OT/ Ben Cousins.

[jenny61_99]

What problem?! Addiction to Panadol?

Made me laugh that one!

Booking into a rehab center is not the same as coming out and publicly saying, yes I am addicted to a banned substance!

Club has the right to punish him and its sounds like they will but AFL really can't do too much here.

I can't believe you are that naive to believe he checked into this exclusive clinic for panadol addiction (or anything equally as trivial) and I don't believe anyone else does either. AFL can certainly sanction the Eagles for failing to act (in a manner to ensure this didn't occur). Whether they can or should sanction Ben is another question. Personally, I don't think they should as long as West Coast do.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Made me laugh that one!



I can't believe you are that naive to believe he checked into this exclusive clinic for panadol addiction (or anything equally as trivial) and I don't believe anyone else does either. AFL can certainly sanction the Eagles for failing to act (in a manner to ensure this didn't occur). Whether they can or should sanction Ben is another question. Personally, I don't think they should as long as West Coast do.

Well now we come around.

I am not saying that Ben is addicted to panadol. He certainly has a problem of some sort but none of us know for certain what substace we are talking about. Is it a banned substance or is it something that is not banned but still harmful to Ben. We are all working on the assumptions here and until Ben himself or on his behalf comes out and says that he was or is addicted to a banned substance then there is nothing the AFL can do.

And you are right that AFL can sanction the Eagles but what can they do to Ben himself? Nothing. Thats why AFL is putting the pressure on the Eagles to tighten up on their players and Ben in particular but other than target testing, there really isn't much the AFL can do to Ben.

Punishing the club or player are 2 different issues here.

 

[rayven]

One things for sure West Coasts chaplin aint going to say his club has no Drug issue.

But he should be able too.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

He has to front the media shortly and give a press conference as to what his distractions and contraband of choice is as well as other things before he can pull on the jumper again.

 

[Crow-mo]

And for those who dont think he had/has a drug problem need to ask why he went to the US...certainly wasnt a holiday

PR stunt wasn't it?

turns up for work on match days.
performs well
never failed a drug test...

what problem?

 

[Crow-mo]

I am not saying that Ben is addicted to panadol. He certainly has a problem of some sort but none of us know for certain what substace we are talking about. Is it a banned substance or is it something that is not banned but still harmful to Ben. We are all working on the assumptions here and until Ben himself or on his behalf comes out and says that he was or is addicted to a banned substance then there is nothing the AFL can do.

And you are right that AFL can sanction the Eagles but what can they do to Ben himself? Nothing. Thats why AFL is putting the pressure on the Eagles to tighten up on their players and Ben in particular but other than target testing, there really isn't much the AFL can do to Ben.

indeed. all the superficial, circumstantial and hysterical analysis being thrown around might suggest a course of action... but that is just making money for Cousins and his lawyers. coke isn't the only substance missing from this case.

"Your honour, we plead not guilty to all charges brought about by the Cousins family, under the everyone knows defence".

 

[Crow-mo]

He has to front the media shortly and give a press conference as to what his distractions and contraband of choice is as well as other things before he can pull on the jumper again.

if that's true, I guess the AFL is just lucky that ole Benny isn't more litigious...

after all, if the club refuse to admit him back - they will have to de-register him. then the league can bar him from signing with someone else, and then the whole charade gos up in smoke; or he just signs somewhere else.

Perhap Benny will get tired of playing along with this pantomine?

 

[beck*]

Did you see the hat he was wearing at the airport?
Clearly the man is still on drugs.

 

[jenny61_99]

Did you see the hat he was wearing at the airport?
Clearly the man is still on drugs.

Nah, clearly a man who didn't have someone telling him "You aren't going to wear THAT???" before he got on the plane.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

if that's true, I guess the AFL is just lucky that ole Benny isn't more litigious...

after all, if the club refuse to admit him back - they will have to de-register him. then the league can bar him from signing with someone else, and then the whole charade gos up in smoke; or he just signs somewhere else.

Perhap Benny will get tired of playing along with this pantomine?

Firstly all player contracts have so many clauses in them that they must toe both the AFL and club line. Even if he decided to take the big risk and take them on, you would have to be Bill Gates to afford such action. The club would also want something for him.

Second if he hasn't done anything in his eyes wrong, why hasn't he fronted the media before now and stated his case. And the big point here is and I don't believe if this is true, his future after football. He hasn't thought this part through. No one would want him in their club, or media outlet, or whatever after he finishes football if it was a fact. So why hasn't he?

No way he wants this panto to end, he loves all the attention, just have to see the constant smerk on his puss.

 

[sharpie]

I think the Club should impose the 12 week ban (5 down, 7 to go) to show they are serious. I am not sure the AFL should have any further say, but they certainly have grounds to IMO.

I don't think you'll see ben for WCE before rd 13 anyways.

Regardless of whether they have banned him - he won't play until late into season if he gets back this year - so in effect it is 12 weeks from footy.

he'll probably play for east freo for a while and destroy sides - but he still needs AFL approval for that!

the 3 strike punishment is 12 weeks - he'll cop that and more anyway

 

[jenny61_99]

I don't think you'll see ben for WCE before rd 13 anyways.

Regardless of whether they have banned him - he won't play until late into season if he gets back this year - so in effect it is 12 weeks from footy.

he'll probably play for east freo for a while and destroy sides - but he still needs AFL approval for that!

the 3 strike punishment is 12 weeks - he'll cop that and more anyway

I wonder if that would be the case if the team wasn't winning?

 

[macca23]

I don't think you'll see ben for WCE before rd 13 anyways.

Regardless of whether they have banned him - he won't play until late into season if he gets back this year - so in effect it is 12 weeks from footy.

he'll probably play for east freo for a while and destroy sides - but he still needs AFL approval for that!

the 3 strike punishment is 12 weeks - he'll cop that and more anyway

Let's not flirt with facts here.

Ben Cousins, due to admitted substance abuse of some undefined nature, has not been in a fit state to play AFL football by his own doing and his own choice.

Any penalty from the AFL should commence from either the time he admits his problem publicly or the time he is fit enough to resume, whichever is first.

 

[rayven]

Any penalty from the AFL should commence from either the time he admits his problem publicly or the time he is fit enough to resume, whichever is first.

But what has he been charged with??

 

[maccas_no1]

Did you see the hat he was wearing at the airport?
Clearly the man is still on drugs.

Hahhahaha GOLD

He might come out and say he is shaking up with Thorpey

 

[birdmanptr]

this furore is all over his drug taking.

the only reason the game has been brought into disrepute is becaue the media got hold of it and went bananas - which is there prerogative.

However - there are 25-odd other players who have tested positive to drug use and their actions are the same - it is just that they haven't been bandied around the media.

Surely one's actions can't be judged by the media it attracts - surely it must be assessed on the severity of the crime.

People are calling for punishment with cousins - remembering a 12 week suspension is applied to third strike people. Cousins will get 12 weeks from the club anyway - so he is still being punished.

But IF the AFL choose to punish cousins further for his actions - they have to punish the other 25 equally.

CRAP he will be playing by round 10 maybe earlier all his punisment will be is going to schools ect and talking about dont do drugs

unless you are a really good footballer like me then you will get away with it

 

[sharpie]

CRAP he will be playing by round 10 maybe earlier all his punisment will be is going to schools ect and talking about dont do drugs

unless you are a really good footballer like me then you will get away with it

let me assure you he won't be playing before rd 12

 

[Mad Dog]

Cousins should be banned for 12 months - commencing from the date of admission of addiction

Just because he wasn't detected thru testing - doesn't mean he hasn't broken Drug Policy.


burn the witch !

.....end of thread

 

[Stiffy_18]

Cousins should be banned for 12 months - commencing from the date of admission of addiction

Just because he wasn't detected thru testing - doesn't mean he hasn't broken Drug Policy.


burn the witch !

.....end of thread

Yeah but, what if he admits to substance abuse without actually clarifying what the substance is?

In that case the AFL wouldn't have leg to stand on as far as suspending him.

If he comes out and admits to being addicted to a banned substance then they can suspend him.

 

[Mad Dog]

Yeah but, what if he admits to substance abuse without actually clarifying what the substance is?

In that case the AFL wouldn't have leg to stand on as far as suspending him.

If he comes out and admits to being addicted to a banned substance then they can suspend him.

true - but would we think that there's a legal substance that he might be addicted to ?

We've heard the Panadol rumours - but I doubt they're true.

Admission to addiction would suggest a banned substance is involved and I would hope the aFL would demand an explanation as to what

 

[Stiffy_18]

true - but would we think that there's a legal substance that he might be addicted to ?

We've heard the Panadol rumours - but I doubt they're true.

Admission to addiction would suggest a banned substance is involved and I would hope the aFL would demand an explanation as to what

Panadol reference is more of a trying to prove a point thing rather than the truth. Since there was no official announcement as to what drug is in question, the AFL has its hands tied. We can all speculate but without cold hard fact and proof, he really can't be banned by the AFL or ADADA/WADA.

Admission to addiction might suggest a banned substance but it doesn't prove it. I suspect Ben has seeked legal advice as to what exactly he can say without compromising his playing future. The AFL might ask questions but the bottom line is, Ben doesn't have to tell them what his addiction is. Its his private health issue and if he chooses to keep it private then the AFL can't for him to reveal it.

I think a lot of this depends of what exactly Ben says in his press conference tommorrow. If he tells us what he is addicted to and as we all suspect, it turns out to be a banned substance, then the AFL can do something about it.

 

[macca23]

But what has he been charged with??

He hasn't, but he should be. He didn't go to the States for a holiday - it was specifically to attend an elite drug rehabilatation clinic.

He should admit the real situation in his press conference tomorrow. maybe he won't, but for his own welfare he needs to.

If that includes admitting that he has been a constant user of drugs, then surely a price has to be paid for that.

 

[Crow-mo]

what about the flipside?

if we start banning people without positive tests - what then?

 

[- PC -]

what about the flipside?

if we start banning people without positive tests - what then?

Crows win a Prelim?

 

[Crow-mo]

Crows win a Prelim?

Excellent! Motion carried.