La Dee-vina Comedia

My first thought was, "nah, its worthless". Then I thought, what if it was made officially available for anyone to buy? What would someone pay? And I think you're right. Some rich, mad Essendon supporter might pay multi-thousands to have it. Which is the madness of elite sport - people will pay way more than they should for something that is actually worthless. Like a Melbourne membership in 2013.

One other matter to consider is that if each of Melbourne and GWS has one of these players injured and unable to play, we still have one on the ground and GWS does not. That's not a reason in itself to do the deal, but it shouldn't be ignored as one of the benefits.

I know it would only be hearsay, but hasn't someone previously posted that Robert Shaw thought Hunt was the best of the Brighton Grammar School bunch of that year?

Your post seems to be critical of Roughead. I hope that's not intended. I expect most footy supporters, whoever they support, wish Roughy well (except when his team plays theirs)

Nowadays the standards are so low that an inarticulate buffoon can tweet his inner voice in half sentences, without any pause for reflection, and become the leader of the free world.

Of course, there is an alternative. Maybe she loves and supports her husband.

BB, you're our most colourful poster on this topic!

How about "biochemist" Shane Charter? Or "compounding pharmacist" Alavi?

And you can use Stephen Dank and Dean Robinson as the witches.

Tania's request for privacy resulted in the Herald Sun publishing 5 pages of coverage. I wonder what they would have done without that request?

Ditto

I suspect you've got the right person (at least one of them) but for the wrong reason.

Watson should give back the physical medal. But in the overall scheme of things, it's not really that important. The physical medal is just a symbol of the award itself. Cotchin and Mitchell are the worthy winners of the award and whether they had been presented with a physical medal or not will be referred to as such in all the record books and in their personal resumes. Conversely, just because Watson is still in possession of the physical medal, does anyone here think that means he's still a Brownlow medallist?

Rather, it's pretty clear what you think Mitchell thinks. It's possible that Mitchell detests Jobe; that Mitchell likes Jobe and feels any discussion is unhelpful; that Mitchell has decided that private conversations should remain private; that Mitchell had always intended speaking to Jobe after the awards ceremony; that Mitchell had spoken to Jobe and made a promise not to speak to the media; that Mitchell was sorry and embarrassed for his 'syringe mime' and therefore didn't want to be reminded of that should any comment he make result in him being asked about it. I could go on.

Thanks Drunkn167. Here's a link to the same story online which some people with older eyes (like me) might find easier to read.

I'm trying to work out which is more likely: they were allowed to compete because Stephen Dank provided compelling evidence to show how the Russian athletes did nothing wrong; or they were allowed to compete because the Russians were able to prove they had no association with Stephen Dank.

I think you're letting your cynicism roam on a long leash. It's been widely discussed that Jobe, if he were to play another season, would relinquish the captaincy in favour of Heppell. Really, there's nothing to see here.

Makes sense. No point taking him at Melbourne as the O Mac nickname has already been taken.

No surprise... SEN 1116 ‏@SENNews 10m10 minutes ago JUST IN | The AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal has dismissed Stephen Dank's appeal against his life ban, after failing to lodge documents last week 0 replies0 retweets0 likes Reply Retweet Like More

Just in case anyone isn't sure, I think we can conclude you wanted a hardline approach.

Isn't the AFL Tribunal doing what a Magistrate would do? That is, telling him his case won't proceed unless he can prove the family emergency?

Checkmate

Fair point...but is being selected in the AA team an award? I think it's questionable.

I think it's a bit more complex. Where should the AFL draw the line? should all the games played by those players be excluded from their total number of games played? should the games themselves be "scrubbed" from the records? if the answer to the question above is "yes", do you count those games in the totals of the players who played against Essendon in those games? what about the various statistical records such as disposals, players playing together, etc what about the games played by Essendon players who are not part of the 34? Do their records stand? I think an answer could be decided for each one of these on their merits, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort of doing so.

Cotchin is Richmond's first Brownlow medallist since 1971 and as luck would have it Richmond supporters didn't have the pleasure of watching him win it on the night.