La Dee-vina Comedia

I suspect it's a "legal thing". The AFL Commission would likely have advice that making a decision prior to all the facts being known (including anything that might have been uncovered throughout all the legal actions) may prejudice their final decision. Hence, better to wait until everything needed to make a decision is available.

That's reasonably easy to answer. The Commission has to meet. It's only part-time, so it has to wait for a meeting.

There's a difference between the AFL making a decision and the timing of that decision. I can't see how the AFL could have acted until all legal avenues were exhausted.

I've found a loophole for the AFL. He wasn't found guilty of taking any illegal substances in the same year as he won the Brownlow. Therefore he wasn't ineligible for breaching the 'fairest' provision in that year. Therefore he can keep his Brownlow. (Just in case anyone is taking me seriously, don't.)

Puffery defined. Doesn't matter who's mouth it comes from.

I think you're right to ask the question. I doubt 2-and-a-half weeks of anything would change someone's body shape. I'll treat that story as puffery.

Thanks, but on this evidence, I remain unconvinced. (Right now, though, I suspect the club is pleased they've moved on from Samsung as jumper sponsor.)

He had big thighs when he started his career. But if his thighs were demonstrably bigger between one season and the next, I agree that there would be questions asked (and which may be answerable by responses such as changed diet, additional (legal) supplements and a different training regimen).

I'd like to see some photos that prove this assertion. Otherwise I can't help thinking it's oft-repeated groupthink.

I can understand this in theory. But handing it back before all legal avenues have been finalised could be perceived as an admission of guilt, irrespective of what words he uses as part of any such process.

The "memory of Chas Brownlow"? Who knows anything about him?

Thanks Diamond_Jim. This form is exactly what I've been looking for. If I were an Essendon player I would have argued that I didn't think I had to disclose the injections because I didn't believe they met the definition of "non-prescription medication or supplements" on the basis that I (the player) thought they were vitamins or peptides...which, surely, aren't supplements. But it seems they didn't argue that, so, I have no idea why (a) they didn't complete the form properly and (b) they didn't choose better lawyers who would have thought of this as a cogent argument.

Come on dc, that's not Donald Duck. Surely you can do better than that.

It's a peripheral point, but what exactly was the relevance of failing to disclose "the presence of Stephen Dank at away matches"?

I agree that the role of the Commission is go make the tough decisions. But that doesn't mean that they have to make every decision. If Watson returns the medal, that's one less matter for the AFL to be criticised for, irrespective of what decision they make. In my view there are really two decisions which need to be made, and one of them is easy. The easy one is that Watson cannot retain his medal. The more difficult one is whether to award it to someone else, and if so, to those who came second on the night (Cotchin and Mitchell) or whether to exclude all games involving Essendon from the voting altogether.

I thought Demetriou argued that he shouldn't be discussing the matter because as a Commissioner he may have to make a determination and could be accused of bias if he had discussed the matter publicly prior to that decision being made. You can take Linda Dessau out. She's now Governor of Victoria (and as a passionate Essendon supporter I suspect she's probably glad she's no longer responsible for having to make this decision.) In a legal sense, taking something away from someone is much harder than not awarding it in the first place. I would think the AFL's lawyers have advised that procedural fairness obliges the AFL to give Watson an opportunity to comment. It's also strategically a good idea as the process may "encourage" Watson to hand the medal back thereby allowing the Commissioners to avoid having to make a decision at all.

Thanks, that's helpful. However, unless the question which is specifically asked at the time of the drug test accurately reflects that obligation it's still possible that the players did not deliberately avoid providing necessary information. (Yes, I'm being technical, but that's what working in law enforcement does to you. No-one's ever been found guilty of breaching the "spirit" of a law if it couldn't be proved that they did actually break a law.)

And if the questions were specific (which they should be...the drug testing officers should be working from a script to avoid failure on a technicality) surely we should know what the specific questions were before we claim that the players breached a rule. I see it as quite conceivable that the players may have breached the spirit of what was intended while not being dishonest in their answers. (Of course, I'm only speaking about breaching the specific point about answering questions, not the more important issue of breaching the rule about taking illicit substances.)

If it could be proven he did this, being banned isn't enough. He should also go to jail for assault.

The court of public opinion certainly turned against the Essendon 34 when it was revealed that none of them advised the testers that they had received supplements/injections as it is alleged they should have done. Do we actually know the specific question the players were asked, though? It has always seemed unlikely to me that 34 individuals could all have breached that same obligation. I'm suspicious that the question may have been poorly worded allowing the players to answer honestly while not disclosing information intended to be uncovered by that question. If nothing else, hopefully all professional sports people and ASADA have learned from this extended process how better to fulfil their obligations in this important area.

Just to clarify, are you referring to the claim that the players were meant to advise the testers at the time of any drug test that they had been given an injection? I presume the testers are with ASADA rather than WADA. Or are you referring to something else?

Wow. Just...wow.

Might be Robbo's ghostwriter.

Confirmation here that we've offered a second round draft pick from next year for Hibberd. Essendon wants a second round this year.

The club hasn't used the word "delisted". That's been used here and I assume by the media. What the club said was that there were list changes and that the three players were not being offered new contracts. I'm not sure what else the club can say or do to make it any more dignified.