He might have heard of William Shakespeare.

Of course he has. At the pub Robbo frequents, there's a bloke who's there even more than Robbo. If you're short of scratch he's good for a tip for the dogs or trots, he can get you a GPS unit for $25 or an iphone for $60, if you're having a party it's rumoured he can get "party supplies" at good prices, and if you ask his name, he says either "Who wants to know?" or "William Shakespeare".

But to be honest, if we're going to ruin the reputation of any Shakespearean fool by mentioning Robbo in the same sentence, perhaps the most useful would be Launcelot Gobbo from The Merchant of Venice. The similarity in name helps, but he also shares Robbo's endless capacity for tormenting the language.

Gil is finding new ways to lose my respect every week. Holy [censored], actually instructing Essendon's next 4 opponents not to sledge their players over drugs would have to be the most embarrassing thing I've seen out of AFL House in years.

And that's no easy feat.

Gill the Dill is only about supposedly protecting the brand. What he fails to understand is everything the AFL has done has only served to diminish it.

Gil is finding new ways to lose my respect every week. Holy [censored], actually instructing Essendon's next 4 opponents not to sledge their players over drugs would have to be the most embarrassing thing I've seen out of AFL House in years.

And that's no easy feat.

Does he have a choice? We know that under OH&S laws, CEOs are culpable if employees are injured at work. Those laws include bullying as a cause of "injury". If the CEO of the AFL does not make some gesture towards trying to prevent bullying, he might be culpable should a player who believes he's been bullied takes action against the AFL. The question therefore that needs answering is this: Is sledging a form of bullying? Whether we like it or not, I suspect the answer is "yes".

Does he have a choice? We know that under OH&S laws, CEOs are culpable if employees are injured at work. Those laws include bullying as a cause of "injury". If the CEO of the AFL does not make some gesture towards trying to prevent bullying, he might be culpable should a player who believes he's been bullied takes action against the AFL. The question therefore that needs answering is this: Is sledging a form of bullying? Whether we like it or not, I suspect the answer is "yes".

well on that basis, pushing, bumping, elbowing, jumper punching off the play would also be a form of bullying or physical assault

ffs, ldvc

Tell me again why I love this game ah

Does he have a choice? We know that under OH&S laws, CEOs are culpable if employees are injured at work. Those laws include bullying as a cause of "injury". If the CEO of the AFL does not make some gesture towards trying to prevent bullying, he might be culpable should a player who believes he's been bullied takes action against the AFL. The question therefore that needs answering is this: Is sledging a form of bullying? Whether we like it or not, I suspect the answer is "yes".

This maybe so but seriously what has happened to this world. What crazy nonsense. At times I want to go somewhere a long way away and not be exposed to the horrors of this world and also the inanities of the modern state. It seems more and more that the major issues that threaten civilization are ignored and we spend our time digesting this stuff.

well on that basis, pushing, bumping, elbowing, jumper punching off the play would also be a form of bullying or physical assault

ffs, ldvc

Where's an OH&S lawyer when you need one? I remember this being discussed when I was forced by my employer to attend an OH&S training day. I believe the short answer is that AFL players "consent" to being pushed, bumped, elbowed and jumper punched as that's part of the game. That consent does not, however, extend to matters such as vilification. I think the sledging falls on the side of non-consenting behaviour.

Where's an OH&S lawyer when you need one? I remember this being discussed when I was forced by my employer to attend an OH&S training day. I believe the short answer is that AFL players "consent" to being pushed, bumped, elbowed and jumper punched as that's part of the game. That consent does not, however, extend to matters such as vilification. I think the sledging falls on the side of non-consenting behaviour.

i said off the play.........................are you seriously saying afl players "consent" to this as part of their contract

i said off the play.........................are you seriously saying afl players "consent" to this as part of their contract

Let's be clear. I'm no expert and not a lawyer. But the lawyer who conducted the OH&S training I attended did say that off the play conduct was still consented to (on the basis that it would not be unexpected) unless it was extreme. The Leigh Matthews and Neville Bruns case was mentioned as an example of something extreme which players do not consent to. I have no idea how you can draw a line which determines what would be consented to and what wouldn't. But as a former CEO, I know that I'd rather have taken action like McLachlan has done than not, given the personal liability that exists under OH&S laws.

This maybe so but seriously what has happened to this world. What crazy nonsense. At times I want to go somewhere a long way away and not be exposed to the horrors of this world and also the inanities of the modern state. It seems more and more that the major issues that threaten civilization are ignored and we spend our time digesting this stuff.

I think the problem comes down to people thinking other people do not have the right to be a racist, or homophobe, or bigot etc. They do, you should be able to say what ever the hell you like to who ever you want, that is freedom of speech (which isn't actually protected in our constitution but that is another point). Freedom of speech is slowly being eroded by the people who claim to protect it, they do so through legislation but can not see that a much better way forward is for society to drive the change, not legislators, by this I mean we as a society should be calling out the bigots, racists, etc and howling them down from the rooftops, we have as much right to do this as they do to be racist. The difference between society doing it and legislators is that you have no where to hide when society stands against you on a moral matter, if legislators do then you hide behind the labels (PC, nanny state etc) and resent the authority, much different if it comes from a mate.

The other issue is that very few people have ever had a discussion with a person from a minority about what constitutes racism, sexism, etc and actually tried to understand why. There are still may people out there who think it is OK to call a black fella and ape for crying out loud!

Let's be clear. I'm no expert and not a lawyer. But the lawyer who conducted the OH&S training I attended did say that off the play conduct was still consented to (on the basis that it would not be unexpected) unless it was extreme. The Leigh Matthews and Neville Bruns case was mentioned as an example of something extreme which players do not consent to. I have no idea how you can draw a line which determines what would be consented to and what wouldn't. But as a former CEO, I know that I'd rather have taken action like McLachlan has done than not, given the personal liability that exists under OH&S laws.

There is also a test of common sense applied. That test is basically along the lines of 'does the majority see that as part of your role/acceptable behavior'. This is where the standards shift as societies views shift.

Racial vilification is great example, 30 years ago it was socially acceptable to abuse someone on racial grounds, now it is not (unless you are not realising you are supporting others being racist of course ).

I chose Falstaff coz he spends all his time in the pub, and sucks up to the crown prince ..... only to be discarded by him in the end.

Falstaff is hung for desertion

Falstaff is hung for desertion

i could handle that....

Essendon has hard decisions to make on the field but must first decide if James Hird will coach in 2016

The paradox at Bomberland is that while the drug scandal has raged on for such an inordinate length of time, it has, in all likelihood, masked other issues about James Hird's suitability as an AFL coach. People are asking, will he be there as coach in 2016 and what further damage will be done to the Bombers' future prospects by the prolonged saga?

Robbo, the Essendon propagandist is having his two bob each way. He's asking whether the bloke can coach? Does he still have the respect of the playing group? Have the players been damaged irrevocably under the pressure of the long running scandal?

I once expressed admiration at how the Essendon players had stuck fat and performed so admirably for such a long time under the cloud of the ASADA investigation but now it's all falling apart.

Perhaps they've come to the realisation that the club's propaganda line which was supported strongly by media acolytes like Robbo, Chip Le Grand and Tracey Holmes and the Deakin Uni academic might be flawed? In any event, it looks as though they're buckling under the weight of it all and in that respect, I have sympathy for their plight because they are the victims of appalling administration at both AFL and EFC level as well as an unwieldy system of dealing with drug cheats, made more difficult by the obvious cover ups at Essendon.

The AFL Tribunal's handling of the case didn't help matters either and we are now in a situation whereby Essendon is in a state of atrophy pending a result from the WADA appeal which is still a way off. To sack Hird would cost them a bucketload of cash, they still have no idea of the sort of team they will be able to field next year, their capacity to trade is restricted because very few are prepared to trade draft picks. They can't stop, reload and rebuild for a future with a new coach and a clean slate (would anyone want to coach them anyway?).

If I was an Essendon supporter I would be regretting the day when David Evans was knifed and the Bombers walked away from the prospect of a deal that could have made this all go away by late 2013. At that time, things could have been fixed much easier without huge cost and the enormous toll on the lives of the players and supporters.

And we all know the identity of the one person most to blame for all of this.

I dispute that the players are victims.

They consented.

They were responsible for what they were injected with.

They failed to do any research into what they were being injected with.

They have stuck fat with the club and Hirdy.

No sympathy

I dispute that the players are victims.

They consented.

They were responsible for what they were injected with.

They failed to do any research into what they were being injected with.

They have stuck fat with the club and Hirdy.

No sympathy

i tend to agree

the wada code, which they are well educated on, clearly places responsibility on the individual athletes

they all knew this (more so the older players)

yet not one in 34 took it anywhere for a second opinion (add player managers, parents etc)

i'm surprised there has been little discussion in the media on the player's culpability re the wada code

I dispute that the players are victims.

They consented.

They were responsible for what they were injected with.

They failed to do any research into what they were being injected with.

They have stuck fat with the club and Hirdy.

No sympathy

I don't have a great amount of sympathy for them either but don't confuse the issue of their victimhood with that of their guilt. I believe they did commit anti doping rule violations and should receive stringent sanctions as laid down in the WADA Code. They nevertheless were the victims of a very nasty regime for which there has been very little responsibility taken at their club and if the charges are made to stick at CAS as I believe they will, then the players will have a claim for damages against the EFC.

Time will tell.

Well said.

Fair enough KC but if David Zaharakis can stand up and say "no" then 34 others could as well. They let it happen.

Fair enough KC but if David Zaharakis can stand up and say "no" then 34 others could as well. They let it happen.

Has the line that he was afraid of needles ever been critically examined? eg. past history etc.

Has the line that he was afraid of needles ever been critically examined? eg. past history etc.

That would involve actual journalism. You certainly won't find that from the Herald Sun.

If the players had been given 2-3 injections i would have sympathy

But they all consented to way way more than that & as they were over 18 they must take that responsibility.

I am amazed that players have not said more.

and why they stand behind Hird & The EFC.

I am amazed that players have not said more.

and why they stand behind Hird & The EFC.

I believe that they knew there was monkey business going on.

They didn't even tell their managers!

It's united we stand, divided we fall and they all know it.

How else to explain their meek acquiescence to all this skullduggery when they should be charging into the board rooms and the court rooms to find out what the **** Dr Mengeles did to them.

I believe that they knew there was monkey business going on.

They didn't even tell their managers!

It's united we stand, divided we fall and they all know it.

How else to explain their meek acquiescence to all this skullduggery when they should be charging into the board rooms and the court rooms to find out what the **** Dr Mengeles did to them.

Totally agree. If i was a player in this situation I know for a fact my mum would have burnt the joint down if she had not got solid answers.

It is another weird layer....