Slartibartfast

Nut I'd leave Stevie alone. He's got a problem with Jordie, fails to see his good and only focus's on his bad. Jordie must have taken his girl or something. Or perhaps Stevie is a girl and Jordie dumped her - I could understand why! Having pizzed all over Jordie for weeks our man has shown up Steve for what he is. A pretty ordinary judge of this player. Just for the record Jordie won the ball against Stanton in a marking contest to get the ball to Watts and then Kent. He was also the one who won the clearance that got the ball to Jones who got it to Frawley who goaled. He was pivotal in the final play. He got the ball to Pedersen who goaled in the third. That's 4 pivotal scoring involvements in the last 40 minutes of footy - personally I reckon a "well played" is called for. But for Stevie he's just an ordinary footballer. A couple of handballs, a couple of kicks, anyone can do it.

The Hill brothers, Lewis Jetta and Andrew Gaff spring to mind. Anyway, nobody is totally outside.

What have you seen? How many of his last 5 games?

Just remind me again what drugs were given to the players and what internal control were in place to confirm compliance? And how many positive tests have been obtained? But of course Dank is a trustworthy honest individual who just happens to be under investigation for fraud. I'm sure he wouldn't look to profit from an involvement with a client.

I'm loving your joy Nut, beautifully described.

The whole attitude of Little is bizarre. By trying to get the evidence thrown out he is implying that they are guilty. Why else would you want the evidence made non admissible? If they are guilty why don't they take the 6 months and get it all over and done with? And to cloud matters more Dank is now under investigation for fraud. I've long held a belief that it's possible he was using Essendon as a conduit to getting illegal drugs but not giving them to Essendon players. This does nothing to allay that possibility. I think it's arguable and possible that Dank used Essendon to access a supply of illegal drugs but never supplied them to the players but used the drugs to sell on the black market at personal profit. The WADA code is inappropriate when dealing with this type of situation. This situation continues to get stranger and stranger.

I'd want more than that if I was charged with murder. You are assuming that what we know is what there is. There may be more or there may be less. Little doesn't know and we don't know what's happening behind the scenes. Surely you'd think there is some law that forces Dank to hand over his records. That this could go on is disgraceful. The damage is immense. There are no winners and few easy decisions. Great post Maurie. You'll find the distinction is too hard for many.

The explanation for Essendon's stance was in Little's address pre match. He doesn't believe (publicly at least) that the players have taken banned drugs. You'd have to think that ASADA have a pretty good case but the reality is that as far as I know nobody knows what that case is. It's very difficult for the club or the players to decide a course of action when the facts aren't known. And before you dismiss this immediately keep in mind Essendon don't know what drugs were administered. It's quite possible Danks told them one thing and did another. It's possible Danks used Essendon as a conduit to pay for and obtain banned drugs which he then used for others. The reality is we don't know. This is not to excuse in any way the management of the supplements program which was just dreadful - Hird, Corcoran, Reid and the Essendon board culpable. But if Little genuinely believes the players were not given banned drugs he's in a terrible position.

What I'm loving is seeing kids who have worked so hard get their chance and succeed. Like most I liked Jetta but I didn't see him becoming the player he is. He's now 24 and looks like becoming a permanent member of the team - and a good one. He was the same draft as Jamie Bennell. Both are having break out years. It highlights the necessity to develop players correctly. In poor teams so many young kids are thrown to the wolves ahead of time because of the need of the club and the expectation for success. When they fail early many are discarded. Whilst you have to think that Tapscott, Blease and Strauss are on thin ice it's worth remembering that they are where Jets was last year. It's interesting also how in a professional elite environment with top people like Roos how it's the hard workers like Jetta, Bail and Pedersen that are succeeding ahead of more highly fancied skillful players like the Blease's of this world. Jordie McKenzie is the next on the list to join this group I reckon. He was exceptional on the weekend. Anyway that's a bit of a ramble but in summary well done Jets, loving your work and thrilled you're getting a return for your dedication to your career.

I had not the slightest doubt Salem would nail that goal, he was fresh, he was dead in front, he is a beautiful kick and he's a good competitor. Having said that the call for him to be a rising star is premature I reckon. My recollection is he's played 2 full games and the rest as sub. In his 2 full games he's really failed to have much of an impact although he's done some good things in them. He was poor against Collingwood and I was surprised he was retained ahead of JKH but there is no doubt when he comes on as a sub when the game has slowed a bit he's very dangerous. But he needs to play some full games in a row and I reckon he'll go to Casey in the next few weeks. The kid is a real talent, his tackle on the members wing in the last was very important, his smother for Watts goal terrific and of course the kick for goal. But his defensive running needs to improve and I wonder about his stamina given his interrupted pre season. We've got a beauty and in Roos we've got someone who will use him for best advantage in both the short and long term.

1. Dunn 2. N Jones 3. Grimes 4. Jetta 5. McKenzie 6. McDonald Not an easy task.

Jack you and I differ one whether we tanked, that is well known and not at issue. I was commenting on the way supporters generally will respond to things. Melbourne supporters are much more likely to believe we didn't tank, Essendon supporters are much more likely to think Essendon players didn't take banned drugs. Like you with me, I agree with much of the rest of your post. As for the strength of the penalty I've commented on that at length earlier and my view differs from yours.

Don't be surprised at their attitude, most here still think CC was joking and we didn't tank. It's the same thinking that says Caro is a terrible journo when she comments on MFC (remember we hated her when she was anti Schwab well before the tanking fiasco) but terrific when she comments on EFC. Tribal culture and support is a very strong instinct. I totally agree with Redleg, if I was a player manager, player legal adviser, mentor, trusted friend or parent I'd be telling the player to take the offer and move on. But interestingly the same ethos that got them into this trouble is probably stopping them doing it. I also agree with the penalty. 6 months is a good compromise taking into account the fact the players were duped and also the need to enforce some sort of punishment. My view is that if they don't take the offer they get 2 years and that would be terrible for footy. Little and Hird are two of the most dislikeable humans I know. Finally it's important that Little, Hird, Reid, Little and his Board and Corcoran don't see the inside of a footy club again.

We should have our Own team playing from Punt Road.

I'm not sure whether to be pleased or disappointed....

No probs. I've been a fan for a while and thought you might have missed some of the articles. Glad to be of assistance.

So many good articles. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/time-to-put-players-club-and-the-game-ahead-of-lengthy-legal-stoush-20140613-zs6zp.html http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/failed-afl-report-says-of-hawthorns-tasmanian-push-20140606-zs08k.html http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/midlevel-afl-clubs-unhappy-with-equalisation-plans-20140603-zrwpt.html http://www.theage.com.au/afl/by/Caroline-Wilson Enjoy.

I can understand why that is done, making the athlete ultimately responsible. But the EFC situation demonstrates to me why the player is not the one in the best position to make the decision. Jackson Merrett and Elliott Kavanagh were Essendon's first two picks in the 2011 ND. They were 18. They walk into a club with Hird as coach, Bomber as assistant and Bruce Reid as a 40 year sports medical practitioner. During the PS they are asked to sign a document and undergo a "supplements" program. Watson's doing it, Fletcher's doing it, Hirdy and the Doc say it's fine and Corcoran, who ran Athletic's Australia and as such was very aware and involved in the drug situation give it the big tick. So they do it. If people can't see they've been duped then I feel for them. Caro's article is spot on. Guilty people are escaping and the players are taking the fall. They should take their 6 months, sue the club and fight to have the instigators of all of this held to account. Very sad for the players.

I agree with your position on this Nutbean. I believe that the players could have reasonably expected to rely on the advice of their doctors and sports scientists. There is no doubt they are guilty under the code M quoted and they will be subject to that code. But is it good code? Did it envisage a situation where in the EFC environment young men were lied to? Like you I don't believe the players knowingly cheated. I strongly suspect they were lied to either directly or indirectly. This process we are now going through is, in chess terms, the opening. When it's done and dusted the players, parents and employees will start looking for remedies against the AFL and the EFC. Those basking in Essendon's situation have no idea. This is bad for football and as such it is bad for us. To think there is no trickle down effect is naive.

Couldn't agree less. It may have happened for someone like Viney had a deal not been done but it wouldn't happen for someone like Stretch. Why would another team risk taking a player they don't want at that pick just so they might force us to take him with an earlier pick? They wouldn't because there is too much risk for them. I doubt other teams would be worried if we picked up Stretch for a "bargain". As for the pick this year I'd be dead against taking a "running HB" or a flanker type. We fell into that trap with Blease, Strauss and Tapscott. Good flanker types at TAC cup level often seem to struggle at AFL level. I want a genuine midfielder or a genuine KP player with our first pick. Leave the flank positions for later picks. It's a pity we didn't keep Bennell, he seems to be developing nicely at WCE and was always the type of player who would take time.

Alternatively "Demonland fascination with Barrett continues"

Hey Joeboy, we're half way through the season. How about a "year to date" three word analysis?

I agree with all of that. The other thing is I reckon that other teams are not taking us lightly now. Carlton thought they could thrash us and left out Waite and Gartlett. Collingwood took us seriously. We are winning back some respect from where it counts - other teams.

This is where I disagree. McKenzie, Michie and Riley are midfield depth. They are not class. Strauss and Clisby are back 6 depth, they are not class. Toumpas, Kent, Salem and JKH are class, they are not depth, they just haven't developed. Undeveloped class like these guys are not depth players. We will not draft players who don't have the potential not to be class and we may look to trade out some lower end depth to speculate on class in the draft.

We won't look for depth, we already have that. We will look for class.