La Dee-vina Comedia

That's OK. Bias is perfectly acceptable when you support an AFL club. It's even better if you can be self-aware. Well done.

Hail Bernie!

And I think the opposite! (Although based on TV viewing only)

Joeboy, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Kennedy - Tough little bigger" Typo? Or is it some clever wordplay which is too clever for me, either because it's the entry after Kent's "Tough little bugger", an ironic reference to his size or something to do with his playing against his old side? Joeboy - got me stumped.

Ask yourself this question. If Robbo asked McLachlan if he wanted 'xxx' to be strong next year and 'xxx' was any of the 18 clubs in the competition, what answer would you expect to hear? I would be extraordinarily surprised if the answer to that question was not a "yes" for every club. So it really was a stupid question to ask the AFL CEO.

6. N Jones 5. Viney 4. Watts 3. Wagner 2. Kent 1. Gawn (I thought Grundy was really good in quarters 2-4, but Gawn virtually won it for us in the first with his outstanding tapwork).

Final teams in; In: Pedersen, Brayshaw, Hunt Out: Vince, Vandenberg, Stretch

Sorry, it will be completely unlike Essendon supporters. Collingwood supporters will be taking things out of the cars (or just taking the cars).

Skuit, you're taking a huge risk. If Saty is Dank, you could be sued, because that's Dank's strategy to everything. If Saty is not Dank, you could be sued by Saty for hurtful slander and defamation. Legal disclaimer: I'm not saying Saty is or isn't Dank or that Dank is or isn't Saty. Or any other combination.

Unlikely to be a game against a team that would generate a crowd in Adelaide. I expect it will be a game against a low-drawing crowd. My money is on PA v GWS.

Generous. It will reach the heights of 7 after they've played this game When Howe took his mark of the year against Sydney he was in a team that lost that day by around 100 points. I can live with that happening once again on Sunday.

What sort of purse?

I expect to see a rumour floated in The Herald Sun tomorrow that Eddie Betts is heading to Collingwood. Unless Damian Barrett gets in first and states that it's a fact on The Footy Show tonight.

See, this is what's confusing. When we're underdogs we play better which makes us favourites which means we're no longer underdogs which means we're no longer favourites which means we're now the underdogs which means we play better...

To be more specific, I think the lawyers will be quibbling/arguing/stonewalling for as long as the money lasts.

Related to Jet Li?

I can see Dank outside the High Court (with phone to his ear, of course) while he challenges the meaning of "attend an interview to answer questions". He'll be arguing that if the legislation intended that it be mandatory to answer questions it would have been worded "attend an interview and answer questions put at that interview". As currently worded he'll argue that the only mandatory bit is to attend and that the words "to answer questions" just qualifies the purpose of the interview.

Don't want to spoil the mystique for you Django, but that was an April Fools gag. Obviously effective.

The other possibility is that it is played as part of Round 1, but a week before the rest of that round. Would have the added benefit of robbing Carlton and Richmond from any glory they believe they get from being the first game of the season.

Port to play a game for premiership points in China in 2017. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/port-adelaide-will-play-an-afl-premiership-season-game-in-china-in-2017-20160414-go60nz.html

I suspect ASADA has powers to make someone appear but I'd be astounded if they have powers to force someone to speak.

I agree that ASADA is correct in re-opening the matter. New evidence that is relevant shouldn't be ignored. It doesn't necessarily mean there will be a different conclusion, though.

Here's the ASADA statement. I'm not sure of the value to ASADA of hearsay evidence. Clearly the "strands in a cable" approach strengthens its value, but I would really have doubts about anything Dank says even if I heard him say it directly. To hear what he said from a third party must surely diminish its credibility even further, even if it's seemingly damning commentary.

I'm not sure who's evidence would be more unrealiable - Dank or a News Ltd journalist.

Buckley strikes me as a very determined person with absolute belief in himself and his ideas. As such, I don't see him making switches to a strategy he will have been planning throughout the off-season. Of course, as circumstances change, so should his thinking, but I suspect his obstinacy will ultimately be his downfall.