecuted him, he only avoided the slammer by paying the money back. There is forensic evidence, samples that indicate doping. They are included in the USADA report, which you can read online. There is also extensive analysis by other people that Lance Armstrong's testing indicates doping, which you can read. Armstrong was the team leader of the biggest doping team. He won the biggest race in cycling seven times and, as the report says, lead the biggest doping conspiracy in the history of sport. That's why they 'went' for him - of course there are also other people involved in the same case, doctors and team management. That's true enough but the point is if they were all lying, if this was all orchestrated by the witnesses then why not try and attack their stories? It would be impossible to give evidence so detailed, so in depth that was falsified and for it to stand up to scrutiny. What you are saying is the standard defence for people who are accused by co-operating witnesses, they are lying, they are saving themselves etc. If all these people were lying and had co-ordinated their story then a. it would be one of the biggest conspiracies in US legal history, the US DOJ/FBI etc would be all over it and they'd all be in prison and b. Armstrong would've fought it, one thing no-one can say about him is that he's a quitter. He didn't because he knew the case was overwhelming. What we'll have to do is agree that Lance Armstrong is a cheat and that he doped. After all, he agrees that, which he showed by refusing to contest the charges.

That's absolutely true, one danger in any trial or judicial process that uses witnesses is that witnesses could falsify their testimony. They could collude with each other to get a story straight and co-ordinate their testimony. However, where's the evidence that they did this? Lance Armstrong, as we can see from the money being claimed back from him, had resources running to millions of dollars, highly paid lawyers. Do you think that a story cobbled together by a few cyclists would stand up to scrutiny from these people? Obviously Lance thought it would as he didn't challange them. The testimony given by Hamilton, Hincapie etc was given to a federal grand jury under oath, if they all colluded in that then they'll go to prison, it's a serious crime in the US. Armstrong was accused of doping during Tours a couple of years ago, during his comeback. The legitimacy of the timeframe was challanged by Lance in court in the US and he lost. He didn't refuse to give evidence, he refused to contest the charges. He pleaded guilty. Quite different from refusing to give evidence in his own defence. You'll have to look pretty hard to find anyone who thinks Lance is snow white now. Also, his guilt or the depth of it isn't alleged, it's been proven and he refused to contest the charges, pleading guilty Imagine a criminal case that had more than twenty eye witnesses and forensic evidence pointing to someones guilt. Do you honestly think that isn't enough for guilt? As above, can you be on the jury if I'm ever accused of a criminal conspiracy.

Armstrong has had all his title officially stripped this week. http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert-millar/the-bare-minimum Good article by Robert Millar, great Scottish cyclist from the 1980s and 90s, on the EPO scandal. Worth pointing out that Millar tested positive during his career for steroids but he makes good points. Interesting, and something I didn't know, was that hemacrit levels, the level of red blood cells in the blood, decreases during exercise. SO not only did the UCI give the OK for riders to have abnormally high levels to start with, they didn't penalise them for blood results that are against all known science and could only have come from doping.

I was a bit sceptical about this signing but he's been excellent for us. He's a calming presence at the back, strong in the air and plays the ball out of defence well, when it's appropriate. Pleasing to see him score, he's come close before.

Just watched the game 'as live' on BBC Alba. We started superbly, we always do well when we press the opposition and play with the intensity we showed early on. Draper again showed his value as a ball winner, nicking the ball to set up the first goal and McKay had a great flick on for the second. We dropped back a bit after that, I'm not sure we can maintain the pressure we played at for ninety minutes. Dundee pushed us back and we were lucky to go in ahead at half-time, if we're being honest. Again, right at the start of the second half the Dees should've equalised when Milne missed from six yards out. However, after that we solidified and weren't really caused any problems, while playing some good stuff going forward. Andy Shinnie was superb, great touches when he needed to drop deep and always dangerous when in possession further up the park. He showed great strength in the run up to the fourth goal, really good play from him. Really, really pleasing set of results from us.

How are ticket sales going for the Rnagers game? Got tickets for me and two others today.

I think we could be annihilated tonight. I don't think Belgium are as good as they've been cracked up to be but they are capable to putting us to the sword. Levein should be sacked immediately. He is useless.

Every goal we scored against County came from a move featuring less than three passes, which is the generally accepted definition of long ball football, certainly the type advocated by Charles' Reep and Hughes, who were the first to really articulate long ball tactics. There's nothing wrong with long ball or direct football, so long as it's done well. What is required is for the team to put pressure on the opposition, pushing players into right areas of the park and forcing mistakes from the opposition.