sue

Disagree. As we know ASADA's case is circumstantial and requires following a chain of evidence. It would be easy for the gutter press to make mincemeat of that to a public which is not inclined to follow the details. But it could be convincing to a panel of intelligent people prepared to make the effort to understand the details. So if I was ASADA, I'd be keen to keep the press out so there is less public backlash to a conviction and take my chances with the leaks.

Maybe you miss my point. I don't want to move on because I want to extract every drop of enjoyment from exactly what you (and I) wrote about how lucky we are to have got rid of him.

I think you an gsmith misunderstand the current interest in Scully. What better way to cheer up a depressed supporter base than focussing on how we dodged a bullet and got well rewarded. I'm not over it, I'm revelling in it. Thanks.

He has a future as a writer at least based on that article.

Q30, I may have missed something in your arguments, but why do you think Hird's potential to sue the pants off EFC is relevant? If the AFL throws him out for being a drug pusher or whatever, who does he sue? Not the EFC. And on what grounds could he sue the AFL? It would be like a convicted criminal suing the court for loss of earnings while he is in jail and loss of future income because no one will employ him afterwards.

I'm starting to think that the AFL will issue very low penalties. There will then be 2 outcomes which will protect the EFC and themselves. Either WADA will accept it, so damage limited and EFC will be reasonably competitive. Or WADA will appeal. But by the time that is all over the EFC list will have turned over sufficiently to keep them competitive. I think that is more important to the AFL than being accused of being soft on drugs - they can rely on the sort of fog that was generated recently to help them cope with that. Also they can whack Hird and the admin without doing much damage to competitiveness. So they can be hard on them and soft on the players which will have broad appeal.

I'd be interested to know if Grimes' clangers are more frequent as the game goes on. Just re-watched the Carlton game and he was hitting targets. I wonder if he just gets exhausted with the ball coming in endlessly in recent years. More so than others? If so, maybe when he has a chance to catch his breath when the ball is in our forward line he will look better.

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.