OT: Ben Cousins

[macca23]

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

I totally endorse the Stiffmeister's remarks.

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]

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.

 

[rayven]

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]

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

 

[macca23]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Stiffy_18]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[rayven]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

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

You lost me here 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]

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

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]

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]

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