La Dee-vina Comedia

You're not John Hyatt, are you?

And beelzebub is the beelzebub of Demonland, too. (OK, I over-reached. Mea culpa. Should have gone with Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men)

True, the back's pretty sore, but it's not about Essendon per se, it's about ensuring a fair process. I'll always advocate for the principle that it's better for a guilty person to be found innocent than an innocent person to be found guilty. Think of me as the Emile Zola of Demonland.

Come off it. That's not cheating. It's protecting IP. Whether it's IP worth protecting is a good question, though.

I hope he makes it work with the Redtails. He needs it and indigenous communities need to see it. More than anything, I hope the Redtails concept works. I vaguely recall something similar when Peter Rohde (I think) was coaching the Bulldogs. every player had to have either a part-time job or be enrolled in study.

I'm not an Essendon faithful, and I don't think they are "drug cheats"...yet. If CAS finds they were, then I'll accept they were. If CAS is not satisfied they were, then I'll be satisfied they were not.

Chris, you've included two links to one article instead of two separate ones. In all honesty, I want to agree with him on two points. Firstly, the point about "intention" to cheat sounds admirable. But I know that it would make it so much harder to prove cheating and that sport (generically) has brought this scheme upon itself because of systematic doping regimes. A shame, nevertheless. Secondly, the question of efficacy of banned substances and whether they actually do anything also sounds reasonable...until you recall that doping starts with "new" drugs that no-one knows what they actually do.

Sounds like he's a touch colour-blind and thought he was dying his hair red and blue. Noble, but misguided. (But nevertheless impressive that he's actually got hair to dye.)

Why? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the rules at the time meant that Scully and GWS couldn't sign a contract or make any announcements until the end of the season. In effect, Scully, GWS and Melbourne were each placed in an impossible position. But given the club knew that there were only two outcomes - he stays or he goes - it wasn't that hard for the club to plan around both scenarios. So, what was to be gained by asking the question? [Note to self: It's time we all moved on. Don't participate in any more discussion about this topic.]

jnrmac, can you explain what you mean (or what you think McLachlan meant)? CAS is a tribunal charged with making a decision whereas ASADA is the body charged with making an investigation, I'm unclear what it is that makes CAS more prepared than ASADA.

No. He was just a kid. Why do we assume very young footballers in pressure situations can act like sophisticated adults in the world of business or politics (both of whom, as it happens, also struggle to tell the truth)?

I think CAS verifying information from the players is a necessary strategy. If CAS ends up with a finding which is unfavourable to the players, it avoids the argument that the players were not given a chance to present their views first hand (even though there are lawyers at 20 paces representing them). Conversely, if CAS finds for the players, CAS can say the case presented by WADA was not sufficient, but in order to try to fill the gaps missing in the WADA case, CAS also sought first hand information directly from the players. I know if I was sitting on the CAS bench it's what I would want to do, even if I found the case open and shut, either way.

Makes perfect sense. Hawthorn's gold and brown stripes clearly clash with Geelong, Carlton, Essendon, Collingwood, Melbourne, St Kilda, Bulldogs, North Melbourne, Port Adelaide, Fremantle, Gold Coast, GWS, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Richmond and maybe West Coast if you somehow can't differentiate vertical stripes from a jumper which, well, doesn't have vertical stripes. Conversely, a predominately white jumper could clash with Collingwood, Geelong, St Kilda, North Melbourne and Sydney. What nonsense.

Jackaub channeling Kerry Packer: "Anybody in this country who does not minimise his tax wants his head read. I can tell you as a government that you are not spending it so well that we should be donating extra."

I wasn't being specific about any particular posts, but there have been a number on here that have made claims about dodgy practices of operators who have been named without linking to factual information. What processes The Age and its owner Fairfax now uses to check for defamation in any of its articles I don't know. A long time ago though, I believe (but can't confirm) that Fairfax might have used a lawyer by the name of Adrian Anderson to do this. Yes, that Adrian Anderson.

I don't know what's changed but maybe defamation lawyers have been engaged and The Age has had to be more cautious. As, perhaps, should posters here, too.

Thanks for report. I'm not sure if it was deliberate, but to name our number 1 draft pick after one who many would say was the greatest at his craft of all time works for me. I'm quite happy with the nickname of Lord Olivier.

Not sure they'll even need to bother with BBQs. For those who are going, I admire your commitment (and please drink plenty of water, wear a hat and remember that Satyr might look like Santa...but he's much, much more than that.)

I think we'd still go OK if you were out for 4-6

I'm not sure where you $900k to $1m figure comes from (and I'm not disputing it) but memberships gives the club much more than just money. It also provides contact details to direct market for the Demon Shop, to promote attendance at games and to push sponsors' products, too. Additional members surely makes sponsorship more attractive and therefore more valuable, to the club.

Actually, I don't think that's their job. Their job is to either (1) report the news in an unbiased manner or (2) provide analysis or opinion. Unfortunately, it's not always clear when a journo is writing or speaking as to which they are doing.

Is the $300,000 the actual fine or is that figure the maximum the court can impose? My recollection (admittedly hazy) is that the court is yet to determine a sentence and the $300k figure is just the maximum which could apply for this particular matter.

Does this mean the auto-censor isn't working? Or has it just changed it's rating from R to PG during the upgrade?

Does CAS publish reasons for their decision? In effect, the CAS version is going to be the closest thing we'll ever get to the truth, so it would be good if they do publish their findings. And once the CAS decision is out, I hope everyone accepts it, irrespective of which side they're on in this ongoing saga.

I find it amusing that you're comparing Andy Maher with Chips Rafferty given one of Maher's commonly used expressions is "Comparisons are onerous".