Cousins

Remove this Banner Ad

igt22265 said:
Gutter response.
No further posts to this tripe.
Click to expand...

Carlton is the last club that should be complaining about the eagles off-field dramas. If you dont want to see you team (carlton) play then that is entirely upto you.

Im sure you watched Carlton not make the finals while breaching the salary cap. The blues are no angels themselves.

To be honest here Cousins has done nothing illegal in regards to the AFL, hasnt breached any AFL laws. What he did breach was his contract with the West Coast Eagles, which was dealt with internally by suspending him indefinately.

Grow up mate.
 
Tyberious Funk said:
I think you'll find that most Eagles supporters will agree that a 12 match suspension is pretty reasonable. This would make eligible to play in Round 13. Assuming, of course, that he meets other various criteria.

Punishing him more than this just encourages players (and their clubs) to keep this sort of thing under wraps even more heavily than they currently are.
Click to expand...
Nope, it should be 12 games from the time he is ready to play. At the moment, the club suspension is for breach of club rules and according to so many of the denialists from the eagles camp, it had nothing to do with drugs. They say there is no proof as yet of drug use, so therefore the club cannot have suspended him for drug use either.

12 weeks from when he is ready to play. I'd suggest he wont be ready to play for at least 6 weeks and then it should be 12 weeks from there.
 
FuManchu said:
Nope, it should be 12 games from the time he is ready to play. At the moment, the club suspension is for breach of club rules and according to so many of the denialists from the eagles camp, it had nothing to do with drugs. They say there is no proof as yet of drug use, so therefore the club cannot have suspended him for drug use either.

12 weeks from when he is ready to play. I'd suggest he wont be ready to play for at least 6 weeks and then it should be 12 weeks from there.[/quote]

They dont need proof. He admitted to taking the drugs! Under the rules the AFL cannot suspend a player unless he has been found to have failed a drug test. Ben Cousins has not failed a single test therefore warrants no suspension from the AFL, the only suspension which applies is the internal punishment dished out by the West Coast Eagles.
Click to expand...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

FuManchu said:
12 weeks from when he is ready to play. I'd suggest he wont be ready to play for at least 6 weeks and then it should be 12 weeks from there.
Click to expand...
But who imposes the ban?

The AFL?

What would he be banned for? Cousins has never returned a positive drug test, so there's nothing to trigger their official drug code sanctions.

The only way Cousins can cop a 12-week ban, despite not returning any positive test, is if the ban is an unofficial club ban.

The AFL doesn't have the evidence to enact its own 12-week ban.

But the Eagles are within their rights to impose that same ban in-house.

That's exactly what is happening as we speak. Cousins is 5 weeks in to his 12-week ban.
 
Gunnar Longshanks said:
Cousins has been tested several times.

He's never been busted.

But if Cousins misses the first twelve weeks, he would have copped the most severe ban allowed for a player returning three positive tests.

You're acting like he's getting off scott-free, but in reality, a 12-week absence if the harshest penalty possible under the drugs code.

The AFL can't do much, because Cousins hasn't tested positive. The club is the one in the position to determine how long Cousins should sit out. I imagine they'll keep the AFL happy, and impose an unofficial 12-week ban that faces players who return three tests. He's already 5 weeks in.

I don't see how you could ask for a tougher penalty without improving policy and making up an arbitrary penalty.
Click to expand...

He has been in re-hab mate so suspension is meaningless he woulda missed games due to his health anyway. The suspension should start once he is fit and healthy 12 weeks or whatever the rule is.
 
daddy who is that? tahts son is Daniel Kerr, he used to be a courier for a dealer.

daddy and who is that? that son is ben cousins, he does drugs and fly's overseas to avoid testing, and the AFL throw some money his way too!

and daddy who is that? that son is fletcher, he got so high on drugs he almost died.

and daddy who is that? that son is selwood, he reckons he shags girls that look around 6 years old

daddy are they bad men? no son, the AFL says they have done nothing wrong, if you want to be a champion just do what they do! and dont worry the AFL wont do anything about it...
 
Kakano said:
The suspension should start once he is fit and healthy 12 weeks or whatever the rule is.
Click to expand...
Well, why don't you tell me what the rule is.

As far as I know, you have to return three positive tests before getting banned by the league. That's the rule.

Cousins has never tested positive, so what grounds exist for him to banned by the league?

The club acted independently by suspending him. When that suspension ends, he'll be eiligible to play.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

dan warna said:
daddy who is that? tahts son is Daniel Kerr, he used to be a courier for a dealer.

daddy and who is that? that son is ben cousins, he does drugs and fly's overseas to avoid testing, and the AFL throw some money his way too!

and daddy who is that? that son is fletcher, he got so high on drugs he almost died.

and daddy who is that? that son is selwood, he reckons he shags girls that look around 6 years old

daddy are they bad men? no son, the AFL says they have done nothing wrong, if you want to be a champion just do what they do! and dont worry the AFL wont do anything about it...
Click to expand...
And yet St. Kilda recruit Gardiner
 
JedMack said:
Gunnar, do you think Cousins will play this year?
Click to expand...
Provided he does everything right now that he's back in Perth.

There will some incredibly stringent conditions imposed by the club, but if he ticks those boxes, I think he could return sometime after R12.

Two weeks ago, I was less optimistic. But the fact that he's returned from Malibu gives an indication of the timeframe.

If West Coast weren't expecting him to play this season, why would they bring him back from rehab early?
 
Gunnar Longshanks said:
Well, why don't you tell me what the rule is.

As far as I know, you have to return three positive tests before getting banned by the league. That's the rule.

Cousins has never tested positive, so what grounds exist for him to banned by the league?

The club acted independently by suspending him. When that suspension ends, he'll be eiligible to play.
Click to expand...

good one, lets hope a heap of kids emulate Cousins!!!! and kerr!!!!

people to watch and follow.

need more kids to smuggle drugs across the country as well.

mebbe some horse tranquilisers too!

great.

these are people who should be emulated, because you know that you have done 'nothing wrong'
 
skipper kelly said:
disrepute.
Click to expand...
What does that even mean?

The reality is that the AFL has made a conscious effort to make all of its processes as transparent as possible. Look at the tribunal. Look at the drug code. They want everyone to know the rules, the procedure and the guidelines for imposing sanctions.

Invoking this wishy-washy disrepute rule would run totally counter to that. No-one knows when the disrepute rule should be applied. No-one knows about the process. No-one knows about the way penanlties are determined.

Players who take drugs should be dealt with according to the league's drug policy. That's what it is there for.

What's the point of having a drug policy with pre-determined penalties if the league just arbitrality adds on a vaguely-defined disrepute sanction whenever the mob demands?
 
They suspended Leigh Matthews outside the rules of football at the time. He was not reported by the umpire for striking Neville Bruns, but was still deregistered for 4 weeks.

Same thing should happen here. What is happening is completely against the spirit of the game and sport in general. Utterly ridiculous, and as I said before, A JOKE.
 
dan warna said:
daddy who is that? tahts son is Daniel Kerr, he used to be a courier for a dealer.

daddy and who is that? that son is ben cousins, he does drugs and fly's overseas to avoid testing, and the AFL throw some money his way too!

and daddy who is that? that son is fletcher, he got so high on drugs he almost died.

and daddy who is that? that son is selwood, he reckons he shags girls that look around 6 years old

daddy are they bad men? no son, the AFL says they have done nothing wrong, if you want to be a champion just do what they do! and dont worry the AFL wont do anything about it...
Click to expand...

You are a joke mate! Ben Cousins was tested last year, this year and before he left for rehab and all tests were negative. The AFL did not say any of them have done nothing wrong. Stop your whinging

If your going to start this then maybe West Coast supporters can bring back the topic of Milne and Montagna being involved in...............

Your just jealous of the eagles for 1992, 1994 and 2006 when the saints can only manage one flag after all these years.
 
Gunnar Longshanks said:
Well, why don't you tell me what the rule is.

As far as I know, you have to return three positive tests before getting banned by the league. That's the rule.

Cousins has never tested positive, so what grounds exist for him to banned by the league?

The club acted independently by suspending him. When that suspension ends, he'll be eiligible to play.
Click to expand...

True enough i am not clear with the rule, but if hes allowed to play the moment hes match fit it is implying that drug cheats who do not get caught by the drug testing system can come out publicly get treatment free of charge ,on behalf of club, then once they leave rehab they can start playing again as if nothing as happened.
 
pistol17 said:
FuManchu said:
Nope, it should be 12 games from the time he is ready to play. At the moment, the club suspension is for breach of club rules and according to so many of the denialists from the eagles camp, it had nothing to do with drugs. They say there is no proof as yet of drug use, so therefore the club cannot have suspended him for drug use either.

12 weeks from when he is ready to play. I'd suggest he wont be ready to play for at least 6 weeks and then it should be 12 weeks from there.[/quote]

They dont need proof. He admitted to taking the drugs! Under the rules the AFL cannot suspend a player unless he has been found to have failed a drug test. Ben Cousins has not failed a single test therefore warrants no suspension from the AFL, the only suspension which applies is the internal punishment dished out by the West Coast Eagles.
Click to expand...

here's a little excerpt from todays Age

It seems that there are some in the AFL who believe they can suspend him.

The drug testing regime of the AFL is not the only means by which an AFL can be suspended for drug use. It is only one methond of notification.

Imagine the example where a player is seen to be using drugs in public. It is verified and credible, do you propose that the AFL wait until he is caught 3 times before penalising?

Anyway, read this little bit


But it is understood Anderson and AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick have refused to rule out imposing heavy sanctions on Cousins if he admits to drug abuse tomorrow on the controversy that threatens to sideline him for the rest of the season.
It is believed the league will regard any public admission from Cousins that he used drugs as a breach of its illicit drugs policy and suspend the 28-year-old.
Click to expand...
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Cousins

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top