La Dee-vina Comedia

But if Lovett-Murray is initiating the action, wouldn't the burden of proof, on the balance or probabilities, be on him to show that the supplements were damaging, not the other way around?

That's a very disturbing story but I don't know how the link to the supplements and the poor girl's health can be proved. Would it have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt or the balance of probabilities for any legal action to be successful? The other concern I have is for Lovett-Murray himself. Surely if he goes to the Supreme Court he'll be found to have contributed to his own problem by (a) not checking with ASADA and (b) lying to ASADA about the injections.

I agree with your last line. Given Champion Data has a stat for everything, I'm surprised they haven't come up with a stat called something like "Percentage of team disposals". I would have thought that such a statistic would allow for better statistical comparison of players from different eras when team disposal numbers were so different. It would be interesting to see how Diesel then compared with players of today like Oliver but also with other on-ballers from different eras such as Ron Barassi, Kevin Bartlett and Dick Reynolds (if they had reliable disposal stats in those days).

When was the last time we were more than a third of the way through the season and had a percentage above 100%?

Mind you. He may have records that prove they were innocent but in so doing prove someone else is guilty. Is that why he was shot at? As a warning to keep those records a secret?

He needs help. He is still stuck somewhere between denial and anger.

I like the way you managed to put in some gratuitous but irrelevant criticism of the Poms.

You do realise that under the Federal Government's new citizenship test a Melbourne supporter hoping for a Collingwood victory is deemed to be un-Australian and you may be deported?

I think Melksham seems fine with respect to his body "standing up". It's his skills which are poor and always have been. I think he's playing just as he was, no better and no worse.

Didn't our former coach say something similar about our team after Round 2 last year? What those summaries don't say is that Watson and Stanton might have retired but for their year out and Howlett and Hocking weren't necessarily starting 22 players anyway. Also, Hooker is being played out of position. Apart from the injured players (eg Myers), it's really only Hurley and arguably Heppell that aren't performing as expected without an obvious reason. That's really no different from any other team - all teams have players not living up to expectations. For example, Jack Viney.

You left out Kelly v Tyson/Salem. And Satyricon v DeeSpencer

I think we mark McCartin harshly because (a) we want Petracca to be better than him and (b) because we subconsciously compare him with Hogan, who just happens to be a prodigious talent at a young age. Most key forwards aren't like Hogan. Hawkins, both Reiwoldts and Cameron Mooney are examples of KPFs who took time to develop. Hogan is more like Jonathan Brown - ready from day 1. McCartin may or may not get there. Personally, I hope he does. And for what it's worth, I don't think Petracca is doing enough just yet to justify his supposed talent, either. He's showing flashes of brilliance, but not enough consistency. But he is getting better.

While you've been corrected on Jezza's ethnicity I'm surprised no-one has questioned you putting Petracca above him. If Petracca should turn out to be better than Jesaulenko we are going to see the best Melbourne player since Barassi. And yet posters are saying Oliver will be even better than Petracca. Frankly, I doubt Petracca will be as good as Jezza, but there's no shame in that. Jezza would probably be the fifth best player I've ever seen after Matthews, Carey and both Abletts. Flower probably comes next.

So I assume you're expecting us to upgrade pick 18 by trading out a player. Who might that player be?

I think if I wanted to create a list of "players who improved the most under Roos", Jetta would have to top the list. The more I think about it, the more extraordinary the change has been which reinforces my belief that the only thing worse than our drafting in the 5 years pre-Roos was our player development.

It's also a relief knowing such good hands belong to our key picks. The alternative view could be that with all the talent at their disposal at the time they wasted their opportunity because of the off-field issues and should have won more than one Premiership.

I initially read that as "sponsors". Talking of which, I noticed in Alan Richardson's press conference that Hankook Tyres now sponsors St Kilda. Does that mean we missed out or does it mean that our rates have risen and Hankook can't afford us? If it's the latter, it would suggest that we are now a more marketable club than St Kilda.

In a similar vein, when did we last have a percentage as high as 133.33%?

Hird working in the media is one thing. It doesn't equal AFL acceptance, though. I'll be far more interested in seeing whether he turns up at any AFL-organised events, such as the Brownlow Medal count or the Hall of Fame dinner. Actually, it's not really a question of "if", it's more a question of "when". At some time I'm confident that the AFL will want to put everything to do with Essendon 2012 behind them and part of that will be welcoming James Hird back to the so-called AFL family. And whenever that happens, it will be too soon for some. Cue Beelzebub and SWYL...

Who, exactly, are you referring to? It's all very confusing now with the mob, the Dons, etc.

I'm amused that discussion on this thread has significantly dried up since the possible involvement of Mick Gatto was floated. Amazing how everyone goes silent when he's considered to be near.

I think you may be under the misapprehension that the Herald Sun is a newspaper. It's actually an AFL paper. It is well known that it sells more papers when it has major AFL stories so mines that territory continuously. Essendon would have known that and used it to its advantage.

Having just read Mick Warner's story I am very dubious. I think its very dangerous to assume that the claims of the "disgruntled employees" are necessarily accurate. Essendon has apparently stated that the claims are false and have been reported to the Police. I'm not sure what the Police involvement is about although if the Essendon FC position is correct, perhaps it is to investigate whether the employees have made fraudulent claims to WorkSafe. If any part of their claims can be proven to be false it would then bring into question the rest of their statements, whether they are accurate or not. While this never-ending saga has conditioned us to believe that anything the club did is beyond imagination, just maybe what's being written about here did not actually happen. And who amongst ever thought the the AFL-linked John Elliott who would get into the most trouble would be this particular one?

There are enough fruitloops in the Senate to make everyone feel at home.

There is one significant difference, though. It seems that Australian sportspeople caught doping are presumed by most Australians to be innocent until proven guilty whereas non-Australian sportspeople caught doping are presumed by most Australians to be guilty until they can prove their innocence.