Slartibartfast

I don't consider myself a vindictive person or a hater but Midget Mick is someone I really dislike. His arrogance to the media is ok and his "the world moves slowly but the ox is patient" I can live with but there were two things which highlight what a below average person he is. His TV commentary when Addam Maric claimed to have kicked a goal only to have TV show the ball didn't come off his boot was disgraceful. Malthouse claim of "cheating" and vilification of Maric was hypocritical and tasteless. What Maric did was no worse than players claiming to have touched the ball on the goal line, staging for free kicks and many other situations where they aim to get an advantage. Maric was a young player trying to make his way and the focus on him for this incident was nothing short of bullying. The second was his famous Footy Show appearance where he played the victim in the Buckley/Malthouse handover. Riveting television and Malthouse displaying all the characteristics that make him such a pathetic individual. Collingwood were flying and looking odds on for the flag. His performance that night derailed Collingwood and clearly showed that he thought he was bigger than the team. For some reason I don't like Carlton and I don't like Malthouse. A joint failure this year would be glorious.

Thanks Hood, any news on Garland?

I agree. Anyone who pretends that not having Hogan, Dawes, Clark and Viney available for round 1 doesn't worry them is kidding themselves or doesn't really follow us closely.

I used to read you with interest Master but I'd rather read Caro's pieces now. If you don't like what she writes don't read it. Unlike you I'm interested in opinions of the well connected and well informed. For heavens sakes, football is an opinion business.

So there's no bad law?

I think Lyon like Roos is a fantastic coach, it's not his job to provide attractive footy it's his job to win. But I hate the style. I hate rolling scrums. I like high marking particularly in contested situations, I like one on one contests. I love watching the lines being broken with fast breaks. The Sydney Roos and the Freo Lyon play footy that robs the game of some of it's best aspects. Some people like the rolling scrums, the incessant stoppages and the possession game. I don't but that's just me. Pressure is good, contests are good but I just reckon footy and Lyon in particular have taken it too far. Roos may for us but when I watch us play I'm not interested in style, just results. When I watch others play I look for features I like. I like watching Essendon, NM, Richmond, PA and Geelong play. You see the best aspects of our game. I think a Buckley led Collingwood is moving more to that style and seeing Freo pants them yesterday was both disappointing and boring.

Couldn't agree less. I'm not burdened with petty tribal hatreds and I want to see attractive exciting footy. Freo play the worst game style (for attractive footy) in the AFL. The GF was the worst I've seen. Lyon has coached teams in 4 GF matches for a total of 34 goals. I hate watching Freo play. I want them to fail but I know they won't. Watching them win against anyone is disappointing.

We should hang murderers, cut off the hands of thief's, cut out the eye's of peeping toms. Penalties don't stop cheats. Saad has had his AFL career taken away from him because he drank and energy drink. But we differ and won't convince each other.

I too feel for the supporters. Club officials come and go. Club players come and go but the club supporters sustain the competition. Through no fault of theirs they face seeing the Club ruined. That will effect many innocent people and have a significant impact on their lives. If MFC vanished it would effect me significantly. It's why the individuals should be punished. Little, Hird etc etc should be hung drawn and quartered. Not one dot of leniency should be shown. Essendon should face penalties but they should not be such as to make them uncompetitive and without hope in the medium term.

I know many people here disagree strongly with my approach and think the law is the law and that is it. Well the law is an ass. Honestly. Peter Jackson last night said that he was unable to write to the vast majority of lapsed members directly and has been forced to put his letter on the website. Why? The letter broke the privacy laws. I mean FM. Some laws are good, some are bad and some just weren't drafted with certain situations in mind. The players I spoke to last night had real concern for the Essendon players. Not one of them expressed a view they had cheated and should be punished and not one of them said they should have gone further than relying on the coaching and medicial staff's advice that the supplement program was legal. Those delighting in the situation the Essendon players find themselves should recognize that if Danks had been appointed at MFC they'd be now baying for the blood of our players.

Clark unsighted. Dawes didn't see him running. Hogan ran a couple of gentle laps with Misson.

Hogan ran some gentle laps with Misson early and left. Garland did some 300m runs and some agility work at full pace together with some gentle kicking. Was further advanced than I'd expected.

Well perhaps the major difference in your stance and mine is that I think the onus of proof is on the authorities. I also think it should be a defence if the person can show they sort and received advice from the appropriate professional.If the rules/laws that exist at the moment mean that Danks, Hird, Reid walk free and the players are penalized then I won't think justice is done and the law will indeed be an ass. I accept you don't agree.

OK so in layman's terms I think your saying drafting should measure "coachability" and if a player can't be coached then it's a drafting error. But you could draft the most coachable player in the world and have such poor processes that the player never develops. Hence I'd argue that development has nothing to do with drafting. Having said that I may have misunderstood your point!!

Firstly I don't want to give any player a way "out" if they knowingly take drugs. Your previous examples seemed to imply at best a "wink wink" situation where the player knew they were taking drugs but weren't "told". I've no sympathy for this situation. Secondly I think the players should get off "in equity". I think the law as it's framed doesn't address or was not framed to address situations where players were "duped" in a group situation. If I'm wrong then I think it's very poor law. Thirdly the framing of laws never stops the dishonest and players who cheat should never feel they have a way out. To me it all comes down to the word "knowingly". Canberra Demon dismisses the pain killer example I've given above. But if a player can be rubbed out for unknowingly taking a banned drug after making reasonably enquiry of professional people (medical staff/performance staff in this instance) then something is wrong. I think people/players have every right to rely on professional advice. We do in business and life. If the professional dupes the person I can't see how they are responsible and they shouldn't be punished. Many here argue that the Essendon players "should have suspected". That's fine, that's their position and I accept it. But I don't agree. Interestingly many of those willing to apply the "should have suspected" rule don't seem to me to have applied the same philosophy to the tanking investigation. I think knowingly or unknowingly many let their tribal instincts in footy cloud their view and if it was MFC and not EFC the views expressed would perhaps be significantly different.

Yes, I agree with that. It's why I hope they get off and the law and the burden of proof fails in this instance.I wonder if those so advocating that the players be punished because of the law will as willingly agree that the protection the law offers from the burden of proof has provided a good and fair result. As far as your last point in regards their suffering not having started I'd argue that the stress, fear, anguish and anger resulting from their situation means their suffering has most definately started but still has a long way to go with many unknown directions. And it's not only the players that are suffering. Parents, spouses, partners, brothers and sisters and friends. The pain is everywhere. It's a very sad situation with no winners. It's why punishing the players further will serve little of no purpose.

We are not privy to what inquiry the players made and whether this inquiry was individual or collective or both. We are not privy to what they were told. In the same way you find it puzzling they they didn't take any precautions I find it puzzling that they all participated willingly. I don't believe that 43 players would have all acted in this "puzzling" way without some compelling reasons to do so. Hence I conclude they didn't believe they were taking banned drugs.

Whilst you argue that the players "must" have known because of the process I'd argue that it's inconceivable that 43 players knowingly took banned drugs. Therefore I believe they didn't think they were taking banned substances. But it's a moot point and my argument is based on us disagreeing on that point. I agree that on your basis they should be punished.

So a player is responsible if during a game he needs a needle to kill pain and the doctor, without telling him, adds a little bit of a banned drug known to speed healing. What on earth is the player to do? Sorry doc, give me a sample of that fluid in the syringe and I'll send it for testing. Players can be innocent and be victims. In those cases they should not be punished.

Yes and no. It seems to me that 3 things have been identified. Firstly and broadly "culture/leadership". Secondly skills development/game plan understanding/playing a role. Thirdly drafting. My view is that it's the second more so than the others. I don't think drafting has anything to do with "development" because development is getting the most out of what you've got and has nothing to do with the drafting process. But it's raised an issue and got those that are interested thinking about what it really is. Given that I think it's the skills devleopment/game plan sort of thing I'm still confused as to why ours seems to have been so poor. I think part of it was the appalling list structure we had for many years post Daniher which required us to play young players far too early and in "bunches". And perhaps the people we had who were responsible for development were just no good.

If I'm reading your post correctly you seem to be saying the players knew they were taking banned drugs. Clearly this is where you and I disagree.

Sue I'm not sure that I've argued that reinforcing the deterrent effect is less important than penalising the "duped innocent" players. I said earlier that I'd punish as far as I could those responsible for initiating and implementing the supplement program at Essendon. I've argued that Hird and Little should never be allowed in an AFL venue again. I've argued Reid should not be allowed to practice medicine. If that isn't a deterrent effect I don't know what is. I'd also advocate criminal charges if there are any and if it's possible. In my view these players didn't knowingly take banned drugs. If they did I've no issue with punishment. Hence your example above relating to a player and his coach is moot because the player knowingly takes the drug.

As I said in my first post yesterday I don't give a flying fox about the legalities. It may well be that under the rules/laws that exist the players are in breach. That doesn't address my concerns. I understand you've made a living in law and the principles of law are something you will respect and live by. I'm not burdened with that legacy and I see the law as an ass. So often we get inequitable results because it's not possible for the law to anticipate all situations. This is one such case. I start from the premise that the players didn't knowingly take banned drugs. If they did then throw the book at them. They are professional footballers and are expected and trained to be professional in the way they play. They rely on professional trainers, coaches, physiotherapists, doctors, administrators and so on and so forth to ply their trade. They have been given a cocktail of substances which can't or won't be identified. They may or may not have had their lives put at risk. They may suffer minor, major or terminal health problems as a result. Those problems may surface in the short or long term. They will unquestionably suffer the stress of wondering what those health problems may be and they will live with that stress for a very long time (hopefully). They placed their trust in people who were responsible for them. They were duped. You are welcome to explore the legalities of the situation and follow the intellectual demands of the law. All common sense says these kids have suffered enough.

I don't agree. What would be sad is if we found the players "guilty" just so the spin doctors weren't successful in achieving their goal. The players should get off because they were duped and put their trust in professional advice. If that happens to be the outcome the so called spin doctors want and it just happens to be equitable I'll happily back the spin doctors.

Punishing innocent victims will never solve the issue of drugs in sport, you need to punish those that made concious decisions to take banned drugs or cause others to take banned drugs. IMO, and it's just that, the Essendon players were innocent of knowingly taking banned drugs and when they asked trusted professional people in a professional environment (or one they should have been able to trust) they were told there was "no problem". I know the mother of one of the players. He was duped. Anyway I've made my point. Cheers