2006 flag tainted - Sheehan

[clogged]

...

But why? What's the motivation for having him there?

No faith in Simpson?

 

[ep2018]

But why? What's the motivation for having him there?

No faith in Simpson?

Was thrown there while Worsfold was coach. I suspect it was done to keep tabs on the coaches box. Standard boys club behavior.

 

[ziad]

06 is on my boat number what more do you want

but sheehan - what a left over from the 70's still seeking attention.

 

[Obeanie1]

Your point

The point is the injunction club has also had premiership success around the time that injunction was issued to protect it's players identities from being made public.

Then was have clubs such as Geelong and the well publicised Matthew Stokes drug arrest and club sanctions. So there's another recently successful club with the 'taint' of recreational drugs and a player.

Crosisca came out and admitted his issues around the 1990 period.

So there is plenty of 'tainted clubs' with 'tainted premierships' for Mike Sheehan to write crap articles about.

 

[adelaidecrows]

The article is here..select top story

www.google.com.au/search?q=west-coast-eagles-stained-by-soap-opera-of-ex-star-ben-cousins&oq=west-coast-eagles-stained-by-soap-opera-of-ex-star-ben-cousins

An excerpt...

Respected Melbourne-based football journalist Mike Sheahan tells The Weekend Australian that the Eagles’ 2006 premiership should now be considered “tainted” given the number of players known to have been using substances that were banned or performance-enhancing.

An interesting article. Probably old news to many though. Especially us Perthites.

The WCE clearly chose on field success over player welfare and Ben Cousins, a club hero and Brownlow medallist and Daniel Kerr have paid a very high price. Both clearly are disturbed now due to what ever they were doing in those years. The club openly admits that they knew of the players behaviour and tried to keep it too a minimum. It wasn't until Judd walking out at the end of 2007 did the club take any real action and you felt it was forced.

Sad times.

 

[Off The Couch]

The point is the injunction club has also had premiership success around the time that injunction was issued to protect it's players identities from being made public.

Then was have clubs such as Geelong and the well publicised Matthew Stokes drug arrest and club sanctions. So there's another recently successful club with the 'taint' of recreational drugs and a player.

Crosisca came out and admitted his issues around the 1990 period.

So there is plenty of 'tainted clubs' with 'tainted premierships' for Mike Sheehan to write crap articles about.

My post was a query as to what relevance it had to the post quoted

Not saying the flag was tainted but geez the "Eagles where are they now" reads pretty sad

Cousins, Kerr, Mainwaring, Chick, Hunter

Injunction.

As others have pointed out, if we went back through history there wouldn't be a single premiership that didn't have an asterisk against it for one reason or another. Spooks post was more about the ongoing issues these players have and are still facing than saying it is tainted and hence my query. To have it come from a docker poster makes it all the more of a joke.

 

[Back One Out]

The point is the injunction club has also had premiership success around the time that injunction was issued to protect it's players identities from being made public.

Then was have clubs such as Geelong and the well publicised Matthew Stokes drug arrest and club sanctions. So there's another recently successful club with the 'taint' of recreational drugs and a player.

Crosisca came out and admitted his issues around the 1990 period.

So there is plenty of 'tainted clubs' with 'tainted premierships' for Mike Sheehan to write crap articles about.

The thing about the injunction which always amused (and infuriated) me was that Hawthorn was totally let down by the AFL's pathetic processes. The AFL's illicit drugs policy was a knee jerk reaction to the bad publicity generated by the drug addicts at the West Coast Eagles

We weren't the only club to have players on one or two strikes. Nearly every club had players in the same boat, yet it was Hawthorn who was dropped in the s**t when our transgressors were very nearly named and shamed. The confidentiality agreement between the AFL and the AFLPA meant that our club was never informed of situation (unlike the Eagles) so they had no inkling about any their players on 1 or 2 strikes.

The AFL implemented a wishy-washy program where players on one or two strikes had to pay regular visits to a clinic where they would undergo counselling and whatnot. It was at one of these clinics where the medical records of our players were stolen, sold to a Channel 7 reporter and their identities nearly made public and splashed across the 6pm news.

The players only agreed to the AFL's illicit drug testing on condition their identities would remain confidential (until a 3rd strike & suspension)

The injunction wasn't a Hawthorn cover up - it was the AFL protecting their shambolic illicit drugs policy which was very nearly derailed in the first 12 months of its existence. If the AFL had not gone to court and taken out an injunction against the media and those Hawthorn players had been named and shamed, no AFL player would've ever submitted to another voluntary illicit drugs test. The 7 Hawks (and the club) would've also sued the AFL for millions.

None of this ever seemed to register with the clowns on Big Footy or the c**ts who thought it was a great joke to forward any old rumours about our players. "Injunction" became an insult to hurl at Hawk fans as though we were drug cheats or a chapter of the Bandidos. Like I said, EVERY club had a player (or players) with one or two strikes. But it was Hawthorn who got unfairly tarnished. I heard stories from Hawk fans who knew a bit about was going on and it was never an issue. A simple case of boys will be boys, here's a strike, pull your heads in. Some rumours about one or two others who liked to party more than your average bear, but so what? Rumours… Nothing more. No crimes committed.

So I reject your comment about "tainted clubs". I have always been proud of the way my club has handled these issues. We never stuck our heads in the sand. And if you knew who was supposedly involved, then you'd realise what an overblown non-issue it was. Not even the same ball park as the disintegration which has occurred with players at other clubs.

We've had two highly publicised incidences of players losing it with drugs (Tuck with 3 strikes and Garlett who was at Hawthorn for 5 minutes) plus another less publicised, but equally sad case. All three players had personal issues and used drugs to self-medicate. These weren't players living the high life and getting sucked into some club drug culture with other players.

 

[kane249]

The WCE clearly chose on field success over player welfare and Ben Cousins, a club hero and Brownlow medallist and Daniel Kerr have paid a very high price. Both clearly are disturbed now due to what ever they were doing in those years. The club openly admits that they knew of the players behaviour and tried to keep it too a minimum. It wasn't until Judd walking out at the end of 2007 did the club take any real action and you felt it was forced.

Sad times.

You mean the same Judd who had Kerr as his best man and remains good friends with Cousins? He keeps strange company for a guy who supposedly left because of them.

Judd left for 2 reasons, homesickness and money. If he was so against bad behaviour he would have left Carlton ages ago as they have had a littany of off field stuff occur whilst he was there.

 

[masai]

My post was a query as to what relevance it had to the post quoted






As others have pointed out, if we went back through history there wouldn't be a single premiership that didn't have an asterisk against it for one reason or another. Spooks post was more about the ongoing issues these players have and are still facing than saying it is tainted and hence my query. To have it come from a docker poster makes it all the more of a joke.

Fair enough.

I was just inferring that no club is crystal clean in relation to the drug issues. No supporter can really take the high ground.

As for the ongoing issues for the Eagles players, lets hope all clubs are taking notice and using it for a case model of what went wrong and how to solve it if it occurs again.

Anyway, what would I know, I reckon taking of these "recreation drugs" is for dills.

Onward and upward for 2015.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Fair enough.

I was just inferring that no club is crystal clean in relation to the drug issues. No supporter can really take the high ground.

Nice unintentional pun in there but good sentiment all the same. I reckon I can point to an incident with every club involving something unsavoury, drugs or otherwise.

Time to give it a rest, Sheehan. You're starting to live up to one of your more infamous nicknames.

 

[truman]

So who is to say they didn't snort/inject a bit in pre-game or at half-time?

BTW, I never said the 2006 flag was tainted. I'm more suspicious of the 92/94 Eagles who beefed up extremely quickly after losing in '91. However, as there was never anything found officially, the flags should stand.

Bit of a counter intuitive argument as players can be tested on game day. True that we don't know if WCE players were tested during any of the finals matches but the same could be said about any club that plays in a premiership. I mean who is to say no geelong player took recreational drugs on any of their final's matches. You either have faith in the drug testing system (not including recreational drugs in players own personal time which is a societal problem and not the AFL/ASADA responsibility), in which case, unless a player has tested positive for drug use that is deemed performance enhancing they are innocent until proven guilty or you don't believe in the system and every flag is tainted.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Essendon's 1980s flags were tainted too then...

 

[kane249]

Interesting to read Gavin Crosisca has had a 28 year battle with speed, alcohol and cannabis. So 1990 flag now tainted as well Mike? (alcohol and cannabis not the big ones here obviously)

 

[Obeanie1]

The thing about the injunction which always amused (and infuriated) me was that Hawthorn was totally let down by the AFL's pathetic processes. The AFL's illicit drugs policy was a knee jerk reaction to the bad publicity generated by the drug addicts at the West Coast Eagles

We weren't the only club to have players on one or two strikes. Nearly every club had players in the same boat, yet it was Hawthorn who was dropped in the s**t when our transgressors were very nearly named and shamed. The confidentiality agreement between the AFL and the AFLPA meant that our club was never informed of situation (unlike the Eagles) so they had no inkling about any their players on 1 or 2 strikes.

The AFL implemented a wishy-washy program where players on one or two strikes had to pay regular visits to a clinic where they would undergo counselling and whatnot. It was at one of these clinics where the medical records of our players were stolen, sold to a Channel 7 reporter and their identities nearly made public and splashed across the 6pm news.

The players only agreed to the AFL's illicit drug testing on condition their identities would remain confidential (until a 3rd strike & suspension)

The injunction wasn't a Hawthorn cover up - it was the AFL protecting their shambolic illicit drugs policy which was very nearly derailed in the first 12 months of its existence. If the AFL had not gone to court and taken out an injunction against the media and those Hawthorn players had been named and shamed, no AFL player would've ever submitted to another voluntary illicit drugs test. The 7 Hawks (and the club) would've also sued the AFL for millions.

None of this ever seemed to register with the clowns on Big Footy or the c**ts who thought it was a great joke to forward any old rumours about our players. "Injunction" became an insult to hurl at Hawk fans as though we were drug cheats or a chapter of the Bandidos. Like I said, EVERY club had a player (or players) with one or two strikes. But it was Hawthorn who got unfairly tarnished. I heard stories from Hawk fans who knew a bit about was going on and it was never an issue. A simple case of boys will be boys, here's a strike, pull your heads in. Some rumours about one or two others who liked to party more than your average bear, but so what? Rumours… Nothing more. No crimes committed.

So I reject your comment about "tainted clubs". I have always been proud of the way my club has handled these issues. We never stuck our heads in the sand. And if you knew who was supposedly involved, then you'd realise what an overblown non-issue it was. Not even the same ball park as the disintegration which has occurred with players at other clubs.

We've had two highly publicised incidences of players losing it with drugs (Tuck with 3 strikes and Garlett who was at Hawthorn for 5 minutes) plus another less publicised, but equally sad case. All three players had personal issues and used drugs to self-medicate. These weren't players living the high life and getting sucked into some club drug culture with other players.

So when did the AFL release details to the Eagles? You just made that up.

Cousins never tested positive. And the Eagles were kept in the dark by the AFL. What the Eagles did do was suspend and then sack one of their best players and sacked others (one an ex Hawks player in Chick).

What did the Hawks do? Injunction.

Any club suspensions to gun players? Nope......nothing.

The facts are that the Hawks have been very successful and over the period have had plenty of recreational drug issues with key players and they did not sack any of them.

But according to you that success isn't tainted and you are proud of how your club handled it all.

Well you did win on the last day in September more than the Eagles did.............maybe they should have just let Cousins and others play on.

 

[adelaidecrows]

You mean the same Judd who had Kerr as his best man and remains good friends with Cousins? He keeps strange company for a guy who supposedly left because of them.

Judd left for 2 reasons, homesickness and money. If he was so against bad behaviour he would have left Carlton ages ago as they have had a littany of off field stuff occur whilst he was there.

hmmm, I think you missed the point just a little. And I think you find it was given as one of the very reasons Judd left. You can be friends with people you don't want to work with you know.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Then award it to whoever they defeated.

Demons win last 12 flags!

 

[Vin28]

Another anti Eagles thread created by a Freo fan... obsessed with us.

SO JEALOUS

 

[kane249]

hmmm, I think you missed the point just a little. And I think you find it was given as one of the very reasons Judd left. You can be friends with people you don't want to work with you know.

No the media assumed it was one of the reasons why he left, Judd himself never said anything of the sort.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I noticed the AFL's preseason film style marketing advert looking back in history doesn't even make reference to the first premiership win by a non Victoria side.

Plenty of Carlton (suppose they do need help with memberships), Essendon (need help all round), Collingwood (need to keep Eddie happy) and Norths (they do have the worst stadium deal in sports history)

But it replays Paul Roos holding up the 2005 cup not once but twice.

No Lions, no SA teams and no WA teams get a look in.

Great marketing AFL.

They look at it as population of NSW > Wa + SA

 

[Mr_Bojangles]

Herald Sun Editors "Hey look Kerr and Cousins are in trouble again. We need someone that we think is respected to make some inflammatory remark about the Eagles and their 2006 premiership. It'll get heaps of clicks!"

*Editors throw s**t at wall*

 

[adelaidecrows]

No the media assumed it was one of the reasons why he left, Judd himself never said anything of the sort.

You seem to care more about trivial crap like that than actually caring that your club decided to sacrifice Bens welfare.

 

[kane249]

You seem to care more about trivial crap like that than actually caring that your club decided to sacrifice Bens welfare.

We turned a blind eye to a lot, but we weren't the only ones who did either.

The Judd leaving thing may be trivial, but sick of the gullible sheep who ate every word the media spun as to why he did.

 

[Smokeyr67]

Mike was accosted by a group of hippies in the 60s

His diddly parents where beatniks man.

 

[adelaidecrows]

We turned a blind eye to a lot, but we weren't the only ones who did either.

The Judd leaving thing may be trivial, but sick of the gullible sheep who ate every word the media spun as to why he did.

WCE were warned countless times about Ben Cousins and other team mates throughout that 2006 season and openly admit this. The only thing they did was to try and influence Bens minders to keep it to as less of a distraction to the playing group as a whole as possible. They chose to ignore it rather than suspend Ben and demand he gets his act together. In other words as long as we are winning who cares! This is the exact bs Essendon are being done for now. Complete lack of regard for player welfare as long as they got success out of it.

As for Judd, pretty big coincidence and even if it wasn't a primary reason it was one of many I am sure.

 

[kane249]

WCE were warned countless times about Ben Cousins and other team mates throughout that 2006 season and openly admit this. The only thing they did was to try and influence Bens minders to keep it to as less of a distraction to the playing group as a whole as possible. They chose to ignore it rather than suspend Ben and demand he gets his act together. In other words as long as we are winning who cares! This is the exact bs Essendon are being done for now. Complete lack of regard for player welfare as long as they got success out of it.

As for Judd, pretty big coincidence and even if it wasn't a primary reason it was one of many I am sure.

No you aren't sure, you are making an assumption which doesn't hold water once you examine it. If you remain good friends with the guys who forced you to leave your former work, that person is an idiot. I'd also like to know why given the amount of stuff that has happened at Carlton since he's been there (Fevola, Stevens, Robinson, booze cruise, Garlett, Fireman Scotland etc) he hasn't left them as well given he left the Eagles for similar? If Judd left due to moral reasons at the Eagles, he is a massive hypocrite for still hanging around the main culprits and tolerating the same bad behaviour at his new club.

We didn't do as much as we could have but as for turning a blind eye, do you honestly think Adelaide's been squeaky clean? As I said earlier i've spoke with one of your former players who was there in the mid 00's and he said drug use was common at the club. But hey if you choose not to believe me, there is this quote from a 2007 article as well:

Angwin's point is backed by a former AFL coach of impeccable character and high standing. He tells the story of a Crows star (with reputed shady connections) taking a fishing tackle box on a team trip. Inside were not hooks and sinkers, just dozens of brightly coloured pills. Drugs.

Care to comment on why Adelaide allowed such things to occur? It doesn't say if the coach was at Adelaide or not, but if he was at another club and knew about it then there would be no way the Adelaide hierarchy didn't know about it either.

All clubs have skeletons in their closet and various degrees of blind eyes have been turned to them, anyone preaching otherwise is deluded. Ours got exposed, a lot of others got to be quietly swept under the rug.