Mazer Rackham

Funny, he would have been the only one. (However this poster expects that from a martian. Sheedy can probably barely remember his own name these days.) After the Tim Watson Experiment (that great '60s acid rock band), EVERYONE from Wayne Jackson down to the Dimboola thirds bootstudder knew that you don't appoint a coach without previous experience. And look where it got them. In this poster's opinion, all richly deserved ... apart from the damage to the competition, the sport, Aussie sport as a whole, the players, the families of those involved ... most lousy coaches only take their teams to the bottom of the ladder. Hird, a coach for the ages. (In this poster's opinion.)

Don't worry. It won't be free much longer. Or a world, come to think of it.

How about from the editor up? Murdoch's World. An Ethics Free Zone.

Smith is an old school journo and in the old school it was the standard of professionalism to say "this column believes" or "the author regards". It was seen as amateurish to say "I believe" or "I think". (Nowadays the standards are so low that a tipsy and inarticulate buffoon can livestream his inner voice in half sentences, without any pause for reflection, in print and on radio & TV.) But Smith is also not a particularly warm character and even a vocalised expression of compassion would probably come across as rather stiff and formal. The only credible show of emotion from Smith would be a sledge at a batsman who's been sat on his backside by a nasty bouncer.

Franky, every possible variation of everything has been offered up in this saga. The story you were told is a fairy story designed by apologists to protect Hird. "It was all above board but Dank took the money and ran." There are variations on the fairy story even. Such as, Dank knew all along "the good stuff" was prohibited but had EFC pay for it and then on sold it to bikies while injecting the players with vitamins. "It wasn't above board but Dank led Hird to believe it was. And took the money and ran." We'll probably never know the actual true story, until some player on their death bed spills what they know. (It won't vary too much from what we think happened.) It took how many years for Percy Jones to spill the beans on some minor scandal at Carlton.

There has been one other constant: The Sports Scientist Went Rogue, thereby protecting the architects of the programme from proper scrutiny. All this recent huffing about Dank and his "appeal", how he is a Villain of the Highest Order, but not one word about those who recruited him and sent him to work. Our dull witted compliant media have fallen in behind the AFL in lockstep. The propaganda offensive has been quite the success. It seems even the participants feel they did nothing wrong and are hard done by. And all along the AFL have not cared about any of what you say, except where it has hurt the bottom line.

I think you want to target your fire a little more acutely, SWYL. Yes, the players were culpable. They were caught and served their time. They will never be able to remove the label of drug cheat. But if you want to fire buckshot over all and sundry, reserve it for the architects of the scheme, and the ones who were going to (literally) profit by it. There has been some price to pay, but by and large they have gotten off very lightly.

On SEN drive home show, Jon Ralph, along with Mark "Mr Perception" Allen and Adam Cooney (enuf said), were tearing strips off Dank. Worst criminal in Oz sport history, etc etc. Even to the point of wishing financial ruin on him. (A tad harsh!) I wanted to ring in ... "so tell me, this Dank must have done something terrible. Something really awful to be the worst villain in Oz sport history. Tell me, what specifically did he do?" I expect they would have backtracked at a million miles an hour. "Oh, we don't really know" ... "He robbed these young men of the prime of their careers, the cad, etc" .... all while avoiding the obvious "he was the technical expert in Oz's greatest doping scandal and injected all those players with multiple PEDs." If Dank is the biggest villain, how did he get that way? Did EFC walk into the rooms one day to find this stranger injecting their players against their wills? Or did someone else ... potentially an even greater villain in sports history ... invite him in and direct him to these deeds? The wilfull blindness makes me shake my head. Is this our great game?

The players probably looked at him like they would at any outside expert brought in to the club. Like in school days when a student teacher came in. They'd be snickering behind their hands at his haircut and his car. They'd have no way of working out whether he was a charletan or not. Most likely the question wouldn't even occur to them. I dare say you are somewhat more worldly than a bunch of players who know nothing about anything except footy, cars and Xbox. Now Doc Reid, Bomber, Evans, Robson ... should have smelled the bullsh!t and leapt into action. What an indictment that in their various ways they let it occur.

He's not really contesting it. He thinks he's shoving it up The Man. Like that's some kind of personal victory. The fool doesn't realise that he's wasting his own time and resources as well. Or maybe he doesn't care. Any way you look at it he's a dropkick.

The only smoking gun evidence Dank has would show that the players, the coaches and club all got off very very lightly. Who knows what game he's playing right now but it's guaranteed to end in tears. (His.)

Family emergency. A member of the family is about to be disgraced in an open hearing. I wonder who'll get sick on December 1? Dank had better keep track of how many of his grandmas have expired.

DC, poster of the week, and it's still only Monday!

I still shudder at the thought that he entered the orbit of our football club, however briefly.

I think we can safely assume that this expert from over the oceans will not appear. Can you imagine the conversation? "I need you to testify on my behalf" "Okayyyyyy .... who will pay my expenses?" "The other side." "Why should they pay for your witness?" "Oh, they will pay ... (manic snicker) ... believe me ... everyone will pay ..." "I heard you're out of money" "I will be rolling in cash soon. After I reveal the truth" "You haven't told the truth to date?" "Of course I have ... at some sportsmen's nights ... but soon I will reveal the truth in the appropriate forum ... and I will be vindicated! A ha ha ha ! A ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!" click ... buzz ...

Bang! And that's it in a nutshell. In the cosy brotherhood of the AFL, the real crime of the EFC is to embarrass the league. But like a bunch of blokes on a buck's night out, or at the cricket club on pie night, nah, we're all mates here, no harm done eh! We'll look after you because we're all in it together and we look after each other. No hard feelings. But mate, for gawd's sake, don't do it again. ASADA has forced their way into the clubrooms ... the bloody wowsers ... and tried to shatter the protective shield around the sacred brotherhood. They are not cool. They are outsiders. They tried to send the strippers home. They told Dabba's missus what happened on the golf weekend! They're a bunch of dobbers. They are not one of Us. For that they cannot be forgiven.

It has cost the AFL a lot of time, effort, money, goodwill, etc etc, handling the EFC drugs affair. It screams out that they would not want to go through that again. Why oh why are they not sending an unambiguous message to all clubs and players that they will be dealt with harshly if they dabble in drugs. Instead with their half-and-half message, "if you get caught we'll be on your side ... we may have to do you over but we'll look after you as best we can", they are inviting another episode. Not in the same form as the EFC case ... some new variation ... as clubs test the boundaries. If your dog eats food off the dining table, you give it a whack on the snout. You don't say, "ooh, naughty boy .... naughty" ... and give it a pat.

It's a bit like finally not finishing ninth only to get beaten by the team that did finish ninth.

"It's Brownlow madness at Charlie Shark's Easy Money Emporium! If your selected player leads the vote count but loses the medal as a drug cheat four years later ... CASH BACK! Up to fifty bucks! Conditionsapplyandgambleresponsibly."

Every time he seems to be edging towards the truth, and therefore the realisation that his heroes have feet of clay, he retreats to his standard duped/rogue scientist/good blokes defence. The guy must be on the edge of sanity. It would be enough to drive a lesser man to drink.

If the AFL give medals to Mitchell & Cotchin, then those players can presumably sue for lost earnings, loss of enjoyment of life, etc etc. AFL don't want that. If the AFL don't give medals for 2012, the record books will always have that empty line there. In years to come ... 50 or 100 even ... people will want to know why. And they will remember what EFC and the AFL did in the years 2011-2016. The AFL DEFINITELY don't want that.

Fair go Satyr. The military industrial complex has been busy making sure the truth about 9/11 and the international Jewish bank conglomerate/world government never comes out. Even though they control the whole world, they still have limited resources. They've only just now got to item #3 (Zaka and his "fear of needles").

If you're going to take that attitude then it's clear nothing can convince you of anything, ever. I see your game. You want a job sitting on the AFL drug tribunal!

I agree they've got a strong case. But think of the principled mob they'll be arguing it to. Might as well write a letter to Santa. It'll have the same impact. (Tthey might get their wish, or a lump of coal.) The AFLPA will be very keen to argue the point, unless Gil tells them that they're in fact not keen to argue it.

Who would they strongly argue that to? The Anti Fairness League The About Face League The Awfully Fickle League The Arbitrarily Functioning League Gil wouldn't even break stride