La Dee-vina Comedia

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.

I always believe when someone uses this expression they are being anything but.

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.

Maybe it's just as simple as Hawthorn saving money by having Tom use Sam's locker and re-using the artwork. Seriously, this is a smart move by S Mitchell. He has maybe one or two years left as a player but 20-30 years ahead of him as a coach. If you take the emotion out of it, getting a role as an assistant coach at a club which is not the one you have played the rest of your career at enhances the learning and will make him a better coaching prospect. Whether or not it was his idea, the outcome would not be dissimilar to Steve Johnson going to the Giants.

Why should any kid "have" to participate in the combine if they don't want to? What is this...a slave market?

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

For a moment there I thought you had some info that Dane Swan was going to play for us.

George, I have no idea about the maths but you've left out of your analysis the payments being made by the AFL and its constituent clubs to the former stadium owners. If that had continued over the next 9 years that may have constituted quite a bit. Whether it would be more, less or anywhere near $200m I have no idea.

That story was "supplemented" a little later on the same program with the suggestion that the player in question is a 4x Premiership player aged around 30-31. I'm not sure who of the limited pool of players fits that criteria. Mitchell and Burgoyne are too old. Perhaps Lewis or Birchall? (I expect Roughead is also in that window but I assume for other reasons it's not him.)

Just to supplement this thread, I have some individualised homework for some players as follows: Hogan - set shot goal kicking practice Petracca - as above and improve fitness Viney, Kent, Tyson - improve kicking on the non-preferred side so you don't fear turning on to the right O McDonald - eat a lot

I hope I didn't make that bit up. I'm sure I heard someone somewhere say that the AFL was behind Noble's transfer from Adelaide to Brisbane. If I'm wrong, don't worry. Some journo somewhere will read Demonland, believe it to be true and convert unsubstantiated gossip into fact for their readers or listeners.

Let's amp up the hyperbole by pointing out that letting Gary Ablett Sr go also cost them Gary Ablett Jr as a father-son selection. Stuffed up big time.

It seems apparent to me that the AFL's decisions with the application of the priority pick rule actually might follow some logic. The lack of transparency, though, means we don't really know. I would suggest that the AFL determined not to provide Melbourne with a priority pick because the evidence showed that it would not have helped. Instead, the AFL chose to help the club in a different way by assisting us to fix the real problem - that is, the back of house. Hence, they effectively recruited and funded Roos and Jackson and (apparently) paid out the various staff members and coaches who were surplus to needs. Brisbane, on the other hand, need help with both the back of house and on-field. Hence, the AFL has likely been instrumental in organising the moves to Brisbane of David Noble and Chris Fagan as well as providing that club with a priority pick. Of course, the moment the AFL determined that priority picks would be decided by a an opaque, nonspecific and highly subjective assessment, it was always going to end up with criticism for any decision that it made.

I find it quaint that because of some ridiculously "pure" internal policy, the ABC refuses to call the stadium by its sponsored name. But I can't see any reason why they couldn't use this moniker.

Surely a trade of Jackson Trengove for Jack Trengove must be rumoured somewhere just for the silliness of the discussion.

Just to add some ridiculous commentary, the AFL has just tweeted the following: "Peter Schwab confirms Lions keen to use pick to advantage the club most". Really? Well, that's thrown the plans of all other 17 clubs into disarray.

Does that mean we'll have to play one home game each year in Bilbao?

I suspect Collingwood supporters probably feel something similar about Liam Picken about now. Having said that, the whole father-son issue is hugely problematic for clubs. What's the greater blunder? Recruiting a father-son who doesn't deliver (eg, Chris Johnson) or letting one go who does (eg, Picken)?