The AFL has pretty much said that their main aim with the illicit drug policy is to privately focus on the education/rehabilitation side of things, before taking public punitive measures against the players. In a roundabout way, has the media given the AFL the perfect reason to keep the names of the 26 positives private? Do you think the media would not all orgasm over the first strike for a player and make it near on impossible to for a player to privately and effectively focus on their drug problem? Cousins had to basically flee the country to try and get help, imagine if the 26 other players had to do the same thing. Despite the public battering they have gotten, I think for once the D!ckheads down at the Docklands may have finally gotten something right, and were helped in part by the media vultures.
Has the Cousins saga vindicated the rationale behind the AFL Drug Policy?
- Thread starter AndyD
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Rationale? Cousins wasn't caught or helped by the AFLs 'system' (generous description). His 'substance abuse' problem under the AFLs great welfare system got so bad that while they were fining players for legally betting $10 on the footy, he was staggering the streets of Melbourne and Kerr was bashing taxi drivers at hospitals. It became so obvious that the Eagles sorted it themselves (sort of).Yeah they finally got it right. 
Are you playing the Melbourne comedy festival next year? Better than Hughsie mate.
Are you playing the Melbourne comedy festival next year? Better than Hughsie mate.
Firstly, only 3 players have tested positive twice. Secondly, what you are asking is different to the OP. He is talking about the AFL's response to positive tests.
The system didn't pick up Cousins because they do not test enough and they do not test at random enough times. The amount of testing can be increased within the current system. So there is no need to change the system. I agree with the OP, the way Cousins has been treated by everyone from the media to the fans makes me understand the way the system is.
Yeah, I'll pay that. must be too late.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the AFL have a no-tolerance policy. However, the current system, taking everything into account, failed to pick up Cousins, who was a substance abuser.
Therefore the system, for the simple reason that the testing procedure was infrequent, has failed Cousins and therefore is simply not adequate. If they were to substancially increase testing in order to increase the chances of catching all the other Cousins's out there, then the system as a whole would be more effective.
I could be wrong, but I think the OP was referring to the anonymity of people who have tested positive, rather on the effectiveness of the testing itself. I tend to agree with the OP; however I think that there should be certain conditions to that anonymity. Maybe the player should have to prove to the AFL that they are making positive steps to stop using drugs or something similar.
I agree. The first one should be a freebie provided that certain AFL-sponsored counselling sessions are successfully completed. These sessions should last as long as the counsellor deems necessary. I also think the world or at least the club should know at the second test (after all, we all already know the current three double positives). As with before, the player should only be suspended after the third.
There definitely needs to be an increase in the amount of tests, variation of the timing of the tests and more targeted testing on suspect players. Otherwise, the system is just designed to not get any positive tests, which should not be the point of the system. With the system, positive tests can be dealt with quietly, unlike with the whole BC situation. If there are no positive tests, people go untreated and you get situations like BC.
Righto - the thing that I don't get about all this is why the AFL is intervening specifically in the Cousins case. Sure, he's in rehab, but there are a few other players who have returned two positive tests, and probably a number of others who have returned one - what is being done about them??
Cousins never tested positive, and he was tested 13-14 times (apparently - seems a ridiculous amount if there were only around 600 tests for 600 players..). There could be players everywhere battling addictions who are slipping through the net.
He checked into rehab, got himself sorted out (hopefully), and the Eagles I think have handled the matter reasonably well. Why does the AFL have to buy into it? It's a personal issue, not theirs. Why are Demetriou and co. flying all the way across the country to strike up some special contract which publicly outs Benny if he happens to test positive again? Has this been done with other players who have tested positive for recreational drugs?
Cousins' admission to his drug addiction was a step forward. Why now must the AFL try to make an example out of him - it's not like he's the only bloke in the AFL who's on drugs. Furthermore, it's a personal problem. As a marquee player, he does have some responsibility to the AFL as a role model - but did he ever sign up for that?
I'm tipping with the tight training regimens etc., not many AFL players binge drink these days - instead they pop pills. Know of one Hawthorn player during the pre-season who turned down an offer for drinks because he didn't want to be hungover - and popped pills instead.
Why make such an example of Cousins when for all intents and purposes he's done the right thing by 'coming out'?
Cousins never tested positive, and he was tested 13-14 times (apparently - seems a ridiculous amount if there were only around 600 tests for 600 players..). There could be players everywhere battling addictions who are slipping through the net.
He checked into rehab, got himself sorted out (hopefully), and the Eagles I think have handled the matter reasonably well. Why does the AFL have to buy into it? It's a personal issue, not theirs. Why are Demetriou and co. flying all the way across the country to strike up some special contract which publicly outs Benny if he happens to test positive again? Has this been done with other players who have tested positive for recreational drugs?
Cousins' admission to his drug addiction was a step forward. Why now must the AFL try to make an example out of him - it's not like he's the only bloke in the AFL who's on drugs. Furthermore, it's a personal problem. As a marquee player, he does have some responsibility to the AFL as a role model - but did he ever sign up for that?
I'm tipping with the tight training regimens etc., not many AFL players binge drink these days - instead they pop pills. Know of one Hawthorn player during the pre-season who turned down an offer for drinks because he didn't want to be hungover - and popped pills instead.
Why make such an example of Cousins when for all intents and purposes he's done the right thing by 'coming out'?
I think the difference with Cousins is that the media and the public has jumped on to it. The AFL therefore wants to be seen to be proactive in the situation. They don't want to punish Cousins as he did not test positive under their system. However, they want to ensure that he does not embarrass them again or at least if he does, he can be dealt with swiftly and the AFL's drug policy will not be made to look bad again. It is all damage control really.
to me it shows that they should have waited until some other sport put a policy in place first. It was always going to be an absolute minefield for whoever tried the first out of competition recreational testing, as it has shown to be.
The AFL, as the number one Australian sport, put in place a 'drugs policy' that was also number one in just about everything, but still got snookered by our little Benny's escapades.
Just what is that we/they should have waited for ?
The question a lot of people want answered is how it was possible for a player needing to enter into drug rehabilitation manage to escape the AFL's "extensive" drug testing system? Either test ALL the players, or don't test any.
What? But BC was tested a lot and not found out. They need to vary the time of the testing (ie not after a game always, but maybe after a long weekend). Anyway, methamphetamine based drugs (ice, pills, speed, etc) are out of your system in 24-48 hours so it will always be difficult to get positive tests.
Alphanumeric
Premiership Player
The system is working. For a start we haven't had a player test positive 3 times. Thats a good thing.
Also regarding Ben Cousins. People are saying the system doesn't work cause he wasn't caught. Maybe he wasn't caught because he didn't actually use drugs as heavily as what the media have made out.
TigerTragic
Senior List
Sigh...This was actually a really intelligent thread until this post...are there honestly still those of you in denial about this??
Gone Critical
Moderator
- Moderator
- #18
The AFL should not be testing for non performance enhancing drugs out of players working hours full stop. The idea that everyone who has used an illicit drug needs personal counselling and rehabilitation is ridiculous. The money our health system has set aside for drug rehab would be used in an instant. Employers i.e . the AFL have neither the right, expertise or background to do this. The potential legal problems of setting themselves up as a quasi policing service chasing their employers over illegal activities is a minefield that may blow up in their and the players face.
By all means be good employers and run education programs etc.
Please leave the questions of counselling, policing and rehabilitation to the experts (as is the case for everyone else) and the families of those involved. I certainly dont expect my employer to take reponsibility for these issues in my life and I would actively oppose them if they thought they should
And before anyone posts that they are highly paid and therefore are different to the rest, they are far from the most highly paid of our society and this shouldn't be used anyway as an excuse to deny people their basic rights.
By all means be good employers and run education programs etc.
Please leave the questions of counselling, policing and rehabilitation to the experts (as is the case for everyone else) and the families of those involved. I certainly dont expect my employer to take reponsibility for these issues in my life and I would actively oppose them if they thought they should
And before anyone posts that they are highly paid and therefore are different to the rest, they are far from the most highly paid of our society and this shouldn't be used anyway as an excuse to deny people their basic rights.
- Thread starter
- #19
Rationale? Cousins wasn't caught or helped by the AFLs 'system' (generous description). His 'substance abuse' problem under the AFLs great welfare system got so bad that while they were fining players for legally betting $10 on the footy, he was staggering the streets of Melbourne and Kerr was bashing taxi drivers at hospitals. It became so obvious that the Eagles sorted it themselves (sort of).Yeah they finally got it right.
Is comprehension beyond you. My point was the AFL got it right with keeping the names quiet, not the actual execution of the testing. If the players names were not kept secret, we would have had what we had with Cousins 24 times now.
someone else to do it first, whoever did it was always going to be used as a political pawn the minute something went wrong, then there was going to be a huge public debate, and whichever sport did it was always going to get their reputation tarnished.
The AFL, as the number one Australian sport, put in place a 'drugs policy' that was also number one in just about everything, but still got snookered by our little Benny's escapades.
Just what is that we/they should have waited for ?
I'll bet that every other sports administration body in the country is having a good laugh and a sigh of relief that it wasn't them with their heads on the chopping block.
so you're just saying the testing is sh1thouse then? I mean he was tested 14 times. to come back clear every time (considering he is a 'junkie addict') shows a pretty BIG flaw in their system!
- Banned
- #22
I'm dumbfounded that after all that has happened that the AFL and anyone else thinks testing for rec drugs has been a good idea and should be done more often?
1. It is not the AFL's business
2. It sheds an unecessary bad light on the game because of media and uneducated high horse hysteria from the public
3. Naming, shaming, and banning players does little towards helping the players who test +ve.
Enough of this stupidity and instead spend money on education, training, and rehab, and more importantly performance enhancing drugs.
Did people not listen to what Hird and his buddies said to the Govt?
And it gets worse: Swimming have just announced they will test for NPEDs. What business is it of theirs to go pry into people's private lives. I know what elite swimmer who loves the blow. All swimming will do is, like the AFL, open a huge can of unecessary worms and destroy some swimmers lives just because every now and then they like a snort or puff or whatever.
What is wrong with our society? Are we really this f***ing stupid?
1. It is not the AFL's business
2. It sheds an unecessary bad light on the game because of media and uneducated high horse hysteria from the public
3. Naming, shaming, and banning players does little towards helping the players who test +ve.
Enough of this stupidity and instead spend money on education, training, and rehab, and more importantly performance enhancing drugs.
Did people not listen to what Hird and his buddies said to the Govt?
And it gets worse: Swimming have just announced they will test for NPEDs. What business is it of theirs to go pry into people's private lives. I know what elite swimmer who loves the blow. All swimming will do is, like the AFL, open a huge can of unecessary worms and destroy some swimmers lives just because every now and then they like a snort or puff or whatever.
What is wrong with our society? Are we really this f***ing stupid?
Decisions are made be people who don't like drugs. Hence, they are happy to do the popular thing and seem like they are doing something about NPED's. I don't think swimmers should be concerned, I'm sure they will make sure all their tests are done midweek or after meets, like the AFL.
Some different & interesting intelligent posts here on subject many think has been done to death... in particular ThomasR well done all
My 2 bob It's all caused by the "entertainment"/ "role model" issue.
The AFL is a multi million business for high paid participants and it suffers if there is a scandal creating public moral issue or rejection & reaction... therefore AFL tried to have a "Claytons" approach that is really a lame policy just to try and shut things up.
Lets face it if they really were concerned about rec drug use they would have tested more rigourously, regularly and dob into police any 1st strikers... it is so "sweep under carpet" that they give player 3 goes/strikes and don't tell nobody even the club/employer.... all AFL care is if you do do drugs don't get yourself in trouble and make front page news... or bad vibe$$$.... which is what the West Coke Illegals did regularly and in particular BC... and for penalty now he had to become resurrected into an holy AD disciple
AS has been rightly pointed out already if they really gave a sh!t they would be hounding the 3 double timers or all 26... that is of course unless really "someone" DID already did go 3 times but would damage the $$$$$brand if such was public knowledge and dealt with???????
The only thing wrong with their policy is that it doesn't really help anyone in trouble and they keep secrets from the employer (club) who is likely to care most and policy is really a smoke screen farse.
BC is a AFL scapegoat but he brought it on himself by being careless reckless and inconsiderate and very conspicuous!!
FFS there is no reason for any action to BC according to public released stuff he is innocent or it all ought be secret... and could tell em to get stuffed nless there was "something more serious" hanging over his head
My 2 bob It's all caused by the "entertainment"/ "role model" issue.
The AFL is a multi million business for high paid participants and it suffers if there is a scandal creating public moral issue or rejection & reaction... therefore AFL tried to have a "Claytons" approach that is really a lame policy just to try and shut things up.
Lets face it if they really were concerned about rec drug use they would have tested more rigourously, regularly and dob into police any 1st strikers... it is so "sweep under carpet" that they give player 3 goes/strikes and don't tell nobody even the club/employer.... all AFL care is if you do do drugs don't get yourself in trouble and make front page news... or bad vibe$$$.... which is what the West Coke Illegals did regularly and in particular BC... and for penalty now he had to become resurrected into an holy AD disciple
AS has been rightly pointed out already if they really gave a sh!t they would be hounding the 3 double timers or all 26... that is of course unless really "someone" DID already did go 3 times but would damage the $$$$$brand if such was public knowledge and dealt with???????
The only thing wrong with their policy is that it doesn't really help anyone in trouble and they keep secrets from the employer (club) who is likely to care most and policy is really a smoke screen farse.
BC is a AFL scapegoat but he brought it on himself by being careless reckless and inconsiderate and very conspicuous!!
FFS there is no reason for any action to BC according to public released stuff he is innocent or it all ought be secret
... and could tell em to get stuffed nless there was "something more serious" hanging over his head
Alphanumeric
Premiership Player
Let me ask you two question.
Do you honestly think that if Ben Cousins was a drug addict / junkie the WCE would let him come back from rehab in 4 weeks??
Do you think the AFL and WCE are that stupid to think that Ben could get over a drug addiction in only 12 weeks and only 4 of those weeks in a rehab facility??
