La Dee-vina Comedia

Now I'm truly confused. Who are the "Casey Demons"? Would I be right in assuming they might be MFC supporters based in Casey? If so, good on 'em.

Clarification please WJ. Are you contributing to MFC or Casey Scorpions? Because if it's the latter, are you anticipating that Casey may be promoted to be the 18th team in the AFL should another team, perhaps one in red and black, is somehow unable to participate?

Without necessarily disagreeing with you, perhaps it might be better to start with surgeons, pilots, train drivers, judges and anyone else who makes critical decisions.

Nice work nutbean. Reminds me of this note Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allegedly sent back to California lawmakers when he vetoed a bill.

Just curious. Since the commencement of the formal international rookie program, does anyone know how many have been selected and of that group, have any ever made it onto an AFL list? Of course, perhaps that's how Tadgh Kenneally got his start. He went OK.

My vague recollection of Freudian theory is that the mind chooses to forget bad memories and recall the ones we cherish. I think we're all forgetting how bad we were in 2009. I think our defence should simply be "We didn't tank, we stank".

Interesting...read this

On closer inspection you might find that the 9 clubs (or 7, reported elsewhere) are reported to have "vulnerabilities" to organised crime. That's not the same as those clubs being involved in the use of illegal substances. Without naming anyone (and I encourage all posters not to name anyone), I can think of two players who have (or have had) family members in gaol for drug trafficking offences, another who has been in gaol himself for a separate serious offence and a few players who have been reported as frequenting nightclubs with "colourful" identities. I could imagine that all those players would be considered by law enforcement agencies as "vulnerable" to organised crime - but it doesn't mean any of them are necessarily involved in anything illegal or untoward. In other words, the way it's being reported is a beat up, although those "vulnerabilities" would definitely exist.

I imagine some journalist somewhere has written on one day that Cameron Schwab is in serious trouble for having been somehow knowledgeable about Melbourne's list management (which will be called 'tanking' in the article) and that Essendon's CEO (Robson?) is in serious trouble for not being knowledgeable about what its sports scientists (term used loosely by me) were up to. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Cunning plan, RR! The poll is a bit like the one News Ltd asked recently about who was the best of Australia's last five Prime Minister's (Hawke, Keating, Howard, Rudd, Gillard). Beautifully structured to split the Labor vote! RR has got three options which 'support' Demetriou and one to consolidate all the votes to shaft him. Brilliant strategy. RR should be working for the Herald Sun. I'd add a smily emoticon if I knew how.

I don't particularly like or dislike Andrew Demetriou but I think he's presided over a pretty successful period for the AFL. Certainly there are some issues of concern, but I reckon when compared with the NRL and FFA, the AFL has been managed extraordinarily well. I used to wonder how David Gallop got out of bed each day when he was CEO of the NRL - that was a much harder gig. And lets keep in mind that our club still exists and according to reports of our AGM last night, we're in a pretty good financial position. Demetriou has consistently wanted to maintain the core clubs in the AFL even while expanding the competition and has managed a complex financial equalisation program (although some clubs are still more equal than others). Is it time for him to go? Personally, I think he's earned the right to go at a time of his choosing. Disclosure: In a previous role I had to deal with Demetriou. I found him, er, difficult. But he was only doing what he thought was the best for the AFL.

I wonder how they calculate the conversion rate of supporters to members. That is, how do they know how many supporters there actually are? And I recall hearing David Smorgon once make the same claim for the Bulldogs. (Both could be correct, of course. Smorgon made that claim in around 2007.)

In fact, if it wasn't for BT's obsession, I'd have no idea who the "Weapon" is. Or that apparently there's a "football factory" in Geelong...

Maths doesn't seem to be our strong point on Demonland. Eight quarters? Seventeen quarters?

Surely we could get good half dozen years from Dustin Fletcher.

A question for those that go to training (I can't get there and I appreciate all the information our watchers provide). When the team is practising "a full ground drill running with what looked like our first choice backline", who plays on those defenders? The "first choice forward line"? Or are players switching all the time so you can't really tell. I would have thought for the backline to be under the most pressure when practising, the best forwards should be opposed to them. Conversely, using the example given above, does this mean Fitzpatrick was playing full forward on, say, Troy Davis?

At the risk of re-igniting debate, is there any confirmed evidence that Adrian Anderson, in his role as acting CEO, commenced the investigation without first discussing the matter with Andrew Demetriou? A number of posters have suggested that Anderson proceeded without Demetriou's knowledge and subsequently found his employment terminated because of it. This may be true, but if so, can someone point me to a place where hard evidence exists to support this view? If it's not a fact, or at least not confirmed as a fact, perhaps we are doing Adrian Anderson a disservice. Yes, he might have suggested the idea of an investigation. But if he didn't and Demetriou actually instructed Anderson to proceed, the buck stops with the CEO. Does anyone actually know?

If we keep this up, we might be able to put together a pretty good team made up of rejected full backs.

And James Hird famously played on Gary Ablett Sr. Failed and I believe never played full back again.

Thanks BB, great report. I'm interested in this comment about Clark and Trengove: "They then did some handball drills and some short gentle kicking over about 20m with their non injured foot" I would have thought the foot which stays on the ground during a kick would take the most stress. Perhaps I'm wrong. But if they're kicking with their non-injured foot, I would think that the injured foot must be doing OK.

Mind you, many players can play so many positions, it's impossible to know what their "true" position is. What is the "true" position for Adam Goodes, Jared Brennan or Brendan Goddard? Who (before it happened) would have thought Matthew Pavlich could play on ball? Or Jobe Watson? Or for our own team, what's the "true" position for Lynden Dunn or Colin Sylvia? Experimentation is a wonderful opportunity to find out what your players can and can't do. Given Paul Johnson had been tried as a key forward and as a ruckman and hadn't nailed either, primarily because he couldn't take a contested mark, trying him in the backline on a running player makes perfect sense. In the end, it didn't work and he's no longer an AFL footballer. But I'm glad we tried him in a few positions first. Mobile 200cm players are had to find. reason for edit: spelling

Should be called 'ninja turtle suits'. I presume they were padding to provide protection from corks, etc. But I'm just guessing. If someone actually knows, it would be nice to know for sure.

I would assume that drugs which are banned, even what you have called "recovery drugs" must have been banned for a reason. It's impossible to ban sports betting, so having a properly regulated sports betting industry attempts to cover off all the issues you have raised. Victoria has very progressive legislation in this regard (which would be enhanced by legislation to make cheating at sport for the purpose of financial gain a criminal offence). The best example I can think of of gangsters manipulating matches is Arnold Rotstein and the Chicago White Sox nearly 100 years ago in the days when sports betting was illegal...yet it still happened. We're much better off with a regulated system.

Completely disagree that "Drugs makes sport better". I'm not even sure I can understand any argument that states otherwise. Unregulated gambling can ruin sport, but a properly regulated system can work fine. Gambling can, however, ruin lives and people with gambling - or drug - problems need help.

I think naming players may be defamatory. I'm happy for the ramifications of the article to be discussed but we shouldn't be naming anyone. And I think Mick's problems might start with his home life. His Dad's attitude to alcohol seems completely off the mark.