OT: Ben Cousins [Archive] - Australian Rules Football Forum

jo172

3 Dec 2006, 18:57

Alright I know the guys a gun footballer (whom i find to be a bit overrated, in other words Judd/Kerr/Embley>Cousins) but when is he going to pull his head in and behave like a social and club leader?

The fact that he went to Melbourne to hang out with Gardiner does not speak volumes for the man. Personally I thought both Gardiner and Cousins would of been better with the continent's worth of distance between them but for this to keep happening over and over again is ridicolous. If he was any other player at WCE he'd be out on his arse by now (eg: Gardiner).

I know some people are going to come back at me with "He was targeted because he's a high profile football player" but that's complete crap. Also what exactly do you have to be doing to spend the night in lock up for being drunk and disorderly? There are alot of drunk and disorderly people out there who just get put in cabs to sleep it off. If you ask me odds are the coppers were going easy on him.

Anyways, what's your opinion on Cuz?

Crow-mo

3 Dec 2006, 19:05

so you think he shouldn't spend time with his mates?

jo172

3 Dec 2006, 19:07

so you think he shouldn't spend time with his mates?

If the same mate keeps getting you into trouble over and over again, possibly jeopardising your very successful career because he already had his screwed is he really your friend?

QL 21

3 Dec 2006, 19:19

jo172

3 Dec 2006, 19:23

I don't see much of a problem? After having a massive year, he decided to head out on the town and had a few too many. He acted like a bit of an idiot and got chucked in a cell for the night.

I would get legless too if I just won a GF. :)

3 months ago ....

And i'm not saying that if this was a one off it would be a huge deal. Just the fact that it seems to be a recurring pattern of behaviour would surely have a few people in the WCE hierachy nervous.

QL 21

3 Dec 2006, 19:26

Just the fact that it seems to be a recurring pattern of behaviour would surely have a few people in the WCE hierachy nervous.

How so? He likes to have a good time in the off-season, do you ever hear about him going out during the year and getting smashed? :)

jo172

3 Dec 2006, 19:33

How so? He likes to have a good time in the off-season, do you ever hear about him going out during the year and getting smashed? :)

Stacked on to running away from booze buses, an affinity for Coca-Cola;) , getting in to fights with team mates, refusing to co-operate with Cops investigating serious crimes and this is not the behaviour of a well balanced human being. It is clear off the field Cousins is a loose cannon. For the time being this has not hindered his performance on the field, my question is how long can this last?

Mad Dog

3 Dec 2006, 20:20

For all those claiming "victimisation" and "boys will be boys" and "it's the off season"........I don't think it's any coincidence that out of 6 hundred and thirty something footballers in the AFL that the same 3 or 4 keep getting pulled up for this kind of thing.

Yeah sure it's the off season...but.

what are you doing on the piss the weekend before training starts 4,000 kms from home ????.

like moths to a flame..........people like Cousins will always be seduced by the plonk......if he wasn't a great football player.....he'd have gotten himself into some serious trouble by now.

Now that they've won a flag....I'll be interested to see how many more instances like this Wet Toast will tolerate before they cut him loose.

I'm certainly not calling for his head.........I just reckon it's all a bit sad...and a bit typical..........:rolleyes:

QL 21

3 Dec 2006, 20:26

Now that they've won a flag....I'll be interested to see how many more instances like this Wet Toast will tolerate before they cut him loose.

I'm certainly not calling for his head.........I just reckon it's all a bit sad...and a bit typical..........:rolleyes:

I can't see them cutting him loose. Would Adelaide cut Roo loose if he did the same as Cousins, yet still managed to play great football and be a terrific on-field leader?

If they decide to send him back to train with his WAFL club, then so be it, that's fine with me.

Mad Dog

3 Dec 2006, 20:30

I can't see them cutting him loose. Would Adelaide cut Roo loose if he did the same as Cousins, yet still managed to play great football and be a terrific on-field leader?

If they decide to send him back to train with his WAFL club, then so be it, that's fine with me.

I don't think Cousins has been as integral to the West Coast over the last 14 years as Roo has been to the AFC.....so not really a sensible comparison.

kane249

3 Dec 2006, 20:43

I don't think Cousins has been as integral to the West Coast over the last 14 years as Roo has been to the AFC.....so not really a sensible comparison.

Well hang on a sec, Cuz has been integral to the club

Cuz started at the club in 95, ie when the club was coming off its previous premiership highs and was starting its decline. Cuz led the club admirably throughout those dark days when the club wasn't a powerhouse and was a cellar dweller. He stood out like a beacon during those dark days.

Similarily when the clubs been going well he's still been there leading from the front. There is a reason why he is called the 'spiritual leader' at the club because he's the guy the other players turn to rev up the other guys and provide that spark or bit of brilliance when things aren't going well (eg during the prelim final, his third quarter was one of the reasons the eagles turned it around)

Cuz has been very integral to the club over the 11 years he has been there.

Mad Dog

3 Dec 2006, 20:50

Well hang on a sec, Cuz has been integral to the club

Cuz started at the club in 95, ie when the club was coming off its previous premiership highs and was starting its decline. Cuz led the club admirably throughout those dark days when the club wasn't a powerhouse and was a cellar dweller. He stood out like a beacon during those dark days.

Similarily when the clubs been going well he's still been there leading from the front. There is a reason why he is called the 'spiritual leader' at the club because he's the guy the other players turn to rev up the other guys and provide that spark or bit of brilliance when things aren't going well (eg during the prelim final, his third quarter was one of the reasons the eagles turned it around)

Cuz has been very integral to the club over the 11 years he has been there.

....but now that they have achieved at the highest level......Worsfold will be looking for a sacrificial lamb to maintain the focus and hunger.

QL 21

3 Dec 2006, 20:51

....but now that they have achieved at the highest level......Worsfold will be looking for a sacrificial lamb to maintain the focus and hunger.

Not yet, maybe once we go back-to-back like your blokes did. ;)

kane249

3 Dec 2006, 21:11

....but now that they have achieved at the highest level......Worsfold will be looking for a sacrificial lamb to maintain the focus and hunger.

Nah i dont think this will warrant more then a slap on the wrist. As far as misdemeanours go it wasn't a big one. It's not like he:
-Crashed a car
-Ran away from a booze bus
-resisted arrest
-punched a public officer
-Drunk drove
-Was invovled in a public brawl
-Punched his girlfriend

Or one of the other acts various other AFL players have commited from other clubs, all he was busted for was being drunk in public. Not even drunk and disorderly, just being drunk.

Will be a fine from the club, but nothing more me thinks

macca23

3 Dec 2006, 21:18

Ordinary effort by Cousins on top of his past performances.

You don't get arrested for being drunk unless it's accompanied by being disorderly, and even then you have to be a real pain in the arse to others before you get arrested and thrown into the slammer.

What it says about Cousins is that he really has no regrets about his prior episodes, as they are just symbolic of how he likes to be. All that shyte about being sorry etc was pure and utter crap - just lip service.

Yes, he's a great footballer - one of the very best - which is why he'll get a slap on the wrist from the club while Joe Average would have been kicked out by now.

That's not peculiar to West Coast though - all clubs have variable values related to ability. It's not right, but that's the way it is.

fryingpan

3 Dec 2006, 21:18

Needs to grow up. He's a role model to the younger kids and needs to show them what's right and wrong. Lacks the leadership qualities but who has them at WCE? No one springs to mind. Dean Cox maybe.

jo172

3 Dec 2006, 21:52

Nah i dont think this will warrant more then a slap on the wrist. As far as misdemeanours go it wasn't a big one. It's not like he:
-Crashed a car
-Ran away from a booze bus
-resisted arrest
-punched a public officer
-Drunk drove
-Was invovled in a public brawl
-Punched his girlfriend

Or one of the other acts various other AFL players have commited from other clubs, all he was busted for was being drunk in public. Not even drunk and disorderly, just being drunk.

Surely the more worrying thing is that he has been involved in incidents similar to the above?

jo172

3 Dec 2006, 21:53

fryingpan

3 Dec 2006, 21:58

cough ... Judd .... cough

Oh yeah that guy as well :D

Braun maybe. Hard to pick a guy from WCE that actually abides by the law.

mudgeathon

3 Dec 2006, 22:51

[QUOTE=jo172;6334324]Alright I know the guys a gun footballer (whom i find to be a bit overrated, in other words Judd/Kerr/Embley>Cousins)
QUOTE]

:eek:

Judd > Cousins [just] >>>>>>>>>> Kerr >>>>>>>Emlbey

If you think he's overated go and watch the preliminary against you guys, he ripped you apart that game.

How can someone who has been a

6 x AA
4 B/F
Brownlow Medalist
AFLPA MVP - [Leigh Matthews award]
AFL Rising Star
Captain from 2001 - 2005
Premiership player
Has the best Brownlow votes to game ratio behind Judd [of players currently playing]
Has the equal most top 10 Brownlow finishes [equal with Buckley] of players currently playing

by the time he's just turned 28 be overated?

flukeyluke

3 Dec 2006, 23:01

Its easy to say it was nothing serious, just locked up for a few hours to get himself sober. Its also easy to compare Cousins to other players that may have had a few indescretions over the time.

However, its always Cousins. Name another club Captain or Vice Captain that regularly make news for the wrong reasons like Benny boy.

Not many, are there?

campbell

4 Dec 2006, 04:48

The guy has an addictive personality.He will never clean up until he admits his addictions.Seeing though he thinks he has done no wrong ever, I can't see this happening.

Mad Dog

4 Dec 2006, 07:23

However, its always Cousins. Name another club Captain or Vice Captain that regularly make news for the wrong reasons like Benny boy.

Not many, are there?

This is the point - I'm certainly not calling for his head......but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - lets not pretend its not a duck.....

He's a serial knob.......the club or his fans shouldn't expect a behavioural change at this stage nor try and flower it with an apology.

That's just who he is

QL 21

4 Dec 2006, 09:38

Needs to grow up. He's a role model to the younger kids and needs to show them what's right and wrong. Lacks the leadership qualities but who has them at WCE? No one springs to mind. Dean Cox maybe.

Stenglein? I do see your point though, there is no stand out leader (well, apart from Cousins and Judd) at our club. We do have a fairly young team though, when they all get a bit older I'm sure a few will take on the leadership role.

However, its always Cousins. Name another club Captain or Vice Captain that regularly make news for the wrong reasons like Benny boy.

Not many, are there?

Luckily Cousins isn't our Captain or Vice Captain then isn't it? :)

kane249

4 Dec 2006, 13:51

Surely the more worrying thing is that he has been involved in incidents similar to the above?

Well 2 things
A) techinically he was never actualyl caught drink driving as he was never breathalysed :P
B) When did Cousins get involved in a drunken fight? perhaps getting it confused with one M.Ricciutto? ;)

fryingpan

4 Dec 2006, 14:15

Well 2 things
A) techinically he was never actualyl caught drink driving as he was never breathalysed :P
B) When did Cousins get involved in a drunken fight? perhaps getting it confused with one M.Ricciutto? ;)

One thing we know for sure is that Roo has never been arressted and thrown into jail :) :)

NikkiNoo

4 Dec 2006, 16:53

Well 2 things
A) techinically he was never actualyl caught drink driving as he was never breathalysed :P
B) When did Cousins get involved in a drunken fight? perhaps getting it confused with one M.Ricciutto? ;)

on b - what was the issue with him and Kerr and some stairs?

carlyp

4 Dec 2006, 17:06

on b - what was the issue with him and Kerr and some stairs?

Nothing to do directly with Kerr.

Ben and he had words and Kerr shoved him and Cuzz shoved Kerr back. He then left the club and went outside where a few friends of Kerr's ended up in a fight with him. They broke his arm.

Meh! :cool:

jo172

5 Dec 2006, 12:26

How can someone who has been a
6 x AA
4 B/F
Brownlow Medalist
AFLPA MVP - [Leigh Matthews award]
AFL Rising Star
Captain from 2001 - 2005
Premiership player
Has the best Brownlow votes to game ratio behind Judd [of players currently playing]
Has the equal most top 10 Brownlow finishes [equal with Buckley] of players currently playing

Not saying he doesn't have a good resume or that he isn't incredibly good at his style of play, it's just that if i was given a list of players who i had the opportunity of watching play i'd chose people like Judd, Mcleod, Hird etc who have actually won the hard ball every now and then.

Luckily Cousins isn't our Captain or Vice Captain then isn't it?

Why is that if he's such a great player and leader as constantly told to me by your fans?:confused:

Well 2 things
A) techinically he was never actualyl caught drink driving as he was never breathalysed :P
B) When did Cousins get involved in a drunken fight? perhaps getting it confused with one M.Ricciutto?

a) Well that's so much better then.
b) Dude, fight with Curr, Nightclub brawls. All Roo did was smack out Josh Carr. Surely a WCE supporter would acknowledge this as a decent and hounourable thing to do?

QL 21

5 Dec 2006, 13:38

Why is that if he's such a great player and leader as constantly told to me by your fans?:confused:

Technically he isn't our Captain anymore, but he's still a great on-field leader.

Punchy Bassett

5 Dec 2006, 23:04

Just waiting to see what all these Toast fans who are defending Benny boy will be like if Tarrant or Soloman happen to slip up once while over there.......

jo172

20 Mar 2007, 17:33

*Bump*

Told you all so

NSWCROW

20 Mar 2007, 17:49

Always wondered how an asthmatic could run as much as he does :rolleyes:

Truck Rutten

20 Mar 2007, 18:29

No wonder he was able to run van Berlo off his feet in the prelim. Off his tits might be more apt a description.

jo172

20 Mar 2007, 18:40

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/5883/23353906vj4.jpg
From the main board, LOL

Markthirtytwo

21 Mar 2007, 07:32

Nothing to do directly with Kerr.

Ben and he had words and Kerr shoved him and Cuzz shoved Kerr back. He then left the club and went outside where a few friends of Kerr's ended up in a fight with him. They broke his arm.

Meh! :cool:

Copyright, Adelaide Football Club Big Footy Board. :mad:

Capitalist

21 Mar 2007, 08:53

Just waiting to see what all these Toast fans who are defending Benny boy will be like if Tarrant or Soloman happen to slip up once while over there.......

to be honest wouldn't any supporter defend one of their players ?

jo172

21 Mar 2007, 08:58

to be honest wouldn't any supporter defend one of their players ?

Not really, I think Goody is a particularily stupid ****er ...

I mean how hard is it to read a contract and not threaten to kill journalists? How dumb do you have to be to do these things?

But my main amusement is seeing tossers like Gunnar Longshanks and QL 21 learning that burying your head in the sand generally doesn't accomplish anything.

Glenno23

21 Mar 2007, 11:14

Not really, I think Goody is a particularily stupid ****er ...

I mean how hard is it to read a contract and not threaten to kill journalists? How dumb do you have to be to do these things?

But my main amusement is seeing tossers like Gunnar Longshanks and QL 21 learning that burying your head in the sand generally doesn't accomplish anything.

QL 21 is one of WC's best posters, he has been very vocal in his dissapointment of this last saga..... Gunnar has just been made to look like a fool

In fairness, most of the WC supporters have been upset by this, with the minority still defending him, i think they realise that he has stuffed up for the last time.

it's very hard for a leopard to change his spots.....

Blue Red and Gold

21 Mar 2007, 12:50

I have heard from a source that the Eagles do not expect him to play this season.

Massive news if it is true

King Elvis

21 Mar 2007, 21:15

I have heard from a source that the Eagles do not expect him to play this season.

Massive news if it is true

The rumour mill seems to be suggesting that it isn't just another stupid act that's caused this, it's finally realising/admitting that he may actually have a massive problem.

Again, from the sounds of it, he's pretty messed up, both physically and mentally - if the Ice rumours are true, he will be very ****ed up and will need some serious work. So yea, again, if the rumours are true, I'd almost be surprised to see him before the mid year break.

Personally, I like him and hope he comes good.

Also worries me that apparently an Adelaide Player (not sure which team) also has a pretty serious problem - not as bad, but not good.

Quinzate1

21 Mar 2007, 21:18

rayven

21 Mar 2007, 21:28

How can someone receiving treatment for substance abuse not get caught in blood tests?:confused: :confused: :confused:

Cousins has a problem many from all walks of life get but an important issue I feel is being glossed over in all of this.

It was tolerated at club and AFl level.

King Elvis

21 Mar 2007, 21:41

There is no possibility that he could be an ice addict and still be one of the best footballers in the league. But I don't doubt that he has drinking problems, coupled with his relationship break-up and possible instances of drugs on occasion have lead to this. He needs a break from footy to sort his life out, much more important that winning AFL games.

I would prefer it if he didn't return until halfway through the season or later if things are that bad that it takes that long to resolve them.

Thankfully the club has done the right thing this time and taken the hard line which they said they were going to do.

From the rumorus I've heard, it's well known in Perth's Social/Club scene that he may have enjoyed the odd inhalation of certain substances.

From the end of last season to now, is it impossible that he tried something knew and rapidly went down hill?

Again, all speculation, and I hope it's not true, Ice is a bastard of a thing.

West Coast have FINALLY taken the hard line.

rayven

21 Mar 2007, 22:27

Again, all speculation, and I hope it's not true, Ice is a bastard of a thing.

.

Ice causes unmistakable changes to your appearence when you get to having a problem with it.

It also causes a pretty bad Psychosis and also pretty bad aggression drama's.

unlikely he's got drama's with that drug.

Punchy Bassett

21 Mar 2007, 23:12

to be honest wouldn't any supporter defend one of their players ?

Ah you missed my point Cap, the first ones who defend Benny Boy would be the first ones to jump on any slight Freo mess up. Reeks of hypocrysy (and I probably spelt that wrong cause its nearly midnight and I am tired!)

fentanyl

22 Mar 2007, 17:53

3 points

1. i have no sympathy for cousins. he's been given a wonderful talent that has enabled him plenty or money and a remarkable career. if he wishes to destroy his life with his stupidity it's his perogative. think about all the other drug and alcohol addicts who have it worse off than him.

2. his suspension is merely lip service, designed to appease the media and AFL.
i seriously cannot see them keeping such a crucial player off the field for too long esp. given the club's tolerance of drug users.
expect him back in a month.

3. he's a bloody good player he is. to play the way he does and to inlfuence matches like he does, despite being on the drink or whatever, shows what a great player and athlete he is.

Stiffy_18

22 Mar 2007, 23:42

Crow-mo

23 Mar 2007, 03:22

Markthirtytwo

23 Mar 2007, 05:55

Don't know about you guys but I was extremely impressed with Woosha on the footy show tonight.

He was sensational and answered everything honestly.

My respect for the man has grown after tonight's interview.

Well done Woosha :thumbsu:

I couldn't agree more. He was very open and was a revelation to hear someone like him talk like he did.

But as he said admitting you have a problem is a start and that is especially important for the club as well.

macca23

23 Mar 2007, 09:07

Don't know about you guys but I was extremely impressed with Woosha on the footy show tonight.

He was sensational and answered everything honestly.

My respect for the man has grown after tonight's interview.

Well done Woosha :thumbsu:

I totally endorse the Stiffmeister's remarks. :thumbsu:

Woosha spoke for almost half an hour, with absolute frankness and honesty, and said more in substance (bad choice of words) in that half an hour than he has in his interviews for the past 4 years in totality.

Very impressive and like Stiffy my respect for him has inreased greatly.

Blue Red and Gold

23 Mar 2007, 09:48

rayven

23 Mar 2007, 09:59

Sorry but this is pethetic.

In early December they did nothing after cousins was found off his trolly on a city street, the club said the media attention was enough punishment and the AFL agreed.

This incident was not a one off thing for him or his club, nothing was attempted to be done, it was hoped it would go away and the only person getting stick now is Ben himself when others in a position to attempt to do something clearly tolerated his problem.

Its Pethetic.

NikkiNoo

23 Mar 2007, 10:22

macca23

23 Mar 2007, 10:36

I think he should of come out and said something like this earlier, instead of continually turning a blind eye to all the indiscresions. At the press conferences he was continuallly asked to comment and all he did was storm off. What sort of impression does this give the players? They have done something wrong but they havent been punished and the coach has failed to come out and critisize them in public.

The warning signs have been there for ages and he has not done anything about it until now, when it appears it could be too late for one of the games greats.

Sorry but this is pethetic.

In early December they did nothing after cousins was found off his trolly on a city street, the club said the media attention was enough punishment and the AFL agreed.

This incident was not a one off thing for him or his club, nothing was attempted to be done, it was hoped it would go away and the only person getting stick now is Ben himself when others in a position to attempt to do something clearly tolerated his problem.

Its Pethetic.

No argument with what has been said above.

Worsfold admitted that they thought they could solve the problem internally as a football club without airing it publicly or seeking external professional help, and also admitted that thought process underestimated the seriousness of the situation. He admitted that they were wrong.

One of the problems with footy clubs is that when it is a marquee player as opposed to the 40th ranking player on the list that is having all the problems, the reaction by the footy clubs is totally different. Jow Blow gets delisted, Ben Cousins gets a reprimand accompanied by a virtual cover up. Harm minimization is the expression that the clubs would use.

However now that it all has unravelled, Worsfold was very open about the mistakes that the club had made as well as Ben.

flyinghi64

23 Mar 2007, 11:00

To think the Eagles are the only team in the competition with a player drug problem is at the least small minded. The fact they are the first team to come forward publicly and admit speaks volumes for their braveness. Yes they have tried to keep it in house and work it out themselves and in this they were not successful. Do you maybe think that players, throughout the AFL, who have been suspended for disciplinary reasons in the past have maybe done a little more than was made public. There are more and more players being reprimanded by their clubs which tells me this is something clubs are aware of and are trying to sort out themselves.
The sooner it is all made public the quicker it can all BEGIN to be mended.
Good luck this season guys and try and keep those injuries down.

Stiffy_18

23 Mar 2007, 11:01

No argument with what has been said above.

Worsfold admitted that they thought they could solve the problem internally as a football club without airing it publicly or seeking external professional help, and also admitted that thought process underestimated the seriousness of the situation. He admitted that they were wrong.

One of the problems with footy clubs is that when it is a marquee player as opposed to the 40th ranking player on the list that is having all the problems, the reaction by the footy clubs is totally different. Jow Blow gets delisted, Ben Cousins gets a reprimand accompanied by a virtual cover up. Harm minimization is the expression that the clubs would use.

However now that it all has unravelled, Worsfold was very open about the mistakes that the club had made as well as Ben.
But we also need to be aware that whats fed to the public is not exactly the same as what is done behind closed doors and anyone expecting Woosha to hang his players in public is expecting something that just won't happen. The same way it won't happen with Craig.

The club tried to deal with the issue behind closed doors and away from the public eye, just like any other club would do. They somewhat underestimated the situation and realised that they alone can't help him and thats why they took the actions of this week.

That doesn't mean that they turned the blind eye to it, it just means that they tried to fix it up couldn't. Its like you trying to fix a minor plumbing leak at your house without calling in a plumber and when you realise the job is much bigger than first thought, you call in the professionals.

If the club has turned a blind eye to all this then why did they approach the AFL to do more testing of their players.

I think WC have done what they thought was the right thing to do and what I would expect every other club to do in the same situation, including the AFC.

Woosha also made an extremely good point that gets lost in all this finger pointing, how can he take any sort of action without any concrete evidence. You don't go out punishing players on rumour and speculation. IMHO, he did the right thing in approaching the players and asking them straight out. What else could he possibly do other than that without having the AFLPA on his ass.

rayven

23 Mar 2007, 11:06

Stiffy_18

23 Mar 2007, 11:08

Ok I can't really comment on Woosha's interview as I haven't seen it, but those that did - was he actually asked follow up questions or was there a possibility that agreement was reached before hand so that he would speak on the issues, but they were not allowed to follow up on some of the issues?

It seemed that it may be that way from some of the comments on the Main Board but you have to try and weed out the bias in some of those that are providing the report. Just the cynic in me wanting some clarification ;)

There is also this report in the Age from comments by Rick Lewis that raises even more questions on the AFL involvement in the matter.http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2007/03/22/1174153261133.html
Nikki, follow up questions were asked. Maybe not the ball breaking questions that the hounds wanted to be asked but some appropriate questions on the issue of Ben Cousins were asked and Woosha asnwered them all genuinely and with honesty.

Woosha said he heard all sorts of drug allegations at WC while he was still the assistant coach at Carlton and approached the players about it when he got the job and every players said they were not doing drugs but they also said "we are not angels" which stuck into Woosha's mind and he kept questioning himself what does that mean.

A suprisingly excellent piece on TFS. Usually they are taking the piss out of things but the half an hour segment with Woosha was first class and the man handled himself with great deal of dignity and honesty.

Stiffy_18

23 Mar 2007, 11:12

His Rap sheet was to long stiffy before anything was done.

way to long.

It comes down to his ability and his capability to do what he did to us in the pre lim last year.

Mr Angwin didnt get the same tolerance.
And do you have any REAL evidence that Ben's rap sheet had any connections to drug abuse?

How can you take a severe action against a player when you don't have any concrete proof that he is a drug addict?

I think people are looking at this with a bit of vengence and possibly a bit of jelaousy because it is a highly successful club and aa champion player. Its a tall poppy syndrome.

And you are right, Laurence Angwin didn't get the same tolerance but ask yourself if the AFC wouldn't have done exactly the same thing if the roles were reversed.

Do you think that Laurence Angwin would have been kept on our list of he was caught to be betting on AFL matches? I think he would have been sacked. Pretty sure Goodwin is still on the list and in the leadership group.

Eagles 4 Mine

23 Mar 2007, 11:13

Needs to grow up. He's a role model to the younger kids and needs to show them what's right and wrong. Lacks the leadership qualities but who has them at WCE? No one springs to mind. Dean Cox maybe.

Oh Fryingpan that is LAME mate you know we have a handful of leaders and I should have to name if your a true footy follower mate I thing that could name 4/5 certain replacements.;)

Eagles 4 Mine

23 Mar 2007, 11:16

[QUOTE=QL 21;6336460]Stenglein? I do see your point though, there is no stand out leader (well, apart from Cousins and Judd) at our club. We do have a fairly young team though, when they all get a bit older I'm sure a few will take on the leadership role.

QL mate come on dude that is crap THINK ABOUT IT.:confused:

rayven

23 Mar 2007, 11:29

And do you have any REAL evidence that Ben's rap sheet had any connections to drug abuse?

We do know he has a substance abuse drama, that at the very least had numerous episodes were binge drinking, where he broke the law quite significantly to avoid getting caught on 1 occasion

How can you take a severe action against a player when you don't have any concrete proof that he is a drug addict?

running from cops, found off his trolly and locked up, thats what we know.theres a pretty sweet pic floating around that on its own is harmless but with a history:rolleyes:

I think people are looking at this with a bit of vengence and possibly a bit of jelaousy because it is a highly successful club and aa champion player. Its a tall poppy syndrome.

No I would like those who were in a position to take a stand to accept responsibility.

And you are right, Laurence Angwin didn't get the same tolerance but ask yourself if the AFC wouldn't have done exactly the same thing if the roles were reversed.
You cant gaurantee that , I cant gaurantee your wrong.

Do you think that Laurence Angwin would have been kept on our list of he was caught to be betting on AFL matches? I think he would have been sacked. Pretty sure Goodwin is still on the list and in the leadership group.

Goodwin took responsibilty for his actions, his actions were minor compared to this issue, the younger Players would of saw a great deal on what happens when you fukk up and I personally admire Goodwin for taking full responsibilty and fronting the media being completely honest, The younger players would too.

He ****s up again and he deserves what he gets.

Ben has taken no Responsibilty, nor anyone else.

Stiffy_18

23 Mar 2007, 11:38

But Ben has taken responsibility by admitting he has a problem and he needs to sort himself out. Thats one hell of a step to take when we are talking about someone with a drug addiction. HUGE step.

And rayven, do not throw stones because you aren't aware what our club has done and we are definetly not squaky clean and I very much doubt than any other club is.

You keep coming up with Ben's indisgressions and with a benefit of hindsight you would take a certain action.

WC did punish Ben by taking away one thing he loved the most, captaincy! Pretty big step to take.

Woosha started suspecting Ben'sproblems in July and has tried to deal with them behind closed doors. Hanging out a player to dry is not really overly productive and cerainly not when it comes to someone with substance abuse issues.

You are right about one thing, Goodwin's problems are piss weak compared to Ben's and as such they should be handled in a more considerate manner.

NikkiNoo

23 Mar 2007, 11:46

Nikki, follow up questions were asked. Maybe not the ball breaking questions that the hounds wanted to be asked but some appropriate questions on the issue of Ben Cousins were asked and Woosha asnwered them all genuinely and with honesty.

Woosha said he heard all sorts of drug allegations at WC while he was still the assistant coach at Carlton and approached the players about it when he got the job and every players said they were not doing drugs but they also said "we are not angels" which stuck into Woosha's mind and he kept questioning himself what does that mean.

A suprisingly excellent piece on TFS. Usually they are taking the piss out of things but the half an hour segment with Woosha was first class and the man handled himself with great deal of dignity and honesty.

Thanks for that Stiffy, muchos gracias.

Have now had a chance to read a little more on the main board and the conclusion I can draw is that Trigg is right that the three strikes is ineffective from a clubs point of view in their duty of care towards a player. He has used previously the scenario of a club not being aware of a possible medicial issue in relation to drug use and making a player train for 2 hours in 40 degree heat is not taking care of that player to the best of their ability.

Personally I now think that clubs should be able to test players when they think there may be an issue and bugger the AFLPA collective bargaining agreement. This incident has just proved to me that the three strikes policy is not working the way it was intended. The AFL and the AFLPA need to have a look at what they are are really concerned about; the image of the game or the true welfare of the players.

rayven

23 Mar 2007, 11:59

WC did punish Ben by taking away one thing he loved the most, captaincy! Pretty big step to take.

That was A symbolic gesture only.

Tell me how many times has he,his club and the AFL had a chance to take responsibility.

The drug testers were waiting for him and he went missing, should never of come to that, ever.

Then they admit,only then.

Its not as if no one else in the club has drama's too.

Sorry but too much has happened IMO for the club to get off scott free and the AFL.

Stiffy_18

23 Mar 2007, 12:14

That was A symbolic gesture only.

Tell me how many times has he,his club and the AFL had a chance to take responsibility.

The drug testers were waiting for him and he went missing, should never of come to that, ever.

Then they admit,only then.

Its not as if no one else in the club has drama's too.

Sorry but too much has happened IMO for the club to get off scott free and the AFL.
So if hypothetically our club took away Roo's captaincy would that also be a symbolic gesture?

What fining Graham Johncock SFA for his indisgression a symbolic gesture as well?

Taking away a captaincy is a pretty bloody big step. Our club didn't have the balls to take Goodwin out of the leadership group and we are talking about sybolic gestures of WCE :rolleyes:

Newsflash, Ben Cousins didn't attend 2 training sessions on monday. Not one but 2. Those same drug testers were ordered by the WCE. It was target testing by the club of its own players.

They gave the list of their players to the AFL that they would like to be target tested and now they are trying to hide Ben away somewhere when they asked the AFL to test him :rolleyes:

Just because WC didn't announce it to the world to see it doesn't mean that they were not doing anything behind the closed door. They actually went to the AFL given them names of their own players and asked the AFL if they could target test them. Hardly the action of a club that is turning a blind eye to it all ;)

Just out of interest what would you have wanted them to do?

Stiffy_18

23 Mar 2007, 12:18

Thanks for that Stiffy, muchos gracias.

Have now had a chance to read a little more on the main board and the conclusion I can draw is that Trigg is right that the three strikes is ineffective from a clubs point of view in their duty of care towards a player. He has used previously the scenario of a club not being aware of a possible medicial issue in relation to drug use and making a player train for 2 hours in 40 degree heat is not taking care of that player to the best of their ability.

Personally I now think that clubs should be able to test players when they think there may be an issue and bugger the AFLPA collective bargaining agreement. This incident has just proved to me that the three strikes policy is not working the way it was intended. The AFL and the AFLPA need to have a look at what they are are really concerned about; the image of the game or the true welfare of the players.
Couldn't agree more Nikki. This AFL drug testing policy is one big piss take. No enough test are taking place and player to get caught 3 times suggest that they are either extremely dumb, or extremely unlucky.

AFL conducts 500 test a year and they have around 650 players in the league. And of those 500 tests, some players get tested 2 or more times suggesting that a lot of players don't even get tested. One player got tested 5 times last year and I am sure there would be at least 150 odd that didn't get tested at all.

I can understand why the AFL would be reluctant to let the clubs do the testing on their own but if they want to go down that path then they better come up with a much more rigid testing than the one at the moment.

Markthirtytwo

23 Mar 2007, 12:28

Tell me how many times has he,his club and the AFL had a chance to take responsibility.

The drug testers were waiting for him and he went missing, should never of come to that, ever.

Then they admit,only then.

Its not as if no one else in the club has drama's too.

Sorry but too much has happened IMO for the club to get off scott free and the AFL.

But that's the point the Woosha said and Stiffy has been trying to make to you.

It is all suspicion. It's only rumours. No one but the ones involved knew what was going on. You are only going on hindsight and some of the emotional stuff on these boards. He said that unanimous people kept phoning him that three of his players were involved in illicit drugs.
He asked the players and they said no.
What is he a mind reader. He has no proof and being an anonamous tip makes it suspicious in my mind.
Would you take it on the chin if you was sacked because someone phoned your boss and told him a pack of lies? I don't think so.

Plus the other thing that people seem to forget and wans't bought up last night was the Privacy Act. An employer cannot name someone unless there is proof that that person actually committed a crime.

The club tried to help since mid way last year when Ben's trackwork permormance became obvious. Up until then his conduct had been perfect. But the problem was too big for the club to handle, but they didn't realise that until just a few weeks ago and asked him to get professional help.

Markthirtytwo

23 Mar 2007, 12:34

This incident has just proved to me that the three strikes policy is not working the way it was intended. The AFL and the AFLPA need to have a look at what they are are really concerned about; the image of the game or the true welfare of the players.

Totally agree with that Nikki. They are pathetic.

But as Kevin Sheedy stated on another program, although he would love to know earlier, the Privacy Act would be breached.

Having said that I personally don't know what the difference is between being told the first time and being outed the third time.

Crow-mo

23 Mar 2007, 19:55

I don't buy this we only suspected, and had no proof line.
what exactly did they have now, more than suspicion?

that said, lets move on.

my gut feeling (and that's all it is) is that perhaps Worsfold had known for a long time. which is the implication, and seems likely.

how do you get the club to react? maybe the point isn't that suspicion is inadequate, but that clubs are political environments - which by their very nature, means they are conservative - and that it is not easy to get everyone to agree on the hard decisions.

in fact, it often takes crisis to get everyone to pull together in the one direction. Worsfold may well have been urging action for the last 6 months, it wouldn't surprise, but sometimes you need a lever.

I don't think anyone is being honest about what this particular lever is, yet.
what exactly happened here, that galvanised the club into action? it wasn't the missing of 2 measly training sessions - there has to be something else; I wonder what?

rayven

23 Mar 2007, 19:58

So if hypothetically our club took away Roo's captaincy would that also be a symbolic gesture?

So your basing your argument on hypotheticals?? Cant go along with that, you just cant bring up scenario's with no content, you get alot of different stuff out there.

Please before I can answer that I need to know what Ricciuto has done and would it be reported by our players that we still see Ricciouto as captain but just not our publicly named Captain, Would Ricciuto except the Cup on the Dias and raise it as captain and coach are suppose to do?

What fining Graham Johncock SFA for his indisgression a symbolic gesture as well?
:eek: Explain the gesture??? and how it relates to Ben Cousins position and behavior?

Taking away a captaincy is a pretty bloody big step. Our club didn't have the balls to take Goodwin out of the leadership group and we are talking about sybolic gestures of WCE :rolleyes:

His publicly named leadership role was taken away. Goodwins incedent was minor compared to this, you cant compare unless goodwin does it again ad we do the same.

Newsflash, Ben Cousins didn't attend 2 training sessions on monday. Not one but 2. Those same drug testers were ordered by the WCE. It was target testing by the club of its own players.
Newsflash Cousins has a history of Substance abuse, my point still stands it should not of come to this and action is only taken when there's not much choice as missing drug tests just aint forgotton by the drug testers.

Apparantly in December the media coverage was sufficent punishment for being off his head on the sidewalk,Thats really commendable after the running from coppers,
They gave the list of their players to the AFL that they would like to be target tested and now they are trying to hide Ben away somewhere when they asked the AFL to test him :rolleyes:

You lost me here:confused: :confused: Please dont tell me your putting words in my mouth.
I said they only acted when he didnt show when a drug test was waiting, nice try.

Just because WC didn't announce it to the world to see it doesn't mean that they were not doing anything behind the closed door.

it worked Stiffy, you know the flatline incident, kerr with the taxi, really worked, we really are been shown just how significant they tried as well.

Everyone knows the twice positive tested player,his mates,his drinking escapades and after this still the incedents keep rolling in.

this aint all innuendo and rumour that cant be acted on, theres clear cut multiple incidents and it comes to this before someone worth anything gets held up for it.
My point will never change Too little too Late.

rayven

23 Mar 2007, 20:08

I don't think anyone is being honest about what this particular lever is, yet.
what exactly happened here, that galvanised the club into action? it wasn't the missing of 2 measly training sessions - there has to be something else; I wonder what?

Well a nice article appeared(around the time of Kerr behaving like a monkey on a taxi) two weeks ago clearly explaining the "flatline" incedent and the "cocaine kid" popped up and that article got good debate, abit later West Coast say hey we have a problem, we are getting our players counselled.

Yey we do care:rolleyes:

Only problem is it was to late for Ben.Maybe before the media got hold of the latest incidents and something significant was done,Ben might be more salvageable.

I heard they've known for awhile about Kerr's drama's as well which adds to the perception keeping it hush hush actually failed those involved.

Blue Red and Gold

23 Mar 2007, 21:07

good point rayven, blind freddy could see that things were out of control over there, Adelaide bit the bullet and got rid of Angwin, he could of been a star, anyone could of seen that but they got rid of him.

Your example Stiffy of the plumber is a good one, but you can liken that to a plumbing problem where everyone can see the problem, except you have the stubborn husband who says he can fix it, only to leave it for too long until the professionals have to come in and clean up a massive job but if it had been attended too earlier it wouldnt cost nearly as much.

A prevention is much better than a cure.

Blue Red and Gold

23 Mar 2007, 21:10

Stiffy, Keiran Jack has been kept on the sydney list even though he is a rookie, if anyone was expendable over that, he was.

Blue Red and Gold

23 Mar 2007, 21:14

Blue Red and Gold

23 Mar 2007, 21:15

So if hypothetically our club took away Roo's captaincy would that also be a symbolic gesture?

What fining Graham Johncock SFA for his indisgression a symbolic gesture as well?

Taking away a captaincy is a pretty bloody big step. Our club didn't have the balls to take Goodwin out of the leadership group and we are talking about sybolic gestures of WCE :rolleyes:

Newsflash, Ben Cousins didn't attend 2 training sessions on monday. Not one but 2. Those same drug testers were ordered by the WCE. It was target testing by the club of its own players.

They gave the list of their players to the AFL that they would like to be target tested and now they are trying to hide Ben away somewhere when they asked the AFL to test him :rolleyes:

Just because WC didn't announce it to the world to see it doesn't mean that they were not doing anything behind the closed door. They actually went to the AFL given them names of their own players and asked the AFL if they could target test them. Hardly the action of a club that is turning a blind eye to it all ;)

Just out of interest what would you have wanted them to do?
that is a token gesture

Stephen2

24 Mar 2007, 00:28

That was A symbolic gesture only.

Tell me how many times has he,his club and the AFL had a chance to take responsibility.

The drug testers were waiting for him and he went missing, should never of come to that, ever.

Then they admit,only then.

Its not as if no one else in the club has drama's too.

Sorry but too much has happened IMO for the club to get off scott free and the AFL.
It wasn't the club making Ben take drugs, it wasn't the AFL making Ben take drugs. He signed a contract and accepted a job, which I'm fairly certain had no stipulation regarding the use of recreational drugs. You say "his club and the AFL had a chance to take responsibility" - The answer is it is NOT their responsibility!

It is NOT the club's fault, nor the AFL's fault that an employee has broken civil laws, but now that he has breached his contract by missing training he has been punished.

Ben should - and finally, has - taken responsibility for his own actions, and is paying a penance. Whether the punishment fits the crime is up to the club, and can be argued, but when you start blaming the club for one of their employee's indiscretions you are shifting responsibility away from the individual and that is not right.

jenny61_99

24 Mar 2007, 07:26

It wasn't the club making Ben take drugs, it wasn't the AFL making Ben take drugs. He signed a contract and accepted a job, which I'm fairly certain had no stipulation regarding the use of recreational drugs. You say "his club and the AFL had a chance to take responsibility" - The answer is it is NOT their responsibility!

It is NOT the club's fault, nor the AFL's fault that an employee has broken civil laws, but now that he has breached his contract by missing training he has been punished.

Ben should - and finally, has - taken responsibility for his own actions, and is paying a penance. Whether the punishment fits the crime is up to the club, and can be argued, but when you start blaming the club for one of their employee's indiscretions you are shifting responsibility away from the individual and that is not right.

You forget about the "duty of care" responsibilities of the employer though.

Markthirtytwo

24 Mar 2007, 07:50

Wooshas appearance on TFS could have been a publicity stunt by the club to try and get their story to the the whole footy world, whether fact or fiction, maybe I dont know.

But it certainly has stirred a lot of debate. People will always find their own story behind the story as as happend in the posts above. Jumping to conclusions doesnot help however.

Some will not however accept at face value what people tell them.

Now whether the club had tried to get help for their #9 since July last year only the parties involved know that, but that is what they tell us. But some here seem to not read that bit and feel that the club has only now started to get him help.

I for one accept their story only if it is of a commercial decision to do so.
They have a duty of care to all their players but if it came down to a rookie who was involved compared to one of the best in the competition, then their involvment would be totally different but only in my opinion.

macca23

24 Mar 2007, 12:24

Stephen2

24 Mar 2007, 14:57

You forget about the "duty of care" responsibilities of the employer though.
As I said in the other thread, and have thought more about since, the club simply doesn't have a duty of care!

I suppose you could then argue that a football club has a duty of care for kids under 18 that move interstate, but that's not even the issue in this case so let's not get into it.

The man is 27/28! Nobody has a duty of care for him, except for himself. As I said elsewhere, the only thing the club can be accused of is being morally wrong in not pursuing the issue further, but to say "duty of care" implies some kind of formal responsibility, which the club in no way has for Ben Cousins and his actions.

jenny61_99

24 Mar 2007, 14:59

As I said in the other thread, and have thought more about since, the club simply doesn't have a duty of care!

I suppose you could then argue that a football club has a duty of care for kids under 18 that move interstate, but that's not even the issue in this case so let's not get into it.

The man is 27/28! Nobody has a duty of care for him, except for himself. As I said elsewhere, the only thing the club can be accused of is being morally wrong in not pursuing the issue further, but to say "duty of care" implies some kind of formal responsibility, which the club in no way has for Ben Cousins and his actions.

Fair points, I guess I am pursuing it from a Duty of Care to protect their assets (the players).

Crow-mo

25 Mar 2007, 00:14

As I said in the other thread, and have thought more about since, the club simply doesn't have a duty of care!

sorry, but you're wrong. this isn't even up for debate.

Kristof

25 Mar 2007, 01:19

sorry, but you're wrong. this isn't even up for debate.

Well, the level of duty of care probably is.

If I'm honest, I find the whole conversation slightly boring, and incredibly predictable. Twenty year olds with too much money will waste it on alcohol, drugs and sex (well, maybe the last one isn't a waste). Doesn't matter if they're Ben Cousins or Paris Hilton.

I'm sure the club has a clear rule on breaking the law and bringing the club (as employer) into disrepute. Many businesses have a bad corporate culture where they turn a blind eye to employees lack of integrity, as long as they're getting the job done. But there's no long-term success to be found there.

Just a side-topic, this study was published today in the English medical journal, the Lancet -

Drinking and smoking worse than acid and X

Alcohol and tobacco are more "harmful" than LSD and ecstasy, according to a new study published in scientific medical journal the Lancet. Researchers from Bristol University and the UK's Medical Research Council came up with "a systematic framework and process" to assess the harm of certain drugs. They developed a "matrix of harm" to classify 20 different drugs. From Bristol University:

Professor David Nutt from the University of Bristol, Professor Colin Blakemore, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council, and colleagues, identified three main factors that together determine the harm associated with any drug of potential abuse:

1. the physical harm to the individual user caused by the drug
2. the tendency of the drug to induce dependence
3. the effect of drug use on families, communities, and society...

Professor Colin Blakemore added: “Drug policy is primarily aimed at reducing the harm to individual users, their families and society. But at present there is no rational, evidence-based method for assessing the harm of drugs. We have tried to develop such a method. We hope that policy makers will take note of the fact that the resulting ranking of drugs differs substantially from their classification in the Misuse of Drugs Act and that alcohol and tobacco are judged more harmful than many illegal substances.”

Not sure if that is on topic or not ...

Crow-mo

25 Mar 2007, 01:42

Well, the level of duty of care probably is.

but the level isn't what people are arguing about, there isn't a modern HR philosophy that does not focus on the pyschological contract and duty of care between employer annd employee. it is exists in virtually every progressive, best practise organisation around.

this is not up for debate.

If I'm honest, I find the whole conversation slightly boring, and incredibly predictable. Twenty year olds with too much money will waste it on alcohol, drugs and sex (well, maybe the last one isn't a waste). Doesn't matter if they're Ben Cousins or Paris Hilton.

I have only one word for you.

Steve.

I'm sure the club has a clear rule on breaking the law and bringing the club (as employer) into disrepute. Many businesses have a bad corporate culture where they turn a blind eye to employees lack of integrity, as long as they're getting the job done. But there's no long-term success to be found there.

indeed. though I keep making the point, where exactly do we know that Cousins has actually gone of the rails. we know he is a consistent coke user in his personal life, but "addicition" is one of the more trite and lazy terms being thrown around these days. was he addict, breaking into houses and stealing VCR's (only to realise that it's not the 80's and these have no currency at cash converters :D ), was his life spiralling so far out of control that he is unable to fullfil his employment obligations, was he asleep in a gutter begging for change? the answer is pretty much no to everything - so what actually is the situation? is it just that he is a rich, high profile athlete, who cokes up? that actually isn't of itself a huge crisis inducing problem.

so what is the problem, does it actually exist? is it just the headline, that cousins takes recreational drugs.

Just a side-topic, this study was published today in the English medical journal, the Lancet -

Drinking and smoking worse than acid and X

Alcohol and tobacco are more "harmful" than LSD and ecstasy, according to a new study published in scientific medical journal the Lancet. Researchers from Bristol University and the UK's Medical Research Council came up with "a systematic framework and process" to assess the harm of certain drugs. They developed a "matrix of harm" to classify 20 different drugs. From Bristol University:

Professor David Nutt from the University of Bristol, Professor Colin Blakemore, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council, and colleagues, identified three main factors that together determine the harm associated with any drug of potential abuse:

1. the physical harm to the individual user caused by the drug
2. the tendency of the drug to induce dependence
3. the effect of drug use on families, communities, and society...

Professor Colin Blakemore added: “Drug policy is primarily aimed at reducing the harm to individual users, their families and society. But at present there is no rational, evidence-based method for assessing the harm of drugs. We have tried to develop such a method. We hope that policy makers will take note of the fact that the resulting ranking of drugs differs substantially from their classification in the Misuse of Drugs Act and that alcohol and tobacco are judged more harmful than many illegal substances.”

Not sure if that is on topic or not ...

it is exactly on topic, more than most posts.

Cousins using cocaine does not mean his life is spiralling out of control. his life spiralling out of control, means that it is spiralling out of control. (was I just criticising someone else for their tautology?). if indeed it is.

do we have any real evidence that he had lost his grip, and is need of a club intervention? I don't know, but I can't see it. all I see is that cousins likes to use things he probably shouldn't.

saying someone has a drug problem is meaningless, because to many people, what constitutes a problem varies.

as an aside, there was a study done over here recently that suggested nearly 100% of all £20 notes had traces of cocaine on them.

Kristof

25 Mar 2007, 03:29

but the level isn't what people are arguing about, there isn't a modern HR philosophy that does not focus on the pyschological contract and duty of care between employer annd employee. it is exists in virtually every progressive, best practise organisation around.

Yeah, I completely agree - the question is what commitment from an employer satisfies their duty of care. That's what I meant about level.

I have only one word for you.

Steve.

Mentions of Steve and Schnitzel Plus are way too inside and personally jokey ... ;)

indeed. though I keep making the point, where exactly do we know that Cousins has actually gone of the rails. we know he is a consistent coke user in his personal life, but "addicition" is one of the more trite and lazy terms being thrown around these days. was he addict, breaking into houses and stealing VCR's (only to realise that it's not the 80's and these have no currency at cash converters :D ), was his life spiralling so far out of control that he is unable to fullfil his employment obligations, was he asleep in a gutter begging for change? the answer is pretty much no to everything - so what actually is the situation? is it just that he is a rich, high profile athlete, who cokes up? that actually isn't of itself a huge crisis inducing problem.

so what is the problem, does it actually exist? is it just the headline, that cousins takes recreational drugs.

Cousins using cocaine does not mean his life is spiralling out of control. his life spiralling out of control, means that it is spiralling out of control. (was I just criticising someone else for their tautology?). if indeed it is.

do we have any real evidence that he had lost his grip, and is need of a club intervention? I don't know, but I can't see it. all I see is that cousins likes to use things he probably shouldn't.

saying someone has a drug problem is meaningless, because to many people, what constitutes a problem varies.

as an aside, there was a study done over here recently that suggested nearly 100% of all £20 notes had traces of cocaine on them.

To be honest, I completely agree with this. I would have issues with drug use if it in any way impacted his ability to do his job. Of course, part of his job is being a public representative of the club, so no getting hammered and having your photo taken with a BigFooty poster - but really I would only have issues with someone's private life if it started to impact or put at risk his public life (i.e. I would have bigger issues with Jay Schulz drink driving than I would a positive test for marijuana) or impact on his ability to successfully do his job. And seeing that he won a Brownlow and captained a premiership winning team, there doesn't seem to be much evidence of that.

THOUGH I think we wouldn't be having the conversations if Ben Cousins WAS successfully doing his job as captain of the West Coast Eagles, and this was only a private life issue. He IS failing in his job as captain, and that's probably why it has become a public issue.

Crow-mo

25 Mar 2007, 05:18

THOUGH I think we wouldn't be having the conversations if Ben Cousins WAS successfully doing his job as captain of the West Coast Eagles, and this was only a private life issue. He IS failing in his job as captain, and that's probably why it has become a public issue.

I see what your saying, but he's not captain anymore.
he has no captaincy role to fail.

hell for all I know, maybe his life is out of control. But as this stage, the equation seems to be: uses cocaine recreationally = drug addled & life in terminal spiral out of control.

everything we already know about recreational drug use says this is a ludicrous assumption.

has his usage gotten out of control, and by what measure do we say it is out of control?

Stephen2

25 Mar 2007, 08:50

sorry, but you're wrong. this isn't even up for debate.
Actually, I'm 100% right, but I probably should clarify that when I say duty of care, I mean legal duty of care. The West Coast Eagles are not legally liable for any wrongdoing by their employers, at least in this situation. That's what I mean by duty of care.

They have a duty of care morally to help the player, to keep the employment conditions safe etc... But in this case, the club isn't legally liable, and therefore has no duty of care.

It's not a debate, it's a fact.

NikkiNoo

25 Mar 2007, 09:13

Mentions of Steve and Schnitzel Plus are way too inside and personally jokey ... ;)

yeah Crow-mo, we don't allow in jokes on the adelaide board, c'mon spill the beans..... ;)

back on topic, interesting article in the lancet there Kristof - I wonder if they took into account the amount of users of each of those drugs mentioned in their analysis as the prelevance of people that smoke and drink would be considerably higher than those that use acid or lsd. If it was published in the lancet it would have been peer reviewed but they still publish research that isn't fully finalised, that's just the nature of research.

You are right crow-mo in that we don't fully know what is going on in his personal life and if it has got to a stage where it is hard for him to turn back. It can appear that his life is still all sweet and dandy as he has money and a good job, but his long term relationship has just broken up, he has missed quite a few training sessions, not just the two on monday so that may be the first hints that all is not well. It is all just conjecture on our behalf and that's why we come to BF ;)

Markthirtytwo

25 Mar 2007, 10:15

You are right crow-mo in that we don't fully know what is going on in his personal life and if it has got to a stage where it is hard for him to turn back. It can appear that his life is still all sweet and dandy as he has money and a good job, but his long term relationship has just broken up, he has missed quite a few training sessions, not just the two on monday so that may be the first hints that all is not well. It is all just conjecture on our behalf and that's why we come to BF ;)

But what we do now know is he is someone who certainly hasn't got his life in order and is spiralling downwards.

A combination of all the documented things that has been going on for a couple of years that have just come to light seems to suggest so.

AAMI

25 Mar 2007, 14:26

This is fascinating. I have copied this from the main board. It shows how the West Coast Eagles covered things up last year:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripper http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7026960#post7026960)
http://westcoasteagles.com.au/Season...x?newsId=28851 (http://westcoasteagles.com.au/Season2007/News/NewsArticle/tabid/7155/Default.aspx?newsId=28851)

Love the spin. ;)

VERY INTERESTING!!!

I loved this bit:

The absence of Cousins has created an opportunity for Rising Star nominee Matt Rosa to return while another star midfielder Chad Fletcher, ruckman Michael Gardiner and young forward Mark LeCras have also been left out.

j_mac

25 Mar 2007, 14:38

It wasn't the club making Ben take drugs, it wasn't the AFL making Ben take drugs. He signed a contract and accepted a job, which I'm fairly certain had no stipulation regarding the use of recreational drugs. You say "his club and the AFL had a chance to take responsibility" - The answer is it is NOT their responsibility!

It is NOT the club's fault, nor the AFL's fault that an employee has broken civil laws, but now that he has breached his contract by missing training he has been punished.

Ben should - and finally, has - taken responsibility for his own actions, and is paying a penance. Whether the punishment fits the crime is up to the club, and can be argued, but when you start blaming the club for one of their employee's indiscretions you are shifting responsibility away from the individual and that is not right.
Bravo someone with a little insight:thumbsu: Ben should be culled NOW. as you say they club didn't force feed him $3000 bucks a week worth of coke and horse tranquilizers. he is paying his penance but not at the WCE how many chances does a bloke get?

Kristof

26 Mar 2007, 00:55

Of course, the thing that perhaps makes this worse is that Caro's article in the Age (http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2007/03/24/1174597953745.html) says that it's actually methamphetamine that Cousins is having most problems with, not cocaine - and crystal can REALLY mess you up. LINK (http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/drugs/methamphetamine/)

Markthirtytwo

26 Mar 2007, 07:01

Kristof

26 Mar 2007, 08:29

And coke can't? :eek:

PS I know of the negative tv ads over in the states re ice though.

Even the weed can if you smoke it long enough.

Well, yeah, the weed can mess you up, but you have to actually work pretty hard to get there - but it's not like everyone on this board doesn't know at least one guy from high school who ended up a lazy stoner living in the granny flat out the back of his parents house.

But I think meth is actually a lot worse than coke. Coke is a middle class drug that can ruin you socially but often not physically (let's assume we're not talking crack). People DO ruin their lives through coke, but it is often financial ruin, as compared to the physical decay of heroin and meth.

Macca19

26 Mar 2007, 08:48

Meth is much worse than coke, especially if you get to the point where you start smoking it. Its a very quick road downhill from there.

Crow-mo

26 Mar 2007, 19:07

Actually, I'm 100% right, but I probably should clarify that when I say duty of care, I mean legal duty of care. The West Coast Eagles are not legally liable for any wrongdoing by their employers, at least in this situation. That's what I mean by duty of care.

They have a duty of care morally to help the player, to keep the employment conditions safe etc... But in this case, the club isn't legally liable, and therefore has no duty of care.

It's not a debate, it's a fact.

you don't know what you're talking about.

enjoy!

Crow-mo

26 Mar 2007, 19:09

But what we do now know is he is someone who certainly hasn't got his life in order and is spiralling downwards.

A combination of all the documented things that has been going on for a couple of years that have just come to light seems to suggest so.

why do we know that?
all we know is that he is a recreational user of crystal meth.

everything else at this stage is supposition.

Markthirtytwo

26 Mar 2007, 23:12

why do we know that?
all we know is that he is a recreational user of crystal meth.

everything else at this stage is supposition.

Well hello there. Nice to catch up again. ;)

Well he actually hasn't been doing much in the way of keeping up his public persona and being the pin up boy of the WCE of late now has he, no training, and one might guess wont be picked in the team for lets say some considerable time until as three of his teams bosses say "until he gets his life in order";

actually admitting he has a problem (going on reports that he still has not accepted the fact even though his father has publicly said so);

Had his long time girl friend leave him for only they know why;

Been suspended as captain of his club because of serveral indiscretions;

Turning up late and being unable to function properly or not turning up at all at either train ing sessions or club functions;

Being named on a tape that the WA drug squad investigating drug dealers in WA connected to crimal gangs;

Found indisposed outside a famous Melbourne establishment and had his picture taken by joe public who made it public;

As the saying goes, but wait, there's more. Too tired of stating them, so yes in my opinion his life is spiralling out of control.

But hand on, how do you know he only a recreational user?

Isn't that just supposition?