Dr John Dee

Agreed BB, and puts the likelihood of an appeal in perspective. But since I don't read the rag in question (there are some shortcomings to living in out of the way places) can someone enlighten me about the following claim in a comment on the article? Presumably it's just disinformation from the EFC or one of its myrmidons since if there were any such 'evidence' I assume (i) since it concerns MFC the AFL would be all over it like a rash; and (ii) it wouldn't just be the AFL that felt a need to investigate but ASADA as well:I agree with your statement, however given that Melbourne F C had more evidence against it than Essendon, would you still feel the same way if it were Melbourne F C? The evidence was released in the HS in a page 10-16 story a while back saying the AFL wasn't pursuing the matter but no reason why not.

Thanks for the link ManDee. Terrific last line. It was always pretty obvious that while Essendon’s conga line of QCs had probably made plenty of money and big reputations from corporate and other civil law stuff, they didn’t know much about statutory and administrative law. It seems they didn’t bother trying to find out either (as I’ve mentioned earlier their ‘case’ against Andruska betrayed a comprehensive ignorance of some basic administrative processes and how they’re legitimated). But that they didn’t even seem to try and acquaint themselves with Federal Court practice and protocols speaks volumes for their arrogance. It’s good to see that being called for what it is, even if Crikey doesn’t have much of a readership compared to those marvels of modern news invention like the Hun. I wonder if they’ll be offering Little and Hird a discount on their fees.

Exactly so, Jack. All this whingeing about the evidence (collected by an agency charged with the responsibility of collecting evidence) is just another attempt at white-anting public perception of ASADA by Essendon's fifth (rate) columnists. Coz they were so successful with their various other interventions, like the brilliantly incisive readings of the Federal Court proceedings, ASADA legislation ... in fact, everything. My sympathies for the players are rapidly evaporating since they seem determined to join themselves to this nonsense about the evidence instead of recognising what the proper procedures are and accepting that the quickest way to resolve the issues is to allow these to be followed.

Fair enough. But I thought all references to the messiah in this case were reserved for James Hird.* * now preparing for his second third fourth coming.

As for asking Dank anything, reminds me of the Cretan Liar Paradox: "I'm a Cretan and I tell you all Cretans are liars." If it's a true statement it's false. If it's a false statement it's true. Of course, by referring to Dank as "the discredited sports scientist," (a description that should be permanently attached to him) the article pretty well gives him a Cretan passport anyway.

A statement attributed to Dr Johnson, who also said "no man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money". Probably explains why you write things without any expectation of payment.

Isn't that the suppository of all wisdom? Now I understand the secret sense in Abbott's phrase.

And why not, Ronrich? Live your dreams even if they make no sense.

Christ Dawes. Why hasn't he been capable of the sorts of miracles we need?

Inclined to agree Jazza though in fairness Ron used 'if', a word that's magically disappeared from a lot of other posters' conclusions.

Perhaps Visy are going into making vacuum cleaner bags and Carlton's expecting to be able to Hoover up all the loose talent.

either that or they are psychiatrists

Didn't question that, questioned your presumed right to represent your own experience as that of a whole 'community'. I'd also question your presumed right to sneer at Dr Gonzo (or to HL for that matter) and attribute motives to him when you haven't got a clue what his experiences are and whom/what he might happen to know or have encountered and had to deal with and so on. And now, in one post you're claiming you're entited to speak for the the gay community and in another that it's stupid to think you were. Personally, I think it's as stupid to speak of or for a 'gay community' as it is to speak of or for a heterosexual one. Try the fact that, rightly or wrongly, one of HL's issues was about a haircut and lesbians. Do you speak for them as well? What's your entitlement to diss HL for anything he said that might refer to their experiences? And in any case, what's your entitlement to patronise him on the basis of what are after all no more than hearsay remarks?

Congratulations! A real achievement, especially comprehending it without any grasp of the difference between a group of mates and a community. Mind you, with a name like Jabberwocky perhaps you believe that words mean what you want them to rather than what they actually mean.

FFS read his post.

Me and my community. So who's on a soapbox then? When did you get to speak for your 'community' as if that's a single, undifferentiated thing?

Where does Dr Gonzo say or even suggest this? If you're going to take issue with what he says, take issue with what he actually says. The argument about whether it's worse somewhere, anywhere else is as irrelevant as the argument that it's better somewhere, anywhere else. We're responsible for what we do. At least we ought to be.

Depends on how desperately he wants to get away from there and what he knows (which might make Middleton's judgement at best nothing more than delaying the inevitable). And while I'd agree that there's unlikely to be an 'Essendon' deal, negotiations with individual players might be very tempting. The havoc that an announcement of a deal with one player would cause is wonderful to contemplate.

I'm surprised that there's been no breaking ranks till now. I'm assuming that, just as the players seem to have been put under some duress to sign up to the supplements regime they're under some duress from the club to hold the line now. One possibility I see is that, with Little the Litigator in charge, players have been told that since there's 'no evidence', anyone admitting to taking illegal supplements will be damaging Essendon's 'good name' and action will be taken against them by the club. But who'd know? The spin has been so relentless that maybe the players still believe they've done 'nothing wrong'. Good on Ryder if he's finally punctured that one.

While I agree with the general drift, Bub, the Cronulla situation has changed things significantly. If Ryder manages by this to wriggle free of Little's thumbscrews there's nothing to stop him knocking on ASADA's door - before or after Middleton's judgement - and asking about a deal. He'd be mad not to.

That'll take some beating as the best one-liner of the week.

Who said anything about this being an issue in objections to/concerns about the players' costuming? Talk about drawing 'massive lines'.

Not sure about [censored] or [censored] but otherwise, yeah, close enough.

Love to know what you think ‘the PC brigade’ actually is and who belongs to it. Accusing people of political correctness is itself an attempt to be politically correct. It just engages a different kind of political position and different notion of correctness. Your use of ‘worse’, implying some sort of moral scale that you’re entitled to rely on and impose on others, says exactly that.

So did Charlie Chaplin. But both understood the difference between what's funny and what's not, satirising a particular version of Hitler. 'Springtime for Hitler' with dancing German troops, fine. 'Springtime for Hitler' with dancing Shoah victims, not fine. Same here: Rolf Harris in prison outfit would have been 'taking the [censored]'. It's the inclusion of a reference to one of Harris's victims that pushes things into the unfunny.