La Dee-vina Comedia

Disagree with this. I think they are doing this for the players so they (the players) can avoid not only the possibility of bans but a lifetime of reputational damage. Pity the club didn't have the same duty of care concern back when they were undertaking the supplements program.

My gut feel is that one of the talls will be a late 'out'. Either McDonald if he's not fully fit or Gawn. If I'm right which of the emergencies would come in? Would Nicholson get a reprieve or Tapscott his first chance for the year? (I'm assuming Georgiou would be classified as a 'tall' and therefore not contemplated). My suspicion would be that Nicholson will get a second chance and have first crack at Ballantyne.

I have no idea whether Essendon players took anything illegal or not. But the above two statements can be reconciled if you believe the second statement means "we don't know what legal supplements we took because we have no records" or "we don't know which players took what legal supplements because we have no records".

ManDee, that's a much more enjoyable summary of events to date. Why can't the other media outlets cover the story as well as you?

In '1984' (ironically an Essendon premiership year) George Orwell defined "doublethink" to mean, "to tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed..." I think there's a lot of doublethink going on here...I'm just not sure who is doing the most doublethinking. Is it the EFC, the AFL, ASADA, Dank, Alavi, various assorted sports reporters or all of the above?

Actually, I thought it was handled pretty well. Malthouse might have been pretty grumpy and didn't remain as he was contracted to do (probably to the benefit of both parties). But Collingwood didn't actually have to "sack" Malthouse, had the added bonus of an unexpected Premiership in the middle of the transition and still have Buckley as their coach. All in all, I'd say "mission accomplished".

Let it go, people.

It's a difficult game to umpire, so let's not be too tough on the individuals concerned. However, the makers of the rules need a good hard look at themselves. They've made it too tough for the umpires leaving too many decisions to be "subject to interpretation" rather than clear cut. In addition, it appears that the umpires appear to have been given some sort of responsibility to make the game more attractive. That's not their job (nor is it the job of the coaches or the players). In my view, the solution starts with a wholesale review of the rules of the game to eliminate inconsistencies and, wherever possible, eliminate subjective assessments. Other rules need to be clearer. For example, why have a rule about "incorrect disposal" which includes, in effect, an exception if the ball is knocked free in a tackle? Just make it a free kick if the player has had a prior opportunity and is tackled and the ball is not disposed of properly...irrespective of whether the ball is knocked out of the player's arms or not.

And all over an unsubstantiated puff piece in a newspaper notorious for not always getting it right.

If we're going to be training at Melbourne Uni, surely the most important question to be asked is whether Satyricon can get there.

Wow. You're a tough marker. Yesterday he was moved onto Dallhaus who was carving us up in the second quarter. After Grimes went onto him he went right out of the game and Grimes kicked two goals himself. He was one of our best yesterday.

I was at the ground and I didn't see anything, either. Was it what caused that little brawl on the wing (city side)?

Perhaps. I very much appreciate your work here, so bow down to your superior knowledge.

Didn't McDonald re-sign recently? or am I imagining it?

Exactly. If I'd been promised at the end of last season this result I would have gladly taken it. Given how bad we have been over the previous two years, I reckon the turnaround with essentially the same players (give or take a few) is commendable. It might be disappointing to lose, but it's far more enjoyable going to the football knowing that we once again belong in this competition. We were so poor in the last two years that we were the competition's embarrassment.

The BRW Rich List which came out (as part of the Australian Financial Review) last Friday had Little worth $750 million. I'm sure he's very attractive to some people.

Are you saying we would have won if we'd played Kennedy-Harris?

I find it interesting that the AFL are now arguing that these alternative, non-traditional timeslots are part of an exercise of "testing the market" to enable a better negotiation for the next TV rights. What a load of codswallop. Nevertheless, it's as close to the AFL admitting that they got the fixturing wrong as we're ever likely to see. And I wonder if they've opened the door to a compensation claim from the current TV rights holder? It's a pity Eddie mentioned "compensation" in his diatribe as it became the focus of the story. Everything else he said is what others have been saying all year. In short "AFL, don't mess with our game".

Jamar plays better when he has backup, so I think Gawn should stay. However, as this game is in Darwin, I'd like to see us use our fittest players and not burn a player like Blease who, if he's to be given a chance, should be given his chance in conditions that he's more suited to. And I haven't read every post in this thread, but I'm going to avoid groupthink and argue that Garland played his best game in weeks yesterday. I'm not saying he had a great game, but I thought he was getting his touch back. Terlich, Kent and Salem were all ineffectual and have been for a couple of games (recognising that Terlich's last games, both poor, were not consecutive). So, I'd bring in JKH (Salem), McKenzie (Terlich) and Mitchie (Kent) and leave the rest as it is. If McDonald is fit, he should come in before Mitchie in which case Grimes can leave the backline and go on ball.

6. Howe 5. Jamar 4. Viney 3. Grimes 2. Frawley 1. Watts

Seems to me that Frawley will be back in defence with Gawn playing forward. Based on his VFL role, I guess Barry tags (so think of him as a replacement for McKenzie). I assume Terlich also goes into defence so maybe Grimes replaces Cross. And Nicholson replaces Riley and in doing so provides more pace.

From MFC Twitter: "FINAL TEAMS: In: Gawn, Terlich, Nicholson, Barry. Out: Cross (leg), McKenzie (suspended), Riley (omitted), T.McDonald (calf)."

If this is correct, what's the point of naming three emergencies on the Thursday? Can anyone explain from a process point of view what clubs are allowed to do when naming squads? For example, can we change the squad of 25 named players up until a specific time (say 5.00 pm Friday for a Sunday game) but then have to select the final 22 from that squad? It all seems a bit unstructured to me.

If McDonald doesn't play I see two options: Frawley to the backline and Gawn in; or a straight swap for Georgiou. I prefer the former although I suspect the latter is more likely.

Well, I had a look at 'Sliding Doors' for the first time. I'm quite impressed. He's basically lifted the content from Demonland and presumably each other club and found someone willing to pay him for it.