La Dee-vina Comedia

Don't forget even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Pity you weren't quite correct. It would have been post of the year for mine. (I initially read it the same way as you, too.) If the umpires are continually paying a free kick it's more likely a problem with the rules, not the umpiring. And that can be easily fixed. Frees against don't need to be paid automatically. It should be considered a legitimate tackle. If the player disposes of the ball correctly, play on. If he disposes incorrectly or not at all, a free should be paid against him. Yes, but does your wife know?

OK - thanks for the clarification.

What "record" are we talking about here? Do you mean youngest Melbourne side ever? Youngest AFL/VFL side ever? Youngest Paul Roos coached side ever? I'm not damning your post, just seeking clarification.

Not that I'm getting ahead of myself, but I'm looking forward to having a record of "two losses in a row" as something not broken for many years.

Nice to see a second Melbourne supporter with a healthy ego. (BBO being the other).

I've just found this thread (sorry about the unintended pun) and for some reason, I think it's one of the funniest threads on Demonland.

Obviously I'm in a minority of about one. So I'll let it go with one final comment...you can be found guilty of something and not be convicted.

Yes, I do. But I understand others do not. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive or even cautious, but to my way of thinking they've been caught cheating and they've been found on the balance of probabilities to have been injected with TB4, but it wasn't a criminal trial about the taking of illegal drugs and therefore I'm sticking with my view that "convicted drug taker" isn't the right language to use. However, I'm not disagreeing with the CAS finding or the penalty imposed.

No problem with that...or calling them "penalised substance abusers" (thanks, ProDee). I just think we should call it what it is. Language matters.

I know its semantics, but Melksham and the rest of the 34 are not "convicted drug takers" and we shouldn't say that they were. Firstly, no-one was "convicted" of anything. CAS was comfortably satisfied. Secondly, it wasn't drugs, it was peptide supplements. (And I'm not even sure that CAS was comfortably satisfied that those peptides were definitely taken but that there was enough evidence in the strands of the cable to infer that they probably did. However, if I'm wrong with that, so be it). I'm not arguing that what Melksham and the other players were found to have done was not wrong. But let's also not make it into something that it wasn't.

dc, I'm making no assumptions at all. The point I was making is that IF there is no other context to make it clear, I'm not sure that I would automatically realise that an "injection" is a "supplement". But I don't know the context.

Depending on the way the question is phrased, I'm not sure if I was player being asked the question that I would have automatically assumed that an "injection" is the same thing as a "supplement". I would have thought supplements come in other forms taken orally, such as powders, tablets and muesli bars. Having said that, I haven't heard any player say that was the case for them.

The one bit about the punishment I don't understand (and this goes for everyone, not just Melksham and the other 33), is the complete separation from the club. I can accept not training with the other players and not being around the clubrooms. But I'd like to see the penalty make an exception for club-supported and funded mandatory counselling. I expect many young professional sportsmen to struggle without being able to pursue their profession. I fear that someone somewhere who is the subject of a ban of this type will take some form of horrific action against themselves or someone else. Apart from anything else, the counselling should enable players in denial to come to grips with what they've done wrong. I realise that counselling can be externally provided. But I think it would be more effective if organised by the club as it reminds the player that he or she hasn't been truly forgotten.

Caveat emptor. All trades, except Monfries, were made after the potential for suspensions if found guilty were known. While the Monfries trade was prior to the supplements program becoming public knowledge, it would be difficult to prove that Essendon allowed the trade to proceed with the knowledge that he may later be suspended. After all, they have always claimed that they thought they were doing nothing wrong.

Actually, the Lloyd view is complimentary. If Melksham is "depth" we must have a better team than I thought we had. I don't think there would be too many arguments here that he's a lot better as a depth player than Bail, McKenzie, Riley, or even Matt Jones and Terlich.

Thanks Barney.

Can someone please make clear what the penalty against Melksham means with respect to the following: is he allowed at the club's rooms (eg, gym) when the rest of the team or club officials are not there? is he allowed to see any of the club's officials (eg, physio, dietitian, etc) away from the club rooms? can he maintain fitness by playing in any other football competition other than the AFL or VFL? can he maintain fitness by playing any other non-football competition (eg, basketball) if he's good enough to do so? PS: And can Stuie, SWYL, C&B etc, take it outside and stop hijacking this thread.

Just a couple of thoughts on matters raised in this thread. The trade: I have always assumed our club recognised that Melksham came with risks but knew that the risk for Essendon of keeping him was greater due to their need to offload some of the 34. If that was correct, I also assumed that we got Melksham at a cheaper price (in trading terms) than he would otherwise have cost. Perhaps we would have also had to offer a player as well as the pick we gave up, or there might have been an exchange of picks as well, if he was a risk-free trade. Whether we agree it was value for money or not is not my point. Only that the club thought it was and that the discount was worth it. Payments during the suspension: If players cannot be paid during their suspension, does that just mean they can't get cash added to their bank accounts by the club during their suspension? Could not the clubs have already pre-paid a substantial component and agreed to hold over the rest for a future season, thereby not depositing any cash but nevertheless fulfilling the remuneration commitments made? This would be consistent with McLachlan's statement that their payments would be part of the 2016 TPP calculations, even if they are not physically being paid during the period of suspension.

I think there's some latent and probably unintentioned 'veil of negativity' in this post. How much pressure would there be if we were, say 9 wins, 3 losses and Collingwood was the reverse?

I think the club will benefit having Oliver on our list. Having looked at his skin, under OH&S legislation the AFL will have to give us more night games or risk a claim for serious sunburn.

I know it's (probably) a typo, but I'd like to think you've just created a new expression meaning "courage beyond his years"

Would have been much more fun if Demonland had posted "Please ignore previous post" instead of "test post. please disregard."

Did I find sarcasm when it wasn't intended? If that's the case, I apologise unreservedly to both you and Jack Watts.

If it makes you feel better, think of Scott Pendlebury.