Cousins

[Clay Davis]

That's basically what is happening, except for the public admission.

He's been rubbed out for 12 weeks by the club, and the ban was from R1.

It should come from the AFL, is my point. The AFL is acting as if there is no problem - that it is a West Coast problem that West Coast will deal with. It's just further along line of the complete balls up that their drug code is.

It was a ridiculous situation where FFC, WCE and PAFC had to find out about their serial offenders last year through rumour rather than official source.

And now the AFL's inaction merely demonstrate that is soft on drugs. Now I couldn't really careless if Ben smoked ice with Chick, but what would annoy me is if some player is out there taking whatever kind of drug that makes them play better. Because the AFL's drug testing operation is full of more holes than an Irish condom.

 

[bzparkes]

Actually the AFL aren't free to impose their own penalty unless Cousins freely admits to drug use. More likely it'll stay at substance abuse. Basically, both parties wouldn't want this issue ending up in the high court. Why do you think the AFL haven't imposed anything as yet? You people may want to hang him out to dry but you also don't have to consider the legal implications of this matter. Like it or not, Cousins han't officially broken any rules of yet and if the AFL did punish him, one would assume WCE would have the right to take it to court because he hasn't actually broken any rules yet.

 

[FuManchu]

It should come from the AFL, is my point. The AFL is acting as if there is no problem - that it is a West Coast problem that West Coast will deal with. It's just further along line of the complete balls up that their drug code is.

Agreed

It was a ridiculous situation where FFC, WCE and PAFC had to find out about their serial offenders last year through rumour rather than official source.

As ridiculous as this arrangement is, it is the agreement with the AFL and the AFLPA that prevents proper disclosure and any naming is a breach of that agreement until the 3rd strike. Those named is pure speculation as the testing authority cant name them and the AFL are not notified until the 3rd strike. The AFL cant act. Stupid yes, Fact yes also.

 

[FuManchu]

Actually the AFL aren't free to impose their own penalty unless Cousins freely admits to drug use. More likely it'll stay at substance abuse. Basically, both parties wouldn't want this issue ending up in the high court. Why do you think the AFL haven't imposed anything as yet? You people may want to hang him out to dry but you also don't have to consider the legal implications of this matter. Like it or not, Cousins han't officially broken any rules of yet and if the AFL did punish him, one would assume WCE would have the right to take it to court because he hasn't actually broken any rules yet.

The AFL may act against the club for knowingly allowing a player to play in breach of their rules. The club have admitted his use, they stated they knew since last July. The club may not want to go down the path of civil action if it exposes them to AFL sanction. They may just cop Cousins penalty as they seem to be travelling nicely without him.

Put it down to poor judgement , learn their lessons and play on

 

[Clay Davis]

Actually the AFL aren't free to impose their own penalty unless Cousins freely admits to drug use. More likely it'll stay at substance abuse. Basically, both parties wouldn't want this issue ending up in the high court. Why do you think the AFL haven't imposed anything as yet? You people may want to hang him out to dry but you also don't have to consider the legal implications of this matter. Like it or not, Cousins han't officially broken any rules of yet and if the AFL did punish him, one would assume WCE would have the right to take it to court because he hasn't actually broken any rules yet.

Why would it end up in the High Court? What legal implications?

The WCE taking the AFL to court for suspending a known addict would be the most ridiculous thing to happen in the game.

Can you West Coast supporters take a step back for one second and actually perceive the damage your club is causing Australian Rules?

 

[Clay Davis]

Agreed



As ridiculous as this arrangement is, it is the agreement with the AFL and the AFLPA that prevents proper disclosure and any naming is a breach of that agreement until the 3rd strike. Those named is pure speculation as the testing authority cant name them and the AFL are not notified until the 3rd strike. The AFL cant act. Stupid yes, Fact yes also.

I know that's the situation, but it's interesting how with all these extra loopholes the AFL added, drug use among players seems to have become a much larger problem

 

[Lach72]

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.

Well, that seals it...

 

[bzparkes]

Why would it end up in the High Court? What legal implications?

The WCE taking the AFL to court for suspending a known addict would be the most ridiculous thing to happen in the game.

Can you West Coast supporters take a step back for one second and actually perceive the damage your club is causing Australian Rules?

The implications being that he hasn't actually tested positive, thus not breaking any rules of the AFL. I seriously doubt the WCE would take civil action and if the AFL decides to impose their own ban, then they shouldn't. However, legally he hasn't done, or admitted to, doing anything wrong and from a legal point of view, the AFL are powerless at present.

 

[FuManchu]

I know that's the situation, but it's interesting how with all these extra loopholes the AFL added, drug use among players seems to have become a much larger problem

they have someone red handed, nows the time to make an example of him as a deterent.

Its not as if Cousins was going to admit his drug use prior to the club suspending him for missing training sessions. Its not as if the club were going to admit Cousins was using drugs in a premiership year. It was only when the situation became that apparent that they acted and suspended him for reasons some find disingenuous. Indefinite suspension for missing training 5 times, or turning up in an unfit manner!!! Who do they think they are kidding?

 

[skipper kelly]

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?

None of that matters as disrepute can still be used if required.

 

[FuManchu]

The implications being that he hasn't actually tested positive, thus not breaking any rules of the AFL. I seriously doubt the WCE would take civil action and if the AFL decides to impose their own ban, then they shouldn't. However, legally he hasn't done, or admitted to, doing anything wrong and from a legal point of view, the AFL are powerless at present.

You are of the impression that the testing regime is the only way you can get done for drugs in the AFL, it obviously isnt, hence the AFL commission thinking about further penalty for breach of THEIR drug code

 

[dan warna]

Should Wayne Carey have been sanctioned by the AFL for bringing the game into disrepute?

Certainly his behaviour was not to be encouraged. It didn't set an example to the children who idolised him.

shagging your mates missus is a bit different from beinga drug courier, telling a bloke you shagged a girl that looks like his six year old daughter, doing ice, drink driving, abandoning your vehicle and running off, getting drunk and passing out in a public walk way, doing drugs and alcohol to the degree you nearly die....

 

[Biggie]

Nothing else to talk about then?

Bored already............

 

[Tyberious Funk]

He hasnt been suspended yet for breach of AFL rules. The suspension should take place from when the AFL impose their own penalty. The Eagles cant have it both ways, tolerate his drug use for so long until it suits them to suspend him. And then claim he was suspended for breaking club rules, not AFL drug rules. The club has itself to blame completely on this

I'm claiming the AFL and the Eagles impose suspensions for vastly different reasons. the Eagles stated their reasons, which did not mention breach of the AFL rules. The Eagles, if they wanted to take the high moral ground should have thought about this 5 years ago, when it first came to notice, or at the very least, from last July when they admitted they had knowledge of his problem, but failed to act for expeditious reasons.

You're splitting hairs. How can you honestly argue that his current suspension is completely independent? I repeat... either you accept that he actually hasn't breached any AFL rules because he hasn't tested positive to any drugs (despite numerous tests). Or we agree that, he has broken the rules in spirit and should be punished accordingly with a 12 week suspension... starting from when it was revealed the breach occured. Round 1.

Oh, and I don't agree the club is completely to blame. I'd say Cousins is the one to blame. But as a supporter, I'm still very disappointed in my club and the way they have handled things. Having said that, what can they do? They have a champion player who continues to perform on the field and has never returned a positive drug test (at least as far as they knew). There is only so far that a club can interfere with the personal life of a player. What everyone "knows" unofficially is very different to what they "know" officially.

Remember, justice is blind. As soon as Cousins' activities started to have an affect on his performance as a player (ie, missing training sessions) the Eagles acted.

I've worked with drug users in the past... everyone knew they took drugs, but they never got caught and it never affected their work. What right does an employer have to dictate the personal life of an employee?

How is letting a known drug user continue play good for the game?

I don't know. But there are way more drug users in the AFL than just Cousins. Three repeat offenders at the very least. Should they not be playing?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

It should come from the AFL, is my point. The AFL is acting as if there is no problem - that it is a West Coast problem that West Coast will deal with. It's just further along line of the complete balls up that their drug code is.

If it weren't for West Coast taking it upon themselves to suspend Cousins, he would have played the first five games.

It would have been business as usual, and the league would have had no cause to suspend him.

But West Coast took the iniative and suspended Cousins when they didn't have to.

If the AFL then imposes its own suspension, they will effectively be punishing West Coast for being pro-active.

Remember, this was all instigated by the Eagles. They suspended Cousins when they didn't have to. You want the AFL to issue another suspension on top of that, when they had no cause to do anything until the Eagles took action.

One 12-week suspension, regardless of where it comes from, is what the drug code outlines as the maximum penalty.

 

[skilts]

The death penalty for Cousins would be the appropriate sanction. It would be better for the AFL to be known as an organisation which murders its employees, rather than as one which shows any compassion for someone who has a serious illness.

As a penalty for their illnesses, I think Nigel Lappin and Nathan Brown should be made to walk backwards across the Nullabor. These near unidexters will bring the AFL into disrepute given the unsoundness of their limbs, and discourage parents from letting their kids play our wonderful game.

Now, where did I put that high horse?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Can you West Coast supporters take a step back for one second and actually perceive the damage your club is causing Australian Rules?

This is total rot.

What are the effects of this damage?

Has the bad press really unsettled you that much?

Do you think sponsors will start turning away? Will fans stop watching or attending games? Will kids stop coming to AusKick?

It's just alarmist BS that people resort to when they run out of real arguments.

"Oh, but you're damaging the brand!"

The brand is strong enough to withstand a player with a drug problem. If it isn't, it's a pretty weak brand to begin with.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

None of that matters as disrepute can still be used if required.

Required?

What does that mean in this context?

If the AFL chooses to impose an arbitrary punishment totally out of whack with their own drugs policy?

Why would they do that?

It would amount to an admission that their drugs policy is inadequate. Won't happen.

 

[dan warna]

The brand is strong enough to withstand a player with a drug problem. If it isn't, it's a pretty weak brand to begin with.

what drug problem?

 

[skilts]

This is total rot.

What are the effects of this damage?

Has the bad press really unsettled you that much?

Do you think sponsors will start turning away? Will fans stop watching or attending games? Will kids stop coming to AusKick?

It's just alarmist BS that people resort to when they run out of real arguments.

"Oh, but you're damaging the brand!"

The brand is strong enough to withstand a player with a drug problem. If it isn't, it's a pretty weak brand to begin with.

It's all about money, didn't you know? The most important people on the planet: sponsors.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

shagging your mates missus is a bit different from beinga drug courier, telling a bloke you shagged a girl that looks like his six year old daughter, doing ice, drink driving, abandoning your vehicle and running off, getting drunk and passing out in a public walk way, doing drugs and alcohol to the degree you nearly die....

What's your point?

I reckon shagging your mate's wife is as reprehensible as any of the indiscretions you've listed alongside it.

No-one's saying it's not different, but are you saying it's not as worthy of condemnation?

Either way, Carey failed to set an example for children. Should he have been charged with bringing the game into disrepute?

The impact on children seems to be the only thing you people care about, so I'm just wondering where you sit on Carey's shenanigans.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

It's all about money, didn't you know? The most important people on the planet: sponsors.

Where do you think the money to develop AFL into a national game comes from?

Do you think it all comes from gate receipts?

You like the AFL having enough money to colonise other states and make our sport #1, don't you?

You like being able to laugh off rugby league bogans by pointing to our game's unrivalled popularity, don't you?

But you're dismissive of the part sponsors play in that process.

 

[dan warna]

What's your point?

I reckon shagging your mate's wife is as reprehensible as any of the indiscretions you've listed alongside it.

No-one's saying it's not different, but are you saying it's not as worthy of condemnation?

Either way, Carey failed to set an example for children. Should he have been charged with bringing the game into disrepute?

The impact on children seems to be the only thing you people care about, so I'm just wondering where you sit on Carey's shenanigans.

because consuming drugs such as ice is cheating and illegal, because couriering drugs albeit in amounts the police believed wasn't necesssary to prosecute is still illegal because shagging girls who are 6 years old is illegal (al be it he only said he shagged a girl that LOOKED like a picture of a 6 year old...)

carey is a reprehensible twit, and frankly I wouldn't want him at st kilda in a coaching position and think he is a jerk of the highest order, I would condemn Carey because of his association with criminal murdering scum like the Morans and gangiatano and his appearance in court to support Morans attempts to avoid a custodial sentence (again being he is dead NOW).

as fro teh 12 week sentence, nothing to do with the AFL, the AFL can slam a 12 week suspenseion on him again if it likes. the 12 week suspension reputed by the WCE is an internal disciplinary matter.

 

[dan warna]

Where do you think the money to develop AFL into a national game comes from?

Do you think it all comes from gate receipts?

You like the AFL having enough money to colonise other states and make our sport #1, don't you?

You like being able to laugh off rugby league bogans by pointing to our game's unrivalled popularity, don't you?

But you're dismissive of the part sponsors play in that process.

ah so if your rich you can snort drugs and you dont have to follow the laws of the land or the game.

good to see where your coming from.

 

[Embley]

Gunnar why do you keep wasting your time going over the same things with the same clowns day in day out?

Anyone with a brain sees that the Cousins saga up to this stage has been done to death and reliving the same arguement 5 times a day wont change anything. Move on people.