La Dee-vina Comedia

And we can't ignore the possibility that the club, the coach and the club doctor were also duped by Dank and Robinson. The club and the coaches have to take responsibility for that and, in effect, have done so by the penalties imposed by the AFL last year.

He also fixes up a lot of the other players' mistakes. For example, he often scoops up a handpass that misses a target or gets the ball back after one of our player's disposals are smothered. He'll be missed.

It seems there are three options in this case: the Essendon players knowingly took banned substances the Essendon players unwittingly took banned substances the Essendon players did not take any banned substances All the discussion appears to suggest the Essendon players should take a penalty because (a) there's enough evidence to suggest some wrongdoing or (b) the issue annoys the AFL-supporting public and this is the best way for the problem to go away. But if I was a player (of any team, but in this case Essendon) and I was convinced I had not taken any banned substances, I'd be fighting for the right to have my name cleared. It's not good enough for us to say these players should be penalised because of poor management or governance by their employer. It certainly shouldn't be good enough for them to be penalised if there isn't sufficient evidence to confirm they took a banned substance (knowingly or unwittingly). And it definitely isn't appropriate that they should be penalised just because the football supporting community is sick of the whole saga. If it can be proven that the players took banned substances, then they should be penalised. I'm yet to be convinced there is proof or even sufficient evidence to mount a case - but I don't know what ASADA does and presumably ASADA thinks otherwise.

"questioned by police" is what's being reported. Doesn't necessarily mean he was arrested. Or that he'll be charged, either.

I suspect Terlich goes to the backline and Grimes replaces Cross. Alternatively, and I think a lot less likely, Terlich goes to the backline, Howe to the forward line and Bail replaces Cross.

Judge Downes might have "ticked off on ASADA's case" but I'm not aware that he was the decision maker who set the 'show cause' process in motion. From my understanding (admittedly based on media stories) his role appears to have been to advise ASADA if it's investigation process was sound. That's not the same thing as deciding whether as a result of that investigation there is sufficient evidence to proceed to take action against any players.

I'd usually agree with your sentiments, but in this case ASADA finds themselves politically exposed because of the slowness of their process. Irrespective of the facts, ASADA may well feel obliged to issue the 'show cause' letters as to drop the case before doing so would embarrass ASADA. In other words, it is possible in this case that ASADA has insufficient evidence and might have dropped the case if it was June 2013, but 12 months later, they might be proceeding for the wrong reasons. Of course, they might also have sufficient evidence and the 'show cause' letters are perfectly appropriate in the circumstances.

Having just read Brett Allison's comments on our players in the VFL, I'm reasonably confident we'll play one man short against the Bulldogs with Terlich and no-one else coming in for McKenzie and Cross.

Don't agree with this. I think Roos has very much taken this approach but just been more successful with it. Compare Tyson, Cross, Vince, Michie and Riley with Clark, Byrnes, Sellar, Gillies, Dawes, Petersen, Rodan. In Neeld's defence, he couldn't have foreseen Clark's injuries and he would have found it more difficult to attract talent because he was an unproven coach with a dysfunctional back of house.

Well argued. I hadn't realised he was 27. Like so many of our players he has the body of someone 5 years younger. Unfortunately, I suspect you're right regarding his ceiling.

So if Terlich is in he either plays on ball (unlikely) or he frees up a defender, most likely Grimes I would have thought, to do so. The other option might be Terlich into defence and Howe forward. But Howe has been pretty good in defence (although not that good last weekend). Of course, with both McKenzie and Cross out it is also conceivable that Bail gets a run with role and Howe or Grimes play in the forward line.

How many negating players are needed against the Bulldogs? If Griffen and Cooney are both out, who's left? Libba? and maybe Bob Murphy? Perhaps Riley gets his chance to play a meaningful role running with Libba. And if Murphy plays back, Bail takes him; if he plays forward, Grimes takes him on. Perhaps this is the week for Blease to come in to provide some attacking flair. And maybe Gawn to really stretch the Bulldogs backline.

OK - MFC has announced Byrnes is out for the rest of the year with a foot injury.

You may be right, but how do we know? I accept that Matt Jones will need to improve to stay in the team (even though he hasn't missed a game since he started) but how do we know his ceiling is lower than the others you have mentioned?

They don't train with Casey, do they? Which means they are only "at Casey" for a few hours on game day. While I'd like a better relationship with our VFL colleagues, realistically it's a bit hard to see how a few hours on gameday is going to somehow infect professional footballers who spend the rest of the week with the senior list.

The backline missed it the last time he played, too. I assumed he was playing injured because it was unlike him to be so tentative. Mind you, Terlich at his best is still a heart-in-mouth player as you never quite know what he's going to do next. But I don't doubt his courage or his willingness to do the team thing to the best of his ability...the question to ask is whether his best is actually good enough and whether there is any prospect of him improving further.

We must have been watching different games. I gave M Jones votes. However, even though he's played every game since round 1 last year, he will need to improve his disposal as the team continues to improve or he won't be playing for that much longer.

It's sometimes difficult for players to look ready for promotion when playing in a poor VFL side.

There have been some great centre half forwards. I've been lucky enough to see Carey, Hart and Brown. All three were champion players who helped their teams win multiple premierships.

Disappointing to lose, but the over-reaction to this week's loss pretty much matches the over-reaction to last week's win. It seemed to me that there was a different gameplan in play yesterday. Gone was the stop-start (but particularly stop) form of play we've been seeing all year, replaced by the attack at all costs mantra. Where were all the kicks backwards, for example? I think the change in style was problematic as players rushed their disposals and missed what looked to be obvious options in doing so. There were so many leads from Bail (particularly first half), Watts and Dawes that were ignored as players rushed to take the first but inferior option. BUT, while I didn't like the outcome, I did like the change in style. The previous defensive stye is great at keeping us close to the opposition with an occasional win. This style will eventually win more games - but lead to bigger losses when we don't get it right. To me, it's all part of the learning period and I can live with it while I understand the strategy.

6. Vince 5. Cross 4. Dawes 3. Dunn 2. Watts 1. M Jones I may be harsh on N Jones, but he fumbled, mis-kicked and struggled all day. It goes to show how important he is to the team.

Given the theory that you are only as good as your last game, I'm expecting a 149 point turnaround and therefore a 27 point win on Sunday. (I wish. Actually, I expect that we will lose by about that margin).

Satyr - sometimes you provide too much information!

I'd like to think a fully fit Jack Trengove is a first choice option. Hopefully he'll prove to us that he is next year.

If they create a false document trail they may be in bigger trouble. It's often not the original offence that causes the problem but the subsequent attempted cover-up. Just ask President Nixon.