What a joke

[Wildmanwok]

Hung, drawn and quartered....without a trial.

Absolute disgrace.

WCE / AFL need to explain why natural justice is being denied.

And found with Diazepram, lock him up, throw away the key... what a joke.

 

[walken79]

Hung, drawn and quartered....without a trial.

Absolute disgrace.

WCE / AFL need to explain why natural justice is being denied.

And found with Diazepram, lock him up, throw away the key... what a joke.

I'm still trying to figure it all out....

 

[bomberboy5]

????

He refused to be tested for drugs. Clearly enough in the eyes of the West Coast Board and their lawyers to tear up his contract.

Acting as if this is his first offence while at the club.

Everyone needs to get a grip, WCE would never have sacked him unless they felt there was no other option.

 

[Penski]

Hung, drawn and quartered....without a trial.

Absolute disgrace.

WCE / AFL need to explain why natural justice is being denied.

And found with Diazepram, lock him up, throw away the key... what a joke.

Natural justice in terms of the Law will be served through the courts.

He had a different contract with the club, which was basically "screw up, and you're gone". It did not say that if you did something small it's okay. It was black and white, and he knew it (as did the rest of the country).

Where's the confusion?

By the way, i don't know why you have dragged the AFL into this, as WC cancelling his contract automatically means he is deregistered. It was not a separate action undertaken by the AFL. I don't think the AFL have become involved in any way as yet.

 

[Scruff83]

They also found two as yet unidentified pills. I think theirs alot more to this whats been made public.

 

[Caraboo]

So it's ok to get caught in possession of a chemical drug that is a controlled substance by way of a prescription when you don't actually have a prescription for it?

This when you are already on major notice for prior indescretions and are fully aware of the consequences you will face, but it doesn't really matter because you are who you are and will talk your way out of it and/or think you are invincible?

Ok then.

 

[Wildmanwok]

Natural justice in terms of the Law will be served through the courts.

He had a different contract with the club, which was basically "screw up, and you're gone". It did not say that if you did something small it's okay. It was black and white, and he knew it (as did the rest of the country).

Where's the confusion?

By the way, i don't know why you have dragged the AFL into this, as WC cancelling his contract automatically means he is deregistered. It was not a separate action undertaken by the AFL. I don't think the AFL have become involved in any way as yet.

So if he is cleared of everything by the court, where to for WCE?

Is being arrested called screwing up?

If it is, they have set a dangerous precedent. If the AFL allows them to tear up his contract (as they have) they are setting a dangerous precedent.

So a player is done for drink driving - tear up his contract.
So a player is arrested for something he hasn't done - tear up his contract.

He has been found guilty under law of NOTHING... yet

 

[bomberboy5]

So if he is cleared of everything by the court, where to for WCE?

Is being arrested called screwing up?

If it is, they have set a dangerous precedent. If the AFL allows them to tear up his contract (as they have) they are setting a dangerous precedent.

So a player is done for drink driving - tear up his contract.
So a player is arrested for something he hasn't done - tear up his contract.

He has been found guilty under law of NOTHING... yet

Load of crap, what a total load of crap.

Go look at his history.

Then go look at what the eagles did for him just this year.

The precadent is, get in trouble we will back you, keep getting in trouble and you might no longer have a job. Pretty simple, sensible and lenient precedent.

 

[Penski]

So if he is cleared of everything by the court, where to for WCE?

Is being arrested called screwing up?

If it is, they have set a dangerous precedent. If the AFL allows them to tear up his contract (as they have) they are setting a dangerous precedent.

So a player is done for drink driving - tear up his contract.
So a player is arrested for something he hasn't done - tear up his contract.

He has been found guilty under law of NOTHING... yet

The circumstances around this are enough for WC to act. But don't confuse his circumstances with your average player. Most average players are not on their absolute final chance like Ben was.

They don't have the history Ben does, the associations Ben does and numerous instances of behavioural issues that Ben does. WC are right to act if his actions put the club into disrepute, and that point cannot be denied.

Like I said, the Law will sort itself out through the courts, but his contract with WC is a separate issue.

 

[Scruff83]

So a player is done for drink driving - tear up his contract.
So a player is arrested for something he hasn't done - tear up his contract.

He has been found guilty under law of NOTHING... yet

I agree with this. Really surprised they dumped him without him being convicted of anything. But as I said before, theirs probably more to it then we've been made aware of. Either that or they've just bowed to the public/media pressure.

 

[Caraboo]

So if he is cleared of everything by the court, where to for WCE?

Is being arrested called screwing up?

If it is, they have set a dangerous precedent. If the AFL allows them to tear up his contract (as they have) they are setting a dangerous precedent.

So a player is done for drink driving - tear up his contract.
So a player is arrested for something he hasn't done - tear up his contract.

He has been found guilty under law of NOTHING... yet

Oh have some perspective! It doesn't work as simply as that and you know it.

If a player who has already had prior issues that could easily fall under 'bringing the game into disrepute' and he gets done for the drink driving, then yeah, tear up the bloody contract!

If a player with the same type of history is arrested for something he hasn't done, but there was sufficient evidence to arrest him at the time, even if it turns out to be wrong place, wrong time, the questions still have to be asked, so how the hell did you come to be there in the first place. If the answers are anything short of 'i was kidnapped and held against my will', then it is more than reasonable he has a social relationship with the others there who are doing the things they shouldn't be and yeah, bloody oath, tear up the bloody contract! Why? Because this lot get enough chances as it is. If they are too egotistical or too stupid to make sure those they are associating with aren't going to lead them into any more trouble, then they deserve whatever punishment they get.

 

[mattdavies_03]

I agree with this. Really surprised they dumped him without him being convicted of anything. But as I said before, theirs probably more to it then we've been made aware of. Either that or they've just bowed to the public/media pressure.

They havent bowed to pressure.

After the incident earlier this year, he was suspended indefinately by the club. He then checked into a Rehab facility in Malibu, did a number of weeks there and then came back to West Coast, hoping to play again.
The Eagles allowed him to do so, under the agreement that they add clauses to his contract. The jist of these were

• Regular drug tests - fail one and you are gone
• No involvement with police, aka, getting arrested, charged, convicted of something
• No involvement with unsavoury characters - drug dealers, drug addicts

Now he has most definately failed one of those. He was arrested and charged. Therefore there is a reason to terminate his contract. He knew of the consequences if he broke one of these clauses, yet still got himself arrested for having pills and got charged for refusing to take a blood test.

IMO West Coast have given him far too many chances, and he has broken the clauses that were set out to him when he returned in July, therefore his contract was terminated

 

[Wildmanwok]

So your perfectly happy to be sacked because you get arrested for something you haven't done.

Before a trial.

Thats logic.

 

[Wildmanwok]

They havent bowed to pressure.

After the incident earlier this year, he was suspended indefinately by the club. He then checked into a Rehab facility in Malibu, did a number of weeks there and then came back to West Coast, hoping to play again.
The Eagles allowed him to do so, under the agreement that they add clauses to his contract. The jist of these were

• Regular drug tests - fail one and you are gone
• No involvement with police, aka, getting arrested, charged, convicted of something
• No involvement with unsavoury characters - drug dealers, drug addicts

Now he has most definately failed one of those. He was arrested and charged. Therefore there is a reason to terminate his contract. He knew of the consequences if he broke one of these clauses, yet still got himself arrested for having pills and got charged for refusing to take a blood test.

IMO West Coast have given him far too many chances, and he has broken the clauses that were set out to him when he returned in July, therefore his contract was terminated

And exactly what control over being arrested does he have?
None.

 

[mattdavies_03]

So your perfectly happy to be sacked because you get arrested for something you haven't done.

Before a trial.

Thats logic.

He agreed to the terms did he not?

One of those terms being no arrest and no charge. He was arrested and charged. Pretty clear cut if you ask me

Break a rule ----> Face the consequences

 

[Wildmanwok]

Being arrested and charged is totally out of his control.

You can be arrested and charge with dangerous driving for crossing a yellow line.

You can be arrested and charged with intent to commit a burglarly if you are caught with a wheel changing jimmy bar in your back sack.

Its crap.

Sack him once he is found guilty, no problems from me.

But to be sacked because of a presumption of guilt before innocence is wrong in every essence of our society.

 

[fugu]

So your perfectly happy to be sacked because you get arrested for something you haven't done.

Before a trial.

Thats logic.

If Cousin's isn't happy with being sacked he can sue for breach of contract. If he's got a case he'll probably win. Do you know the details of his contract?

 

[Scotland]

Opposition supporters bagging West Coast for acting. How the wheel has turned.

If West Coast sat on their hands and did nothing until all charges were heard and verdicts handed down before acting, they would be copping it for trying to down play the issue, and give Cousins yet another 'last chance'.

It is unfortunate that it had to happen, but the player knew what was expected of him, and the club made the right call.

 

[Caraboo]

.

But to be sacked because of a presumption of guilt before innocence is wrong in every essence of our society.

Who said he was sacked with a presumption of unproven guilt?

Sacked for proven breach of agreed upon conditions, yes. Nothing more.

 

[Wildmanwok]

If Cousin's isn't happy with being sacked he can sue for breach of contract. If he's got a case he'll probably win. Do you know the details of his contract?

No i dont know his contract but I knbow one thing, it has to be within the law. The law provide that wonderful thing innocent until proven guilty.

Sack him by all means once he has been proven guilty. No problems by me.

 

[Scotland]

If Cousin's isn't happy with being sacked he can sue for breach of contract. If he's got a case he'll probably win. Do you know the details of his contract?

West Coast do. West Coast terminated the contract. I would back the West Coast legal team to look at a contract prior to terminating it, personally.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

So your perfectly happy to be sacked because you get arrested for something you haven't done.

Before a trial.

Thats logic.

I would suspect that the official line is that he has been sacked for refusing to take a blood test. Whatever the end result of his court case, I don't think his refusal to take the blood test has been called into question. It's a statement of fact. And more importantly, it contravenes the spirit of his contract.

That is why he has been sacked.

If the subsequent court case finds him guilty, it just adds to the validity of the decision.

Besides, it's wrong to apply legal logic to this situation. The presumption of innocence holds true in a court of law, but not in the court of public opinion. Given the nature of footy clubs (ie, being publicly very visible organisations) I don't see a problem with any of them sacking a player for damaging their brand. And in Cousins' case, that has happened regardless of whether he is guilty or innocent.

It's a bit like the Braun incident. Swearing isn't exactly a crime, but it still damaged the WCE/AFL brand and they acted accordingly. The same situation applies to Cousins'... just to a greater degree.

 

[Wildmanwok]

I hope you get sacked for being arrested one day.
We will see if you think its fair that you are sacked before your trial, especially if your acquitted.

 

[Murray]

Hung, drawn and quartered....without a trial.

Absolute disgrace.

WCE / AFL need to explain why natural justice is being denied.

And found with Diazepram, lock him up, throw away the key... what a joke.

The Courts will deal with the Law side of it as they should (and started to today)

He broke his contract with the Club (AFL) and was dismissed.

Now, what part of that are you having difficulty understanding?

 

[thejester]

Hung, drawn and quartered....without a trial.

Absolute disgrace.

WCE / AFL need to explain why natural justice is being denied.

And found with Diazepram, lock him up, throw away the key... what a joke.

Wtf are you on about? Since when has due process applied to your job?