La Dee-vina Comedia

Conversely, if they didn't enhance performance, what was the point of giving them to the players?

DeeSpencer, great reporting as always. I hope you've got in early and apologised to Jake Spencer for appropriating his name. Your previous two names haven't turned out well for the players concerned which bodes badly for him.

Sounds like a Kia event, not an Essendon one. But you'd like to think somebody checked. If it's OK, I look forward to seeing Jake Melksham at all sorts of events put on by Melbourne's sponsors.

Except that if he really wants to play, he's more likely to get a game at Essendon. I could see him playing primarily as a key forward, helping Luenberger out as necessary. Allows McKernan to go to defence where the Bombers are deficient in big men.

Jimmy Toumpas (Not really. Just wanting to stir up Picket. Not sure why...)

I like this post. You could be referring to (a) illegal peptides, (b) convicted felons and other assorted individuals who make compounds (c) Essendon Football Club senior staff (d) the AFL...and you'd be right.

That's not the argument. Everyone agrees they consented to being injected. The assault argument, if it proceeds, will be that Dank injected something they did not give their consent to and not what he told them he was giving them. As I've said before, there is no way the players could know what they were being injected with (and nor could any of us when a doctor says he or she is giving us a tetanus shot) as they don't have access to scientific equipment to test the product. Therefore they had to rely on what Dank told them he was doing, just like we rely on our doctors when they tell us what they're doing. To me, believing in Dank was an obvious error and effectively what EFC got done for in the Magistrates' Court and the reason for the governance penalty applied by the AFL. Having said all that, though, I suspect the assault case is a long shot because of the difficulty in getting evidence from events which occurred 4 years ago.

It's a good sign that no-one is arguing Petracca, Oliver or Weideman. We appear to have moved on from the expectation that a first year player (including Petracca as one in this instance) will be our saviour. It probably won't be him, but gee it would be great if it were to be Frost.

Happy to agree but only if you mean Wayne Jackson or, at a pinch, Mark Jackson. (Or there again, maybe not for Mark).

I don't have much time for Peter Jess, but if the assault case he's talking about against Dank actually proceeds and the players win, I can't see how the CAS convictions can stand. How could the payers be guilty of taking a banned substance when they were given it without their knowledge or consent, which is effectively what the assault argument is going to have to be. However, getting the assault charge to stick...and having the case heard and all appeals exhausted is likely to extend a fair bit into the period of suspension anyway. It might, however, make a difference to the AFL Commission's decision as to what to do with Jobe's Brownlow win. Irrespective of anything else, I hope the assault case proceeds. There needs to be a much higher level of accountability for charlatans people who work with supplements of questionable value and unknown longterm effects.

I don't think it just a Gen Z thing. What generation was Anthony Rocca?

Oh. I read "single code" as adjectives qualifying "violation". (Not that I've watched much of it, but "code violation" seems to be a term used a lot at the tennis which may have influence my thinking). Now I know what you mean.

He's got a knee problem now?

Bold statement, bb. What parameter are you using? The number (34) of players? Or something else? What about the Russian athletics team? Isn't that a WADA code violation? I would have thought banning a whole team from competing at the Olympics might be perceived to be a bit bigger.

Actually, to be fair, I should include a square-up. Brian Taylor has an acting role in the move 'Last Cab to Darwin'. It's a minor role where he plays a coach of a footy team in Darwin. What he's required to do he does pretty well. And it's a good movie, too.

As a matter of interest, who accredits personal trainers? I know they can gain qualifications but I didn't know they were also accredited.

2 hours agBump. Apart from getting into a bit of bother, has Bran Taylor lost a bit of weight over summer? o CNN ‏@CNN 2h2 hours ago Mexico releases video of "El Chapo" being fingerprinted http://cnn.it/1Sck6Ey

From the Magistrate's point of view, I'm not sure that this is a "slap on the wrist". If the maximum fine was around $300,000, then you'd think that a Magistrate might want to reserve a penalty that high for circumstances where one or more employees died due to a company's negligence. I'm not condoning what Essendon did, but I can see how the Magistrate might consider the maximum penalty excessive.

"The horror! the horror!"...in so many ways.

Don't discount the power of a longbow, though:

Wow, your device corrects "don't play it" to " dintbplatbthid". That's a helluva device you've got there.

Stuie, you might be thinking of Carlisle's "snapchat" penalty. (I wonder whether he'll get to serve that concurrently now).

I agree that any argument has to be provable. As I said, I have no idea if that's possible. And I think Ted Fidge's point above covers it better. The players had their chance. If they didn't use it to their best advantage, that's not CAS's fault.

Come off it. The Brownlow Medal is awarded to the "fairest and best" not the smartest or the player with an appropriate moral compass. Nevertheless, as things stand, he should not be able to keep it.

All of them? Or just any one of them? And if one appeals, does the decision of that one stand for all players of just the one who appeals?