La Dee-vina Comedia

I assume you mean by Melbourne. I think Hawthorn getting Roughead, Franklin and Lewis in 2004 and Geelong getting all of Bartel, James Kelly, Steve Johnson and Gary Ablett in 2001 fared reasonably well.

My suspicion is the opposite. I believe the data will show that top players generally get a better run with the umpires. In addition, the change to the rules this year which sees all punching of players a breach of the rules which will earn a free against the puncher should assist genuine ball players. As such, opponents of Oliver and Brayshaw won't be able to use that particular tool in their arsenal.

It's nice to think that we finally have a player that looks like he can be talked about in the same breath as Judd, Ablett, Dangerfield, Voss and Flower. There will always be arguments about whether he's the best or second-best, etc, but just having a player of that ilk is so un-Melbourne like, I'm not quite sure how to react. And, unlike Judd at Carlton, Oliver is not on his own with players like Gawn and Brayshaw also with the potential to be rated by the end of their careers as genuine superstars of the competition.

What's the 16-hour fast meant to achieve?

This is not about AFL, but it's an interesting illegal doping story. I'm just not sure whether it's humorous, troubling or both.

The squad looks like it's been written by Thomas Hardy or perhaps one of the Bronte sisters with Woodland making way for Heath.

If the AFL is beholden to the broadcasters, they're not partners. As I've said before, "broadcast partner" is a horrible expression. It is blatantly a false statement. "Broadcast overlord" is much more realistic.

I have no respect for people who falsely claim they have a "mental health" problem as an excuse for poor behaviour. But I'm also conscious that as a society we need to make sure that we don't assume that a person who claims a mental health problem does not, in fact, have one. Every case needs to be judged on its merits and none of us will ever know which ones are genuine and which ones are not. Only a person trained in that area and actually dealing with (ie, treating) the person involved will know.

Careful with that argument. Gary Hardeman was 187 cm...he'd be too small to play CHB now. You should also make the point that (I presume) you're only picking players you saw play. Otherwise there's a huge group of Premiership players missing from your squad who just might be good enough to get a game.

On a slightly different tack, I wonder if there are any players with genuine mental health problems which have been directly caused from drug use. There is plenty of scientific evidence that marijuana can cause depression and other mental health problems in some people.

Brian Taylor. Transferred to Collingwood because he couldn't get a game at Richmond.

Isn't it time for Demonland to have a weekly vote for AFLW like it does for the men's competition? Or does it exists and I can't find it? I understand that there will likely be far fewer posters contributing but surely there are enough to provide their opinions. For what it's worth, for the NM game I would vote: 6. Mithen 5. Paxman 4. Hore 3. Cunningham 2. Gay 1. Hanks Possibly a bit tough on O'Dea and although I have only seen about half the games the women have played, that was the worst game I've seen from her. But she is so good, even her worst game (that I've seen) still nearly got votes.

I agree strongly with both these points. In particular, the first one. If players can wear whatever they like, not only does it reduce the sponsors' exposure by their branding not being visible, but it will quickly become an opportunity for "ambush marketing" which will make it even harder to get and retain sponsors.

I assume the Jackson is Mark, not Ricky. Didn't the whacko one play senior football somewhere else before he joined us? Need to have a closer look at the rules for selection of this team, too. I'm not sure Hogan should be eligible for selection until he's played a senior game at another club.

The AFL, and professional sport in general, is not like most workplaces. That's why the AFL has an enforceable rule that allows action to be taken against a player or official who may not have even broken a law but "brings the game into disrepute". Not many businesses (or vocations) have the ability to take action for bringing that particular industry (vocation) into "disrepute". Though recent findings of some Royal Commissions perhaps suggest it would be a good idea.

Racists have recently been emboldened by nationalists who happen to have been able to climb the greasy pole to the top (or at least to have a level of influence they don't deserve) in a number of jurisdictions. Not every nationalist is a racist and vice versa, but those that are happen to have very large mouths. I happen to prefer loud mouths who shout in support of their football team, even if it's our opponents. That's a healthy way of expressing one's self and does not offend (I mean in its true meaning, rather than in the playful world of being "offended" by someone supporting another club.)

I think including PEDs in the discussion is unavoidable. There's a fine line between "recreational" and "performance enhancing" at the best of times which becomes even more blurred when you include masking agents.

Tried...and failed. Mind you, it's not that I don't want to believe you, I'm just following Ronald Reagan's policy of "Trust but verify".

Where does the one or two tests per year figure come from? To answer your question, I don't know whether the AFL's efforts are "token" or otherwise. What I do know is that I find any use of performance enhancing drugs or masking agents abhorrent and any use of recreational drugs by professional athletes to be bizarrely stupid behaviour.

Ignoring the moral arguments, I'm amazed that professional athletes who seem to have to pursue highly specific diets and exercise regimens would then participate in taking substances that wouldn't be on any list approved by the club's dietitians or sports scientists.

For a person whose interests are listed as "Apathy", this is one helluva posting!

The AFL conducts the urine tests? I thought it was ASADA that did that.

Agree. While I'd actually like to make it 25 and 50 metre penalties, given 15 metres is a measurement already used by umpires (distance for a kick to travel before a mark can be awarded, maximum distance running with the ball), it's probably better not to introduce an additional measure.

Do you subscribe to the "3 stickers and you're out" rule?

I see you've extended the concept of 2 byes per year to eliminate two full weeks from the calendar.