Mazer Rackham

Not sure about that. Was it the 2012 or 2013 pre season when Ess supporters were gloating about how huge their players had gotten in a big hurry? I don't recall that situation for any other club ever. I don't doubt that (most) clubs have dabbled with "borderline" supplements. Example: we were daft enough to get into bed with Dank, albeit unofficially and without approval, even after it was widely known that Dank was discredited. But nothing any club has done was on the scale of Ess/Hird/Dank/Charters and co.

So let me (try to) follow the confused logic ... We felt bad about making Grimes and Trengove captains at such a young age so we thought we'd better get one of those big bodied premiership players that are always lining up at the doors of every other club but then didn't make him captain which meant that the inexperienced blokes were still captains. Yes, I don't understand why we laid out big bikkies for Dawes of all players and I am criticising that we got him. So well done.

When did I say one word about Grimes or Trengove? You're making things up and then attacking your figments of imagination.

One more time for those a little slow on the uptake. He's a key position forward who can't mark the ball. Something of a handicap when your job is to kick goals and you can't get your mitts on the pill.

He's gone and won't be coming back. This is ancient history. Look forward, not back.

I never understood why we got him in the first place. Even when he was at C'wood it was clear he was not a good mark. (And he's gotten worse.) He was going to be a big lump who takes the oppo's best or second best defender, makes a contest and brings the ball to ground. Pedo can do that. Even Ben Holland used to be able to do that. Why pay such big bikkies for such a player? We could have had three for the price.

Okay, I will. The tanking saga was almost like a practice run for this drugs thing. An issue that the AFL clearly didn't want to front up to (until goddam AA blinked while Vlad's back was turned), and even then, tried to massage a result to make it look like they were doing something about it. The unpalatable scenario was that we would be found guilty of tanking, and then the AFL could rightly be accused of running a corrupt competition, with the sponsorship and legislative nightmares that would follow. So the [censored] found us guilty of something else. All the while, we supporters were raging against the machine, city hall, anything, and some were even believing that we never really tanked at all! Sounds familiar so far ... Now the differences come in. We didn't have half the media as supporters, who could wage war on our behalf. We didn't have a billionaire standover merchant as president who could negotiate his own penalty. (Imagine if Joe Public could do that in "real life".) We didn't have a statutory body involved who could kick the whole thing upstairs and out of the AFL's grasp. Vive la difference!!!!!

What have I ever done to you????

Conflicted. Players should stump up their own cash if they want a PA with teeth.

In your letter "S", there are some dots so close together that I can't be comfortably satisfied that is actually IS the letter "S". Therefore I cannot read whatever it is that you are saying. Your whole phrase must be thrown out.

I get that the AFLPA is looking after the player's interests whatever they. If it's money, then the AFLPA has to stick up for that. But I don't get how the AFLPA has been sucked into this "ASADA are bad guys" narrative. Why aren't the AFLPA demanding that Dank, Alavi, Charter, whoever, are made accountable for whatever the flip was stuck into those players? Why aren't the AFLPA demanding that the players get to know exactly what happened to them?

It's the same as the way High Court judges are chosen by the govt. (especially so in the US/Supreme court.) The candidates are not corrupt. But they are selected for their known predisposition to certain ways of thinking. As soon as I heard that David Jones was the chairman, my heart sank. He's the one who managed to find Barry Hall not guilty of striking and freed him up to play in a grand final.

Gil "integrity of the game" McLachlan met with Jobby and his crew to discuss the tribunal case WHILE THE TRIBUNAL WAS SITTING. I expect he was just explaining how carry over points work if you've been charged with rough conduct.

Oh, Gil "the Dealmaker" will find some way. "We're following the US NFL model where the biggest sport in the country follows its own seperate, rigorous code, really punitive, and doesn't drag down every other sport in the land, who by the way can go hang, sorry, I mean, will finally have a level playing field without the AFL being an albatross around their necks. We're doing this for the good of the nation."

I'm waiting for Gil to pull some stunt between now and the end of the year whereby the AFL decides it doesn't have to abide by the CAS penalties, and Jobby doesn't have to hand back his Brownlow.

The tribunal found that Dank injected what he thought was TB4. That he got it from Alavi, who believed he was compounding TB4. Who in turn got it from Charters, who believed he was buying TB4, from a Chinese pharmaceutical company who stated that the only thymosin they provided was TB4. But the tribunal thought, what if it actually wasn't TB4? The only way to know would be if ASADA managed to go back in time, get hold of that actual shipment and have it lab tested. That is not comfortable satisfaction. That is shooting for 100% certainty. That is beyond reasonable doubt. Life must be a daily struggle for those tribunal members. "Dear, did you put sugar in my coffee?" "Yes, dear, didn't you see me put it in?" "Yes." "And you saw me get it out of the sugar bowl." "Yes, I did." "And can't you taste it?" "Yes, I can. But how can we be sure???" "I'm not paying for this petrol." "But sir, you've just pumped in 50 litres of 91 octane." "It might be LPG." "But you pumped it from the bowser labelled 91 octane." "Yes, I did." "Which was filled last night by a tanker filled with only 91 octane." "I accept that." "Here is the invoice from Shell for one tanker of 91 octane." "I accept that, too." "What's more we don't even sell LPG here." "I noticed that." "And if it was LPG, your car wouldn't start." "I know all that. But how can we be sure???"

That would be the "fool's golds standard". They can look forward to their boot studders being outed for $2 bets, with lots of hoopla.

Not defending Fairfax, but Chris Mitchell is a c*** and all News editors are willing signatories to the Murdoch code of ethics.

On an overseas study trip. He's checking out the pro boxing organisations for ideas.

The AFL competition has jumped the shark. I'm over it. We're officially innocent, but cop a fine for ... something? No-ones guilty of anything, but you two guys are out of the game for a while. Because. We get investigated, but the club that wrote the blueprint for tanking is over there. There, the ones with big grins on their faces. We get investigated because someone on some TV show said something. But this McCarthy guy at Brisbane ... nothing to see, move along. (Don't go looking for anything, we might find something.) Adelaide tamper with the draft and cop a Clayton's penalty. AFL appoint a rules committee, ask them to take the trouble to recommend some changes, and then override their recommendations with rules Anderson thought up himself last night. The buffoon in charge of the umpires makes up new rules on the spot, such as "natural arc". Judd gets his Visy deal, with no explanation why. Ablett can't get a Visy-style deal, with no explanation why not. The clowns make it up as they go along. They have no vision other than the next TV rights deal.

The AFL make it up as they go along, on every issue. All the while patting themselves on the back as to how professional they are.

Understood. But bigfooty is a kind of magnet for f****ing idiots.

Tell that to the sponsors.

But was he ashen faced?

All right. Let me put it another way. Forget Eddie and all the rest. Why should we roll over on this? Why should we not fight tooth and nail to clear our name? PS. "Scot-free?" Mind boggling.