sue

If you used AFL Live last year and used Airplay to view the match of your TV, watch out. Without warning in the update to the app they have changed the terms and conditions so that you can't do that anymore. It sort of works, but a lot of the screen is covered by a gray band and some say audio doesn't work. Check out the comments in the iTunes store. There are a lot of angry customers who paid $89 assuming what worked last year would work this year. Presumably they have done this to protect their other investment, Foxtel. Several bugs introduced as well, but I guess they will fix those because there is no marketing reason not to.

Quite a different cemetery to be digging up old graves in. Point by point: 1.Yes, many here thought we were picked on by the media when we were not the only tankers. No such evidence has emerged of other clubs doing what Essendon has. Furthermore, a large slab of the media is supporting Essendon. At least our paranoia was reasonably based. 2. Stand by who in our case? There was no god-like Hird figure for us to stand by. 3. Unlike EFC supporters, most of us thought we would not be cleared. Though of course we were .......

Am I the only one who knows an EFC supporter who is walking away from supporting them (at least over the drugs, I expect he'll be back eventually)? Sounds like it.

There are a lot of nut cases on there who make even the most extreme Demonlander look rational. I don't think I'd have the stomach to go there if there are bans.

umm, as a neutral observer, I don't see much difference between "if tonight is anything to go by"and "if that performance is anything to go by" since the performance was on that night.

from the AFL website: COMING TO A SCREEN NEAR YOU NAB Challenge matches to be streamed via club websites — Brisbane v St Kilda, Moreton Bay Sports Complex, Saturday — Adelaide v North Melbourne, Port Lincoln, Sunday — GWS v Gold Coast at Blacktown (March 7) — Port Adelaide v West Coast at Norwood Oval (March 8) — Western Bulldogs v Melbourne at Eureka Stadium (March 14) — Sydney v Fremantle at Drummoyne Oval (March 15)

An earlier post #21 said Dawes smashed Jetta on the chops which would be reportable. I'm surprised that none of the other reports on the session mentioned or denied this???

Why not - they have happily stood by while the AFL funds GWS. That was justified as a possible future growth area. Preserving an existing massive growth is worth as much surely.

Disagree BB. So what if the players start suing EFC? Either the AFL will bankroll them because EFC is worth so much to the AFL, or the AFL will find some legal trick to reinvent an entity that appeals to Essendon supporters while bankrupting and obliterating the current EFC so there is nothing to sue. The latter may be impossible, in which case the former will be done even if it causes a loss in the short term.

Perhaps you were just being dramatic, but there is no way there will be any fatal blow to EFC. Let's say the 17 remaining players all get booted out for 2 years and Hird and co are banned from sport for life and even him and a a couple of Directors thrown in the clink by Worksafe. The AFL will simply find a way to reconstruct the club and make it no less competitive than we have been in recent years. That has hardly been fatal even for a small club like ours. No way will the AFL throw away tens of thousands of supporters.

Maybe I've missed something, but isn't his explanation that he moved house and forgot to tell the cops/court he had a new address and therefore didn't get the summons. If true, that shows he couldn't organise his way out of a paper bag, but it is hardly a hanging matter. I can understand why a magistrate would say that is not good enough, but as a MFC supporter I wouldn't say he's used up a second chance. But maybe I've missed something?

I'm getting lost BB. Are they currently provisionally suspended? Can they train when p. suspended?

I hope he didn't tell the club because if he did and no one in the admin thought to find out the date to remind him to show up, then the admin is at fault since they should know he isn't the most responsible person in the world. But regardless when it happened, he should have told the club because it may have interfered with his work duties.

Let's hope so. EFC be able to play for time and turn over their list. A number of us paranoids always suspected it was Essendon that got the Workcover people to investigate other clubs. At least that has been knocked oevr and EFC are still in their gunsights.

I understand the principle that the code has to put the onus on the player. I've strongly supported the reasons for that many pages back. I'll concede that they can be convicted even if comatose. But the penalty may still be OD's wet tram ticket if they can claim or reasonably establish they were deceived. Very few of us will be satisfied if the outcome is a headline in the HUN reading: 'Players cleared to play' and in the fine print it mentions they were found responsible but is was all the fault of some other parties. The AFL may not even dare to mention the name of the party until they try him. (I understand Hird isn't on trial here. Hopefully he will be.)

That is a different sort of case. He inadvertently had an advantage at that one event and was disqualified for it. I presume he wasn't disqualified from future events. Do the ASADA/WADA rules actually say you have to be unconscious to be 'no fault'? Obviously a flat battery argument will fail, but it seems to me that there will be a level of excuse between that and totally unconscious that might suffice to get a player off. For example, the doc/nurse showing the player a mislabelled vial which reads vitamin B.

I'm sure you are right, they did know. But if they lie and say 'we were lied to', it is a line of defence which sadly may be successful. How good a line of defence it might be would depend on things that we the public don't know as yet. Don't worry OD, this will go well beyond 80 pages and many years. I think we'll both be pushing up the daisies before it ends.

Unfortunately I fear the players may be able to hide behind 'we didn't know'. What if they say they were lied to as to what was being injected. Can they reasonably be expected to read the label on every vial no matter how often and systematic. What if the label is misleading. I agree that these loopholes are weak, but I fear they are there. Yes, the onus is on the players. But being lied to is almost as good a defense as being comatose when you are injected with a banned substance. Just because a few said 'no' doesn't help much unless they gave evidence of better reasons for saying no than they don't like needles.

Everything you say is true. However a lot of your usage of the word 'they' applies to Hird and the club, not the players. As someone who is as outraged by the whole situation as you are, I'd be interested in your response to my post #1981.

Binman I think you are wrong as the above posts have explained. However as someone who believes at least the senior players knew what they were doing, I am concerned that they could get off because they didn't actually order any prohibited stuff themselves. The chain of evidence appears to show EFC ordered all this stuff and the club's intent in doing so is clear. The VFL(?) player who merely ordered but didn't even take a banned substance was clobbered. No blood test was needed for him but there was no doubt he ordered it, presumably with intent to take it. Will individual Essendon players successfully argue that unlike him, they did not order anything and therefore they attempted nothing and that they innocently assumed the injections were kosher? Sure, the players are responsible for what they put in their bodies, but if no one "knows" what was put in, we have a strong case for tar and feathering Hird and his mates, but perhaps a loophole for the players. I hope I am wrong.

Mazeltov nutbean. Given the number of teams and our performance in recent years, you've done well to keep 50% in the faith.

Some turkey on the radio just said that the current cocaine cases are perhaps the 'darkest day in sport' rather than the EFC situation. If people like him can't see the difference between a few individuals who happen to be sportsmen facing criminal charges for supplying illegal drugs to the systematic cheating program at Essendon, I despair.

OD he may agree with you on that but his statement: For those calling for Essendon to be excised, imagine the debate if supporters of other clubs wanted Melbourne to be delicensed or moved to Tassie because of the combination of tanking and seriously poor on-field performances. For the last few years (up until the end of 2013) we have been the competition's embarrassment. was what Mandee was referring to. I don't see how that relates to how other supporters would have reacted in either our or EFC's case. I think we all agree that Essendon's crime was immeasurably worse than anything we did. I agree with those who say Essendon can't (and won't) be kicked out. I expect the AFL will be reaching for the lightest feather they can get away with. I don't know how what general public's attitude to the EFC crimes are - as I said before I'm sure the AFL has done polls - they may have even leaked by now for those who are still crossing their legs.

Whatever the case, I bet the AFL has commissioned some polls on the subject. Need a leak...

I assume you are just poking fun at the AFL since we all know that bending the rules when it suits is no obstacle to the AFL. But in this case it would be excusable for a change.