La Dee-vina Comedia

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.

Of course. Upon re-reading your post, that's now obvious. My mistake.

This just in:

Just commenting on your last few questions, and not specific to this particular case: Yes, offending content should be removed. It's not "protecting the poster" to do so; rather, it's protecting the person who has been vilified. Whether comments are derogatory, racist or defamatory, they should always be removed. As has been stated here many times on Demonland, there is no such thing as unqualified free speech. There are laws against vilification, racism, hate speech and defamation.

I don't think ruckmen have been a constant size. John Nicholls, arguably one of the best ruckman of all time was shorter than Patrick Cripps.

What I hope to see with the 50m rule is a crackdown on obvious delaying tactics by the opposition. Tactics such as holding on to the player with the ball for too long after a mark or free kick has been granted or not returning the ball promptly have been allowed to creep into the game far too much.

I love Demonland for the educational diversions.

Here's some media coverage of the AFL's Umpires' Coach discussing the punching ban I expect the AFL will eventually realise that it doesn't go far enough and will also include elbows as well as closed fists.

We'll have to disagree. I'm of the view that no-one (OK, virtually no-one) cares. If we were still hunting for a BOJ sponsor after the beginning of the season, that would arguably be a bad look.

"Is Wagner a human being at all? He contaminates everything he touches" - Nietzsche. Perhaps it wasn't either of our Wagners he was complaining about, though. More relevantly, Neitzsche also said "That which does not kill us makes us stronger". Even though it's now a cliche we've all heard before, knowing it was a phrase originally coined by Neitzsche, it seems appropriate to include it here. Good luck to the young fella.

One of the best rules ever to be introduced was announced earlier this week with no fanfare. I can't even find the story on the AFL's website. But the AFL has announced a zero tolerance approach to punching. A free kick will be paid against the puncher every time. Hopefully the rule will be clear that it also includes elbows (which obviously will immediately replace fists by miscreants intent on niggling). It's a good change for many reasons. It stops taggers from impeding ball players the way they have been doing; it should reduce the "need" for retaliation and most importantly, it sends a message that violence in any form is unacceptable. If anyone can find a link to the official announcement it would be useful to include it in this thread.

Your view assumes that the club has struggled to find a BOJ sponsor. While that might be true the alternative view might be that Jaguar and potentially other sponsors struggled to meet the club's demands. In other words, the delay might have been because the club was in a strong position and didn't want to sell off the BOJ sponsorship rights at too low a price.

Late starts to training don't seem to have been a problem for perennial finalists such as Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney. Anyone from the club who might want to use that as an excuse (and I'm not saying there will be any) should be asked whether they've looked at how these other clubs manage that same "disadvantage".

I stress I don't really understand the detail, but wouldn't this arrangement mean that Simon Goodwin is being engaged like most employees from top to bottom in any organisation? If that's correct, it would seem to me the alternative, traditional model of the fixed-term contract might be the model that is out-of-step with modern best practice.

And then Joe Gutnick and Don Scott came along and made sure the two stayed separate. Do I recall correctly?