La Dee-vina Comedia

While I would normally agree with you, in this case I think it will make a difference. Only because the ignorati who write for the Herald Sun and work in radio will keep saying "the players are innocent, the players are innocent" over and over to the extent that many will just believe it to be true.

Indeed. As Shakespeare never said, "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive". But as we know from our own pre-season training, practice does not always make perfect.

So, if the appeal proceeds (and I have no idea whether it will or not) and the players win on the argument of de novo versus review of the merits of the AFL Tribunal decision, does that mean CAS has to re-hear it but this time do it the way the superior court determines? If so, I suppose it would have to be a completely new panel as the ones who have already heard it will be considered to be prejudiced by the evidence they heard but shouldn't have.

The person I most feel sorry for is Nasher. If the appeal is formally lodged he's going to have to work out a way of inserting the word "alleged" in front of every reference in Demonland to named Essendon and ex-Essendon players as being "drug cheats".

Let's cut to the chase. If you're calling yourself Mo Fine, how come you're using a picture of Curly Howard? Please explain.

The reporter has probably used "Dem Bones" as a source. You know, the shoulder bones connected to the neck bone, etc. I'm sure someone can find a clip of Dr Nick singing it.

Perhaps the appeal makes more sense if the Essendon players thought the decision makers were the equivalent of Kevin Ablett, Scott Selwood and this bloke.

Wasn't the WADA appeal to CAS based on a similar argument? That WADA needed to see whether the process worked for team sports? [censored] for tat, and the players are perfectly entitled to try. Whether they get anywhere, though, remains to be seen. As regular readers would know, I've been strong all the way through on the fairness of the process. I don't believe anyone, ever, should be found guilty of something through a flawed process. If that means getting off on a technicality, so be it.

Reputational enhancement. At the moment they are considered "officially" guilty of taking illegal substances. If they win the appeal they won't be. But nothing will really undo the damage they have already sustained in the eyes of the general public, unless the appeal unequivocally states CAS was wrong and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. A big ask, I would have thought, even if they win.

If Chris Dawes is running 50 m in 3.6 seconds he shouldn't be playing football but representing Australia in the 100 m in Rio.

I'm no biomechanics expert, but I think he'd fall over if he was only using one.

My understanding of the law (and I'm not a lawyer) is that there is a big difference between choosing not to grant something (a licence, for example) and taking one away from someone after it has been granted. That's why I think there's a more complex legal issue here than just the moral argument.

I assume that means the IOC has made an internal decision to decide that a CAS decision is sufficient or perhaps the IOC and CAS have worked together to define an agreed process. All I'm saying is that the AFL needs to be sure it's using the right process. (Of course, I know I'm opening the door for a discussion on why all of a sudden would the AFL worry about process now? Answer: Because an individual's rights may be considered more important than a club's.) BTW, I'm not arguing that Jobe should be able to keep his Brownlow.

That's not what I'm saying. We know the threshold for CAS had to be "comfortable satisfaction" but not "beyond reasonable doubt". The question for the AFL (and any sporting body in a similar situation) is this: once a prize is awarded to someone, on what basis can it be taken back? In essence, does taking from someone something previously granted require the body who wants to take it back to be satisfied "beyond reasonable doubt" that there is sufficient cause to take that something away. I have no idea if there's any case law on this, but I expect that would be what the AFL's lawyers will be looking at.

Let me help Robbo out. I suspect the logic he's trying to impart about Jobe's Brownlow came from a lawyer and Robbo doesn't quite understand. What I think he's trying to argue is that CAS used the "comfortable satisfaction" test when determining whether Watson had taken TB-4. However, if the AFL wishes to take the Brownlow from Watson it should use the higher test of "beyond reasonable doubt". At least, without hearing him, I suspect that's what Robbo's trying to argue even if he can't articulate it properly. And I think it would be appropriate for the AFL to consider that argument.

Did he say CAS? How could CAS doctor evidence? Doesn't he mean ASADA or WADA (not that I'm saying that either of them did)? But how would CAS, which only came into the picture late in the process, even have the opportunity (let alone the motive) to do so? On the other hand, if it can be shown that either ASADA or WADA doctored evidence...well, then the appeal's going to happen, isn't it?

So, the first book is about Mark Robinson and the second about Caroline Wilson. Am I close?

Surely you'll allow the option that Dank is both a liar and incompetent.

I'm pretty confident that this has been photoshopped. There's no way someone can bend their index finger backwards at the mid-joint like that.

I also think it's the single point that turned the ambivalent supporters of the Essendon players against them. As PR, that one line killed the sympathy vote.

Smoking something. Not sure it's a gun, though.

If it helps, if Dawes or Pedo are the answer, we're probably asking the wrong question.

At last count, nearly 27,000 posts on Demonland. BB, I think your passion is still there...it's just been a bit distracted lately.

That second last quote. Is that correct? Surely by now even the most one eyed Essendon supporter must be wanting separation from Dank and Robinson.

Not quite the same, but Robbie Flower had a bit of this problem, too. He'd run to exactly the right spot only for his teammates to miss him with their poor disposal. When Flower played in the State side he dominated because he ran to the right spot and had the ball delivered exactly as it should have been.