OT: Ben Cousins

[Blue Red and Gold]

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.

what are all these indesrections? I know we have them but lets compare apples with apples.

Sure they punished him by taking away his captaincy, how did this act as a deterrent?

He has finally "hung the player out to dry" and he is finally getting help, why didnt this happen earlier?

 

[Blue Red and Gold]

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?

that is a token gesture

 

[Stephen2]

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]

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]

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]

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.

The rookie would be rissoled and allowed to continue with their drug habit, which would get progressively worse without any assistance.

No question about it at all.

 

[Stephen2]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Mego Red]

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]

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 ), 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.

 

[Mego Red]

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 ), 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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://westcoasteagles.com.au/Season...x?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]

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 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?

 

[Mego Red]

Of course, the thing that perhaps makes this worse is that Caro's article in the Age says that it's actually methamphetamine that Cousins is having most problems with, not cocaine - and crystal can REALLY mess you up. LINK

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Of course, the thing that perhaps makes this worse is that Caro's article in the Age says that it's actually methamphetamine that Cousins is having most problems with, not cocaine - and crystal can REALLY mess you up. LINK

And coke can't?

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.

 

[Mego Red]

And coke can't?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?