sue

What you say makes a lot of sense even if the above is not true. But is it illegal to import TB4?

I hope this Muchie guy is a gun.

I reckon that is right. EFC is keen to throw as much muck in the air as it can so that any negative findings against it will be discounted as unfair and biased by a segment of the public who know even less than these slack journos. Then EFC can play the victim for the next decade and use that to get 'special assistance' without a backlash from supporters of other clubs. If I was running EFC I'd probably do the same (though I would have put my hands up about a year ago instead.)

If true, he must have realised he won't be under oath (unlike the venue he previously insisted was the only one he would appear at.)

Some in the media should note this also. (Dangerous wording - I read the word 'criminal' as an adjective rather than a noun when I first read your post.)

Surely no one will be under any oath in front of an AFL tribunal.

Yes. If ASADA relies on transcripts of interviews or even sworn statements by witnesses who don't appear, it seems to me players could complain that they were not able to cross-examine those witnesses. But given the standard of proof required, that might not save them. Who knows.

Alternatively they could be trying to cover all bases - getting them to testify or even to appear but refuse to answer questions could just be icing on the prosecution case. We'll see. Perhaps.

To those wanting MCLean back (leaving aside the political issues) a genuine question: Is Carlton's midfield so good that they could afford to drop an aged player that would be of use to us?

WJ, isn't the most likely inference that they don't want to be cross-examined on their statements which presumably are not in favour of the players position? So not being able to do so helps the players.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/asada-case-against-essendon-players-hanging-by-a-thread-20141201-11xqig.html perhaps the thread of Damocles.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-01/afl-anti-doping-hearings-to-run-into-2015/5931420 Hearings into January

It would be nice to tell us rather than pointing to TV programs from 2002. iview doesn't go back that far.

While I think ruckmen aren't critical to success with most of what they do, it would be nice if we had one who could take a few marks on long kick-outs when other options aren't available. We are behind many other teams with that I think.

Essendon will likely be penalised so there is one less team to contend with ​Love the optimism, all of which sounds reasonable (but who knows), but I don't see how having one less team to contend with helps us. Same for everyone, except if Hawthorn loses to a degraded EFC team, people will just dismiss it as an aberration, but if we did, OldDee will never recover.

Seems to me that the likeliest explanation is that the Doc raised some concerns but when questioned, he gave vague responses, possibly influenced by being immersed in the EFC culture, and so those who wanted to win by means of 'whatever it takes' concluded that going ahead was worth the risk. And have been bum covering ever since.

No records now exist so either: 1. EFC was totally amateurish in never keeping any or if they did make them, they lost them, OR 2. they destroyed them. Option 1 is hard to credit in this age of professional sport. Option 2 means either they accidentally destroyed them (see option 1), or they had something to hide. Case closed. EFC are just trying to spin this out so long that most of the players involved will be on the age pension by the time they are penalised.

QWERTY, it would be simpler if you just admitted your use of the term 'ambulance chaser' was incorrect. It means people following disasters for personal financial profit, not personal satisfaction. Try schadenfreude or something similar. And WJ was only accusing you of it to highlight your wrong use of it, so irony was there, but not the irony you refer to.

Is that assuming no players are rubbed out? If they are rubbed out, then the team which plays their 'reserves' twice (or before the ban expires) has an extra 4 points over other teams which don't and a boosted percentage (assuming the likely outcome is a hiding). Am I missing something?

Because every so often some journo publishes another ridiculous article, eg. the Bottle, and it is hard to resist commenting on it.

Not that different in my mind IF your neighbour doesn't deserve all that money. If I feel he is only a small step from having stolen it, or doesn't pay his taxes, they are not so different. And with the ratio of CEO pay to average wages having made an astronomical leap in the last 25 years, I see a lot of stealing going on. But I agree, cheating will turn off more people than buying talent, staff and facilities. But back on topic - cheating doesn't seem to have affected many Essendon supporters yet. I have reported one case of an Essendon supporter who even had links to Hird in junior days, having thrown in the towel. But everyone else says their Essendon mates are still delusional. I guess that EFC supporter who posts here a bit (Tim?) is also an exception.

BB, while I agree with you on the drugs issue, I wonder if your statement above is correct. Interest in AFL hasn't declined because 'who has the most money wins', so I suspect that it might not if you replace 'money' with 'cheats'. We are in a 'whatever t takes' culture these days.

Maybe they don't care too much. Won't be long now before technology allows them to paint in the crowd on the TV. They already do it for sound.

I just love those creases.

Ha. I get it. When they are banned retrospectively for a number of matches from a certain date, the 2 International Rules games will count towards the total so they can play regular games 2 weeks earlier. (I know that doesn't make any sense, just reacting to how dishonestly I perceive the AFL operates.)