June 16 Footy Classified discussed the Essendon supplements saga. Craig Hutchison and Caroline Wilson were in broad agreement the 34 players should cop the six months on offer.
Hutchy (3.23): "Is there not a really strong case here for the players to take plea bargain deals?"
Hutchy (7.40): "No one remembers the bans to Shane Warne for 12 months."
Hutchy (7.47): "This won't be a stain on any of their careers."
Hutchy (7.55): "Take the deal!"
Ignore the obvious contradiction within Hutchy's first comment - if no one remembers Warne's drugs ban (singular, Hutchy), how can Hutchy remember it? (No doubt Hutchy is no one to some of you; especially in the unfootified states.) Ignore Hutchy's non sequitur - it does not follow the Bombers should take the hit because no one will remember it. It may be a lot to ask to ignore those loops of logic, but implicit to Hutchy's non seq. is the Bomber-Warne comparison: EVERYONE would remember an Essendon ban, just as EVERYONE remembers Warne's ban. It is impossible to have a discussion about Warne's career without someone mentioning his drugs ban (or his John the bookie scandal, or etc, et al, and the rest). Warne's misdemeanours are cricket's version of Godwin's Law: that is, if a cricket discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Warne's shenanigans. Hutchy is mad if he thinks a drug penalty will not be a stain on the Essendon players' reputations.