sue

Yes, and my answer was I didn't have enough information to suggest an alternative. That would cover not answering any of your questions. Is that so hard to understand? Your answer "2 Pi r times as bad" shows that you too, quite rightly, refuse to 'be specific'. As long as r>1, I agree with you.

Golly I didn't know action was required of me. I did say 'there will be some sort of compromise'. Like you, I'm not personally across all the facts, nor what Essendon can say by way of mitigation or threat. So I can't sensibly suggest exactly what that compromise should be. But it is clear to me that this is far more serious than the tanking issue based on Zwigg's internal report alone, without any ASADA evidence at all. By a country mile. And I believe the penalties suggested are insufficient. I don't see why you expect me to offer an alternative suite of penalties. But I will say there should be serious non-financial penalties since Essendon can probably easily afford a fine 20 times our one for 'not tanking'. Since you are keen on specifics, would you like to suggest what the relative naughtiness of tanking vs experimenting with players health is? half as bad, same, twice as bad, three times......

SIMILAR???!!! If you think the tanking, even if it was totally blatant and even if no other club did it, to be on the same scale of seriousness as recklessly experimenting with young blokes bodies (look no further than Ziggy's internal report), you are on a different planet to me mate. Sure there will be some sort of compromise, but the AFL can't bend too far or footy will be the worse for it.

If this is the entire deal, then the AFL is pathetic. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/pointless-bombers-lose-james-hird/story-e6frg7mf-1226702664839

Ah, Bomberblitz. The degree of denial and wishful thinking on Bomberblitz makes anything that went on on Demonland during the $cully and tanking affairs look insignificant.

Not forgotten. But as unfortunate as the JT case may turn out be, it is on an entirely different scale to what happened at Essendon.

But at least we also fulfil the intelligent part of the statement.

also possible. So it comes down to "will the barrister not take a brief to preserve his reputation, particularly that of a winner". I know nothing of Burnside's reputation, but his not being stupid is taken for granted or he wouldn't have got through law school let alone be a QC. But you could be intelligent and still take on hopeless cases. (No idea if he fits that mould, just saying).

Sorry in my earlier post I said counsel when I meant solicitor. What about: But aren't you ignoring the possibility that an ego-maniac plaintiff will ignore the advice of a solicitor that they have a weak case? And tell him to find a barrister.

But aren't you ignoring the possibility that an ego-maniac plaintiff will ignore the advice of counsel that they have a weak case?

Spot on. At some point the club may just have to decide to jettison Hird. The amazing thing in his injunction is him saying the AFL is biased when at the same time saying the AFL tipped them off to go public before ASADA did. That is the action of a body trying to help Essendon. Of course the real reason to bring it up is to put AD et al in the poo. Which is fine by me if they did breach confidentiality - though clearly their motivation was trying to preserve the reputation of the AFL.

If that was true, I'd be p!ssed off (unless the last item was very severe). The 2013 points are meaningless since they are unlikely to win the flag and it is all over. The fine is only 5 times what we got for 'not tanking'.

But he somehow says he did discuss its contents. Possible of course, but there is a credibility gap widening,

Gosh, I don't see that I have shifted the goalposts. When I said 'truth' in the first post, in my naive way I assumed it meant the "full truth'. What sort of partial truth is there - it ain't the truth if it is not complete. Don't bother to respond, we clearly live on different planets in this.

Oh come on. You get one lot regurgitating one side's line and the other lot regurgitating the other side's. They can't both be the full truth. In your world all a journalist has to to is to publish the press releases of the interested parties and their job is done. Why both with journalists at all?

I didn't say they shouldn't publish it. What I said can include that. Read it again, seek out the truth, don't JUST regurgitate.

Totally disagree. Journos should investigate the truth, not regurgitate what is fed to them by interested parties.

It's unfair to blame the players. So the best punishment wold be that in 2014 the Essendon players play for the MFC and vice versa.

With ASADA and WADA in the background I don't think the AFL could offer Hird & co a compromise deal along the lines of 'not guilty but we'll fine you anyway etc. Once that penny dropped at Windy Pill, they decided they'd rather tarnish the AFL further than fall on their swords.

Essendon is attacking the AFL for sitting on the AOD thing for 6 months. One can equally ask, why hasn't Garnham said anything until now? What exactly is the timeline of his AFL & Essendon employment status?

or they did have records, but they were shredded. I find it hard to believe anyone, no matter how amateurish, would embark on this without keeping records to monitor progress, make comparisons etc. Waste of money otherwise. Either way, they are condemned unless they can prove the whole thing is a fabrication.

Sorry, after this season, schadenfreude is the only thing keeping my interest in AFL going. But yes, there but for the grace of god; we could have been Essendon supporters or it could have been us. Interesting to reflect on how the MFC has had a weak, anything will do culture, which leads to disaster while Essendon have a strong, whatever it takes culture, which also leads to disaster at the other extreme.

Essendone 72. The Thymosin referred to on the “Patient Information/Informed Consent” forms and administered to the players was: (a) Thymosin Beta-4 which is prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code so Essendone will say they didn't administer it, but they did ask players to consent to it explicitly? The mind boggles. Looks like an attempted cover-up too with those rescinded receipts from their compounding chemist? TA-65 at Collingwood claimed by Dank - anyone know the significance?

Bang indeed. They should be hung on this one point alone: " failed to identify and record the source from which all substances used by players were obtained;" I wonder what the redacted bits around Hird are not to mention the missing drug (h) under item 124. Hard to know where to start

The abysmal level of reporting is standard, Good to see at least some of the media ask the obvious question. Why did Garnham wait till now? I pride myself on being a good conspiracy theorist with finely attuned (cynical) political antennae, but I'll be blowed I can think of any reason. So I have to conclude saying it now is a last minute attempt to muddy the waters.