La Dee-vina Comedia

Can witnesses be compelled to answer questions? Even if Charters and Alavi were to appear, couldn't they refuse to answer? Earlier in this thread someone mentioned that WADA would only be appealing because they think they can win. I thought there was a school of thought that WADA might be appealing as a test case to get direction from CAS as to how to handle team sport transgressions. It's possible both reasons are true, but it wouldn't surprise me if WADA is not as confident as Beelzebub and a few others on Demonland.

Given the sad events in Paris, I'm happy to use these words for the next 48 hours...and then go back to the traditional version with no change after that.

Postage stamps in England do not mention that country because they invented the system. Websites in the US do not finish with a ".com.us" because they invented the concept. We invented football. We don't need to put our name in the song.

What about players who leave? It's hard to believe that arguably the most famous player leaving for another club was our own Barassi at the end of 1964. I guess it helps if you helped your team win six premierships first. My position is that I don't despise players who choose to leave. They're just exercising the same right the club has to get rid of them. Those players are just acting first.

bb, you keep forgetting to add one significant matter...they have to be found to have taken TB-4 first. It's all very well to keep talking about penalties, but I'm yet to be convinced there will be a detrimental finding against the players.

Come on rpfc, where's your imagination? If you try hard enough I think you'll also be able to find: imagery of a pennant starting with the numbers "201x" with Melbourne Football Club written on it; what looks like the words "Casey Scorpions VFL side" crossed out and replaced with "Melbourne Demons VFL side"; and a Melbourne Football Club contract with an end date of 2025 with Jesse Hogan's signature on it.

Talking about merchandise, I was called by the club yesterday to thank me for responding to an online survey (which I don't remember doing). Apparently I asked that the club broaden the range from a free scarf with membership to other items such as caps, ties and socks. All I got from the call was that the club is thinking about it. But I re-emphasised that I'd like socks because my football scarf draw is overflowing and my sock draw isn't.

I know it's a bit curmudgeonly, but I'm sick of reading posters describing players as "a lock". Can't we have a bit of descriptive variation? And for what it's worth, I don't care who we choose at 3 and 7. I assume that anyone picked in the top dozen will have the makings of a good player if developed properly.

You're not Caroline Wilson are you? If so, thanks for reasonably positive write-up in The Age today. And if you're not, I sincerely apologise for suggesting it.

And you can add a whole lot of European countries that rather like getting uninterrupted gas supplies from Russia. Of course, if you want to fully appreciate European geopolitics, just watch Eurovision and see who votes for whom.

Looks like an upside down beanie. (That's not a criticism by the way. Just an observation.)

Anyone (presumably under the age of 50) want to confess that they thought dc was referring to Flower and Fowler? My confession is to a fear that the Norm Smith Curse isn't real but the Demonland curse is. Has anyone else noticed at the top of the screen "Demonland Est 2000". And how many Grand Finals have we played in since?

Or he might have had a headache.

Just to be clear, I was not suggesting any influence from the top end of town. Worksafe does not have an unlimited budget, so has to spend its resources as wisely as possible. I expect they probably use the Office of Public Prosecution guidelines when deciding when and what to prosecute. For those of you with an interest, you can find those guidelines, called "The Prosecutorial Discretion" here). In short, not everything that breaches a law gets prosecuted. And don't confuse "public interest" with "public curiosity", although my personal view is that there is a significant public interest ground in this particular matter.

...or if they were instructed not to come because of a propensity to overtrain or because they need a longer break for psychological reasons.

I'd suggest that Worksafe and Essendon were in negotiations for quite some time. Of course I don't know what actually happened, but I suspect Worksafe are happy to have Essendon agreeing to the charges because it means a guaranteed "win" for Worksafe whereas a contested matter on perhaps more complex matters might have seen the whole lot lost; for Essendon, a negotiated settlement means they don't risk losing on those more complex matters which would result in a harsher penalty. I suspect on the evidence available to Worksafe it is probably the best outcome under the circumstances. Apart from anything else, Worksafe has to manage its budget to ensure it monitors all Victorian workplaces for employee safety. Consuming too many dollars here means other (meaning non-AFL) matters may fly under the radar when they shouldn't be allowed to.

I know what you mean, but personally, I'd rather Worksafe took issues more seriously than WADA. While what WADA looks at goes to integrity of a competition, Worksafe is meant to protect the health and wellbeing of individuals which has to be more important than the health of a game.

And I thought of it the other way around...4 of theirs beating 7 of us.

As every politician knows (or should know), don't start a Royal Commission unless you know for sure what the outcome is going to be. There's no way I want there to be a Royal Commission given I have no idea what's been happening at any club, but specifically ours.

Gee, talk about burying the lead! Is Saty there? That's the biggest news to come out of training this pre-season so far!

The EFC statement published today says: "Essendon Football Club has been assisting WorkSafe with its investigation and agreed to the charges laid today. The charges reflect the governance failings of the Club at that time, which the Club has accepted responsibility. As this matter is now before the Court, the Club will make no further comment at this time." Seems to me that this mean they will plead guilty. I note also the comment about a $305,000 fine. Another media outlet (I'll see if I can find it) said the maximum fine could be $1.3 million. I don't know whether employers are able to plea bargain, though. Any of our learned friends know whether the fine is solely the discretion of the Court or whether the Court is 'advised' by the prosecution what an appropriate penalty might be?

Also, what about Trengove and N Jones (who had neck surgery and it was said would miss a "chunk" of preseason training)?

That Fitzpatrick was very lucky.

You're assuming, of course, that there is no mystery injury of the week.

If we pick up Parish and Perris to go with Pedersen and Petracca we can redraft Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers. (Try saying that out loud three times quickly.)