La Dee-vina Comedia

I haven't heard the tape but I have read Mick Warner's story. Two things struck me: who recorded that meeting and why? (That's more interesting to me than who gave it to Mick Warner and why now) there appears to be no discussion amongst the four (Little, Hird, Thompson, Corcoran) that they needed to cop their right whack. Which means they were either all delusional or all convinced of the club's innocence I realise that Warner's story is based on a tape which may not include everything said. But I'm confident that if any of the four had said anything that was anywhere close to admitting guilt, that would have been the main story. So, are they all delusional? Can circumstances such as this lead four otherwise successful and determined individuals to become delusional?

I certainly agree with your last two lines.

I'm not sure whether they had the power to do that. As I understand it, each of the clubs (with the possible exception of Gold Coast and GWS) are companies or incorporated associations which means the decision-making and accountability rests with their boards of Directors. The AFL does not control what the individual clubs do but provides the clubs with a licence to participate in the AFL competition. The AFL could ultimately could take away a club's licence, but that can't be done without some form of due process. I suspect the "best" that the AFL could do under the circumstances is what they allegedly did...suggest that it be stopped.

Similar media avoidance strategy to Dank, but a more expensive method. All Dank could do was put his phone to his ear and pretend to be on a call.

If the conflict was disclosed as suggested by the article, I don't see any problems. If anything, the only party which might have acted questionably is ClubsNSW and then only if they deliberately ignored the conflict, by which I mean they didn't confirm arms length negotiations between Demetriou's company and CrownBet. I have to add, though, that the photo of AD amused me. I'm so used to seeing Stephen Dank on his phone whenever the media is present I wondered whether that was who was on the other end of the call.

No-one. I'm not a great fan of apportioning "blame" for honest mistakes. I doubt the recruiters deliberately stuffed up the pick; I suspect the coaches didn't want him to fail; and as Gysberts would have been a teenager when he was first drafted I can't see why anyone should blame a child who discovered after a reasonably short period of time that the rigours of an AFL career weren't for him.

I wonder whether we were doing enough (or any) assessment of the psychology of potential recruits in Prendergast's time. And do we do it now? If we're doing it now and not then and the reason we didn't do it then was a lack of resources, I might be prepared to cut Prendergast some slack.

He seems pretty explosive every time Carlton plays us! And Williams absolutely dominated clearances, probably more than Judd or Ablett. As an accumulator and expert distributor of the ball. Couldn't run out of sight on a dark night but had the best hands in the business. Possibly ever. Think of him as being like Sam Mitchell, but with dynamic hands rather than feet. He's the player that Oliver is most likely to emulate.

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.