La Dee-vina Comedia

Let's be clear. Peptides are formed by connecting amino acids together so there is nothing incorrect in calling peptides 'amino acids'. That's just a statement of fact. Some of your best work, Binman. (For those who don't appreciate Binman's work, try this.)

I never thought people would pay to go out for breakfast. And just to stay almost on topic, after seeing his first few games, I never thought Addam Maric would make it.

While you might be right, I can see an alternative explanation. The newest players would benefit more from standard protein supplements and hours in the gym. The supplements at the heart of this program, if indeed they did anything positive, probably only did so at the margins for athletes who were already bulked up (legally).

I'm old enough to remember watching Tom Jones early in his career. Even then I didn't think he was good enough to get a gig on Grand Final Day. How wrong was I.

And ASADA approved.

Picket, interesting challenge you've set yourself there, but one I heartily endorse. The only reason you've not joined a very exclusive club of one other who I've got on ignore is because the 30% of what you post on Demonland on other issues other than Toumpas and Wines which is quite reasoned and interesting (even if I don't always agree with it). By changing that 30% to 100% (admit it, you won't be writing anything about Toumpas if you stick to your promise), you'll become more interesting overall.

Beautifully written. But when you think about it literally, Old Dee's wet lettuce (or was it a wet tram ticket) would actually be more effective. Just to clarify, who hear's Dank's appeal (should he go through with it)? You've said that WADA will have the benefit of the information. Is that because the appeal is to them or because the appeal will be heard in a manner which will produce evidence which then becomes available to WADA? I don't think this inference can be made. Appeals of judicial decisions are regularly made to higher courts. Some non-judicial decisions (such as local council planning decisions) might be argued around impartiality, but I would have thought decisions made by Judges of a court would rarely be so. Given the AFL Tribunal had two retired Judges, I think WADA's decision is more likely to be based on a view that it may believe the test for "comfortable satisfaction" was misapplied. (To be fair to all parties, it is a very amorphous term open to interpretation.)

I know Deefrag's post at #213 was intended to be humorous, but I hope the mods delete it if he doesn't. I haven't quoted it because I don't want to repeat what was said but it is in worse than poor taste with a comparison that should not be made. Late note: I see the original post #213 has now been deleted. There's nothing wrong with the post that's there now.

Quite right, Sue. My comment about stones and glass houses was intended to refer to the joy and enthusiasm of supporters and how we should anticipate similar against us should we be in a predicament of our own making.

I have for some time been concerned that the unbridled joy that some people seem to have in the misfortune of the EFC (admittedly brought upon themselves) has been too narrowly focused. I continue to be concerned that "the whatever it takes" approach that has been criticised is not unique to Essendon. This story, published a couple of days ago but one I've only just seen is an example of what I'm talking about. Is the use of "experimental and unregulated" stem cell therapy by AFL clubs any better than an experimental supplement regime? Which clubs are involved? Is our club the Melbourne-based club "leading the charge with the treatment"? I'm still very concerned about stones and glass houses.

Technically, proven (or disproved) "to a level of comfortable satisfaction"

I'm not sure what you mean by "digging". Isn't this another hearing of already accumulated evidence? I would be surprised if WADA is doing any evidence-gathering (if that's what you meant by "digging") of its own.

The Age is reporting that Paul Little has said that the EFC was "blindsided" by the appeal. Assuming The Age is reporting correctly, if it's true the EFC was blindsided, the club is being incompetently led. If it's not true, it's being dishonestly led. Either way, if I were an Essendon member, I'd wonder why he was still Chairman of my club.

Actually, I didn't say you started the thread specifically to criticise Toumpas. But I should have. You could have made your comments in a number of other threads including the post game analysis or Joeboy's excellent three word analysis. But you chose to start a new thread which has been your modus operandi for some time whenever you want to criticise Toumpas or criticise the club for picking Toumpas ahead of Wines. Nevertheless, if you say you didn't start the thread specifically to criticise Toumpas I'll accept your word.

That's a fair comment. But if JKH's problems are the speed of the game (as opposed to knowing where to run to, how to tackle, attitude, fitness levels, etc) he won't get any better in the reserves. I thought he was our worst player on Saturday night but would rather see him develop in the seniors. (Same with Toumpas, by the way).

And Picket starts another thread which criticises Toumpas. Talking of F Ugly.

Given most of us think the problem with Watts is more about desire than skill I'd like to think he was made the sub to force him to watch a game he couldn't participate in until late. Of course, I've probably read more into it than I should. Nevertheless in his one and a bit quarters he had the same number of possessions (admittedly a poor measuring stick) as he had in the full game the week before. I thought JKH was of little value, but will he get any better playing in the slower, lower level? I doubt it. Pedersen didn't seem to offer much apart from some strong marking. Having him, Dawes and Hogan in the forward line troubles me. Dunn is struggling on the really tall forwards in a role he shouldn't really have to play but I can't see that Pedersen would be an improvement, so I think Pedersen goes out for Viney or Jetta, or if they are still unavailable, Bail. In short, Jetta and Viney come in if fit for Pedersen and one other, probably Stretch. And Bail comes in for Pedersen if neither Jetta or Viney are ready.

Thanks BB. I assume "suffer the consequences" would mean potential contempt of court charges leading to the possibility of gaol.

BB, what do you mean when you say WADA can "compel witnesses"? Are you saying WADA has powers under Australian law to make witnesses attend for interviews? or to appear at a WADA-convened hearing or CAS hearing? And can they compel witnesses to speak (and speak honestly)?

In my view Jackson's most important responsibility from hereon is to find his replacement. (I hope that is not misinterpreted to mean I want him to go. Couldn't be further from the truth.)

Keep in mind, though, that votes often reflect expectations. More is expected of Tyson (and Jones) so when players don't live up to expectations they tend to get marked harder. My votes: 6. Salem 5. McDonald 4. Jones 3. Cross 2. Vince 1. Garland (I found the first three reasonably easy to give, the last three were much harder as each of those players were flawed in aspects of their game. Just less flawed than the rest.)

I thought you may have been inferring something from the "London incident"

Deliberate pun?

Thanks DemonDave. Just to go one step further, is the 23rd player an additional interchange player or a substitute? If a substitute, is this as well as or instead of the 22nd player being the substitute?

I imagine this has been asked and answered before, but what's the role of the "23rd player"?