Cousins

[Max zero]

More of a question, why not start with Cousins? He doesnt have the protection of that agreement with the AFLPA. And if they want a poster boy for their supposed tough stance on drugs and an easy conviction to boot, he's the one. If they dont penalise on this one, they might as well just say 'go ahead fellas, its open drug season'

And yes, he would have been much better off, and therein lies the farcical nature of the testing regime.

The problem is if you suspend for any additional time he will face a larger penalty then if he had failed 3 out of competition tests.

How is that even remotely reasonable?

To me that is sending the message of 'keep any drug use as quiet as possible because if you go public you will be crucified'.

Whats more important punishment or rehabilitation?

 

[EscapeHere]

Thats the clubs choice, ethics suggests one should serve his suspension after he is fit especially if the suspension was for something that was reckless. This in my opinion applies regardless of wheter i am a pies or a west coast supporter so keep the loyalty bullshit idea out of it alright .

If you are being honest then that's a very commendable attitude and you deserve respect for your integrity.

What about situations though where you feel the crime doesn't fit the punishment? Take Thomas for example, say he got rubbed out at the tribunal this week, but was injurred and couldn't play anyway. Given that I think most people believe he wouldn't have deserved a week for that, would you expect him to sit out for two weeks (one for injury, one for suspension) ?

 

[Topdock65]

To me that is sending the message of 'keep any drug use as quiet as possible because if you go public you will be crucified'.

Whats more important punishment or rehabilitation?

This is what your club tried to do offically since July last year ... Keep it quiet...

 

[Eagle87]

I dont disagree, its a sham of a law, but its what they agreed to and until they change it, it will always be held up to ridicule. But as I stated, the AFL have never restricted penalty in drug use to just the outcomes of the testing regime.

Based on what?

The AFLPA only agreed to allow testing for illicit drugs, out of competition, under very strict conditions. The 3 strikes and the confidentiality agreement. Outside of that regime, their is no testing for illicit drugs except on game day. The AFL have no drug code that covers these drugs other than that.

You have been asked to justify your position on this "under the drug code" - as you constantly refer to it - there is no ability for the AFL to ban a player in these circumstances except under the 3 strikes regime or under a totally separate general provision i.e. disrepute.

You cannot ban a player for his issues becoming public knowledge when another 20-30+ players have already tested positive. I mean if public knowledge is the determinate then 3 existing players (who are widely known) should be gone too and the rest could be subjected to a witchhunt.

As regards your other assertions i.e. that the AFL do not know who has tested positive because "they have contracted out the testing" - are you serious?

The AFL is a large organisation and I am sure that some in the AFL have these details. The contracting out of the tests, does not absolve the AFL of involvement in those tests. The AFLPA deal is with the AFL and regardless of who they get to carry out the tests they legally adminster the testing! They were certainly very quickly able to provide details of how many times Cousins had been tested and what the test results were. The AFL knows and its CEO could simply ask for the list to be delivered to him tomorrow and it would be.

This stupid argument you use as the premise for your differentiation between Cousins and other PROVEN drug users is ridiculous. Cousins used drugs, the other 30 used drugs. Same thing, only difference is that Cousin use became public knowledge and the media are not banned from mentioning him. Ban him solely for drug use and you must ban the others.

 

[midorigreenwood]

As regards your other assertions i.e. that the AFL do not know who has tested positive because "they have contracted out the testing" - are you serious?

The AFL is a large organisation and I am sure that some in the AFL have these details. The contracting out of the tests, does not absolve the AFL of involvement in those tests. The AFLPA deal is with the AFL and regardless of who they get to carry out the tests they legally adminster the testing! They were certainly very quickly able to provide details of how many times Cousins had been tested and what the test results were. The AFL knows and its CEO could simply ask for the list to be delivered to him tomorrow and it would be.

yeah....I'm curious about this part of his argument....because he has used it several times before and I've taken it at face value......

but I've tried googling and its hard to verify this particular statement >,>

is there an official site somewhere which details the AFL drug code in its entirety?

The closest I've found so far is a FAQ on the players association website.

 

[Max zero]

This is what your club tried to do offically since July last year ... Keep it quiet...

And if you look at current events you can see why.

 

[FuManchu]

Based on what?

The AFLPA only agreed to allow testing for illicit drugs, out of competition, under very strict conditions. The 3 strikes and the confidentiality agreement. Outside of that regime, their is no testing for illicit drugs except on game day. The AFL have no drug code that covers these drugs other than that.

You have been asked to justify your position on this "under the drug code" - as you constantly refer to it - there is no ability for the AFL to ban a player in these circumstances except under the 3 strikes regime or under a totally separate general provision i.e. disrepute.

You cannot ban a player for his issues becoming public knowledge when another 20-30+ players have already tested positive. I mean if public knowledge is the determinate then 3 existing players (who are widely known) should be gone too and the rest could be subjected to a witchhunt.

As regards your other assertions i.e. that the AFL do not know who has tested positive because "they have contracted out the testing" - are you serious?

The AFL is a large organisation and I am sure that some in the AFL have these details. The contracting out of the tests, does not absolve the AFL of involvement in those tests. The AFLPA deal is with the AFL and regardless of who they get to carry out the tests they legally adminster the testing! They were certainly very quickly able to provide details of how many times Cousins had been tested and what the test results were. The AFL knows and its CEO could simply ask for the list to be delivered to him tomorrow and it would be.

This stupid argument you use as the premise for your differentiation between Cousins and other PROVEN drug users is ridiculous. Cousins used drugs, the other 30 used drugs. Same thing, only difference is that Cousin use became public knowledge and the media are not banned from mentioning him. Ban him solely for drug use and you must ban the others.

what you describe as a media beat up, maybe the actual thinking of the AFL commission. Wont that be a hoot?

What are you going to do if there is a ban of 12 weeks from a point other than Rd 1?

LOL

you'll self immolate

 

[FuManchu]

As regards your other assertions i.e. that the AFL do not know who has
tested positive because "they have contracted out the testing" - are you serious?

The AFL is a large organisation and I am sure that some in the AFL have these details. The contracting out of the tests, does not absolve the AFL of involvement in those tests. The AFLPA deal is with the AFL and regardless of who they get to carry out the tests they legally adminster the testing! They were certainly very quickly able to provide details of how many times Cousins had been tested and what the test results were. The AFL knows and its CEO could simply ask for the list to be delivered to him tomorrow and it would be.

that is the arrangement that has been reported in the newspapers. if you dont like it, speak to the AFL

 

[midorigreenwood]

that is the arrangement that has been reported in the newspapers. if you dont like it, speak to the AFL

which article? if as you say it has been widely reported...... you should have no trouble giving an example.

I'm sure you've quoted it in your previous arguments. >,>

 

[Alphanumeric]

Do they want him to be punished extra because of his profile and the sheer volume of coverage this story has generated?

Of course they do.

 

[FuManchu]

which article? if as you say it has been widely reported...... you should have no trouble giving an example.

I'm sure you've quoted it in your previous arguments. >,>

find it yourself, I'm too busy enjoying all the eagles abuse to bother

 

[midorigreenwood]

find it yourself, I'm too busy enjoying all the eagles abuse to bother

now you're making me suspicious....

Can anyone help Fumanchu out?

He claims that the AFL drugs testing regime means that the AFL, the club and the public are kept in the dark till three strikes have occured.

I've tried googling for confirmation but can only find news articles that say that only the club and the public are kept in the dark.

Can anyone verify Fumanchu's assertion?

 

[FuManchu]

find it yourself, I'm too busy enjoying all the eagles abuse to bother

nah, why make you suffer


The summary of the Policy is as follows;
First Positive Test
Player enters treatment / education program co-ordinated by AFL Medical Officer. This result is confidential to those involved in the treatment and the education and welfare of the player.
Second Positive Test
Dealt with by the AFL Medical Officer with a view to further educating, counselling and treating the player. The AFL Medial Officer shall also inform the relevant AFL Club Doctor on a confidential basis, in the further education and treatment of the player. The Club Doctor is under strict ethical and contractual obligations to maintain confidentiality.
Third Positive Test
Player is deemed to have breached AFL Rule 1.6 - Conduct Unbecoming or Prejudicial to the Interests of the AFL - and will face the AFL Tribunal. If found guilty, the player can be suspended between 0 and 12 matches.
Fourth Positive Test
Again, player deemed to have breached AFL Rule 1.6 and if found guilty player will be suspended for a period of not less than 6 weeks.
For more information, please contact the AFL Players' Association

 

[midorigreenwood]

great!!!

was that so hard?

what is the link?

 

[FuManchu]

great!!!

was that so hard?

what is the link?

bloody hell, do a google will you

BTW its on the AFLPA site

 

[FuManchu]

I will concede that the AFL medical officer does know, but he is bound by the confidentiality clause and cannot pass this info on to anyone else within the org.

So there eagle87 and all your conspiracy theories and immediate reports to Andy D crap

 

[midorigreenwood]

I will concede that the AFL medical officer does know, but he is bound by the confidentiality clause and cannot pass this info on to anyone else within the org.

So there eagle87 and all your conspiracy theories and immediate reports to Andy D crap

a little backstep there

so someone in the AFL does know.....their representative of the medical officer.

anyways...thanks for pointing me in the right direction....even if it was like squeezing blood from stone :/

 

[skilts]

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.

Geez mate, I shudder to think what your reply would be if I disagreed with you. Chill.

 

[FuManchu]

a little backstep there

so someone in the AFL does know.....their representative of the medical officer.

anyways...thanks for pointing me in the right direction....even if it was like squeezing blood from stone :/

but hardly the smoking gun that eagle87 was suggesting.

I think the AFL would play it according to the agreement, otherwise, they'd never get another agreement.

The AFL dont know about these test results and therefore cannot act on positive tests until the 3rd postive.

Cousins case is different. He doesnt have the protection of the testing regime agreement and disclosure is as good as a 3rd postive result, in that once the AFL have confiormation, they can act.

 

[Max zero]

nah, why make you suffer


The summary of the Policy is as follows;
First Positive Test
Player enters treatment / education program co-ordinated by AFL Medical Officer. This result is confidential to those involved in the treatment and the education and welfare of the player.
Second Positive Test
Dealt with by the AFL Medical Officer with a view to further educating, counselling and treating the player. The AFL Medial Officer shall also inform the relevant AFL Club Doctor on a confidential basis, in the further education and treatment of the player. The Club Doctor is under strict ethical and contractual obligations to maintain confidentiality.
Third Positive Test
Player is deemed to have breached AFL Rule 1.6 - Conduct Unbecoming or Prejudicial to the Interests of the AFL - and will face the AFL Tribunal. If found guilty, the player can be suspended between 0 and 12 matches.
Fourth Positive Test
Again, player deemed to have breached AFL Rule 1.6 and if found guilty player will be suspended for a period of not less than 6 weeks.
For more information, please contact the AFL Players' Association

So how come the AFL know how many times Cousins was tested and the results of those tests?

14 tests, 4 in the latter part of 2006 with no positive results?

 

[FuManchu]

So how come the AFL know how many times Cousins was tested and the results of those tests?

14 tests, 4 in the latter part of 2006 with no positive results?

they probably asked the testing authority. That doesnt mean the testing authority divulge positive results. perhaps its part of a audit that the AFL do get, who is tested and how many times. Ask the AFL, it's their policy, but it does state that there is no disclosure to the main part of the AFL until the third strike. read it

 

[Max zero]

they probably asked the testing authority. That doesnt mean the testing authority divulge positive results. perhaps its part of a audit that the AFL do get, who is tested and how many times. Ask the AFL, it's their policy, but it does state that there is no disclosure to the main part of the AFL until the third strike. read it

Oh so now they can't divulge positive results but can divulge negative results and the number of times a player is tested?

Real confidential.

The AFL knows all the results of the tests. You know it, I know it. Questionably worded documents or not.

 

[FuManchu]

Oh so now they can't divulge positive results but can divulge negative results and the number of times a player is tested?

Real confidential.

The AFL knows all the results of the tests. You know it, I know it. Questionably worded documents or not.

I'm not even sure they can divulge negative tests, but I'm sure the AFL do have an audit on the number of tests and how often just so they know they are getting what they paid for. Every org would do that.

Other than that, I'm pretty sure the only way the AFL know results is if they are leaked. And that being the case, they are still not allowed to act by way of agreement. You cant argue with that. I'm sure if they did, we'd have strike potential action

 

[GoOsH1]

LOL, you're still going with this flimsy line of arguement? You know your view is hypocritical in the extreme, but it's the only way you can justify banning cousins while letting every other drug user in the AFL off, so you persist with it. How ridiculous.

 

[Max zero]

I'm not even sure they can divulge negative tests, but I'm sure the AFL do have an audit on the number of tests and how often just so they know they are getting what they paid for. Every org would do that.

Other than that, I'm pretty sure the only way the AFL know results is if they are leaked. And that being the case, they are still not allowed to act by way of agreement. You cant argue with that. I'm sure if they did, we'd have strike potential action

Only if they are leaked huh? Like how both Adrian Anderson and Demetriou have talked about how Cousins has not failed a drug test? How do you think I found out?

Anything that happens to Cousins should happen to the other 30+ names on that tested list.