Cousins

[JedMack]

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?

I tend to agree. I think that as much as has been speculated about Cousins' drug problem, the removal from the environment he was in was as much a part of his rehabilitation, as the treatment itself.

I think that now the Eagles are fully aware of this, as his employer they will take a greater concern and provided Cousins adheres to the club guidelines, should take an active role at some stage this season.

It is not an AFL issue, it is a Cousins Eagles issue,
and that people sometimes find hard to understand.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

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'

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.

 

[QL 21]

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.

Lets say the AFL bans Cousins for 12 months. Do you really think anyone will admit to drug use in the future if they know that's going to happen?

 

[pistol17]

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.

Dont think West Coast are the only team with a drug problem. We (freo) got rid of ours in the trade week just gone. No names mentioned but it is Richmonds problem now.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

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.

Spare us the moral outrage.

The AFL has a drug policy that sets out the sanctions for players who use drugs.

You're demanding that Cousins be punished in excess of what the league's drug code allows for.

That's unreasonable.

 

[Clay Davis]

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.

Forget the testing mate, the AFL have failed to test players because they know that there is a huge problem. They fear that if they tackled it properly it would reveal how big the problem is and be a massive embarrassment to the game. Now with Cousins they just want to sweep it all under the rug and pretend again that the problem never existed.

At a time where they can take action and make an example of a player they are choosing the soft option.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

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.

They've refused to rule something out.

Big deal.

Besides, do you expect Cousins to fully disclose the nature of his problem?

 

[JedMack]

Forget the testing mate, the AFL have failed to test players because they know that there is a huge problem. They fear that if they tackled it properly it would reveal how big the problem is and be a massive embarrassment to the game. Now with Cousins they just want to sweep it all under the rug and pretend again that the problem never existed.

At a time where they can take action and make an example of a player they are choosing the soft option.

Not giving Goodes a week off is taking a soft option

 

[Tyberious Funk]

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.

Your argument is inconsistent and illogical. It's like arguing that an injured player who gets suspended should only serve his suspension once he is over his injury. Who gets to determine when he is ready to play? Cousins would probably argue that he was ready to play from the first game of the season. It was only because of his drug problem that he got suspended in the first place.

Either you argue completely from the point of view of the rules... in which case Cousins has not broken any AFL rules (remember, he hasn't returned any positive tests).

Or you argue from the moral point of view... in which case we accept that he has been taking recreational drugs and has been caught, even if not via official testing procedures. He should therefore serve an appropriate sentence from when he was caught - ie, 12 weeks starting from Round 1.

What you are suggesting is that the Cousins should, in effect, be given a LONGER sentence because his club has chosen to go public BEFORE he was actually caught. How is this positive for the game?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

At a time where they can take action and make an example of a player they are choosing the soft option.

They are following the rules set out in their own drug code.

 

[Kakano]

Lets say the AFL bans Cousins for 12 months. Do you really think anyone will admit to drug use in the future if they know that's going to happen?

do u think anyone would take drugs in the future if they know will be banned for 12 months.?

 

[FuManchu]

But who imposes the ban?

The AFL?

yes

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.

You all think that the testing and reporting regime is the ONLY way in which a player can be penalised. It obviously isnt. The testing and reporting regime was probably the only way the AFL thought they may catch a player, they didnt account for public disclosure. Obviously public disclosure is another means by which they can apply a penalty.

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

From what I can gather, the AFL are forcing Cousins to make a public apology. If that apology contains admittance of use, then if public disclosure is proof enough to penalise, then they are free to do so. If the AFL make Cousins disclose all or they wont allow him the play, then he is really caught between a rock and a hard place

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

The Eagles only suspended him for breach of club rules, no mention of drugs being the reason for suspension. The AFL are free to impose their own penalty for breach of their own rules

That's exactly what is happening as we speak. Cousins is 5 weeks in to his 12-week ban.

For club reasons, not breach of AFL rules

 

[WCE Domin8 Shun]

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.

Cousins was fit and ready to play football in round 1

 

[Clay Davis]

Lets say the AFL bans Cousins for 12 months. Do you really think anyone will admit to drug use in the future if they know that's going to happen?

This is what I think should happen:

Cousins gets rubbed out for breaching the drug code (public admission and needing rehab is tantamount to 3 strikes IMO) for the full extent (ie 12 weeks)

More stringent and rigid testing of players. If they're not catching addicts then how do we know who is using steroids or other performance enhancing drugs - ones which really go against the spirit of the game?

Instead, they pussyfoot around, not telling the public what's happening, irritating sponsors, having funding threatened for withdrawal by the government. It seems to me their softly softly stance is based on either some ideological bent where they don't want to go too harsh on drug users, or because they know how big the problem is. But what worries me is that we've got a game where there might be performance enhancing users (and I'm not talking about the Eagles here), because the testing regime is shown to be absolutely full of holes.

Up until very recently, I didn't think AFL had that problem

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Either you argue completely from the point of view of the rules... in which case Cousins has not broken any AFL rules (remember, he hasn't returned any positive tests).

Or you argue from the moral point of view... in which case we accept that he has been taking recreational drugs and has been caught, even if not via official testing procedures. He should therefore serve an appropriate sentence from when he was caught - ie, 12 weeks starting from Round 1.

What you are suggesting is that the Cousins should, in effect, be given a LONGER sentence because his club has chosen to go public BEFORE he was actually caught. How is this positive for the game?

Well said.

I think a lot of people are actually calling for Cousins to serve two separate suspensions.

They want to wait until his club suspension expires, and then see the AFL impose a second 12-week ban.

You can't rule it out, but I think it's unlikely.

 

[Clay Davis]

Not giving Goodes a week off is taking a soft option

I agree, but that's a different story altogether.

 

[viper05]

gunnar when are you going to start to help the homeless and other drug users
or is it going to take you to long to get off your high horse ben has taken drugs and admitted so in one way or another, and should be punished
He was a role model and has had every opportunity in life there are no excuses for his behavior,he is a coward, prince of perth fat chance

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

From what I can gather, the AFL are forcing Cousins to make a public apology. If that apology contains admittance of use, then if public disclosure is proof enough to penalise, then they are free to do so. If the AFL make Cousins disclose all or they wont allow him the play, then he is really caught between a rock and a hard place

There will be no full disclosure.

A public apology of any kind has never been demanded by the AFL.

You seem to think that they're going to force him to admit to something. That won't happen.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

gunnar when are you going to start to help the homeless and other drug users
or is it going to take you to long to get off your high horse ben has taken drugs and admitted so in one way or another, and should be punished

He is being punished as we speak.

He has been suspended indefinitely by his football club, which is the only party currently in a position to punish him.

 

[JedMack]

gunnar when are you going to start to help the homeless and other drug users
or is it going to take you to long to get off your high horse ben has taken drugs and admitted so in one way or another, and should be punished
He was a role model and has had every opportunity in life there are no excuses for his behavior,he is a coward, prince of perth fat chance

The only person Ben is a role model to is Ben Cousins Jr.

To anyone else he is a highly talented footballer

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

This is what I think should happen:

Cousins gets rubbed out for breaching the drug code (public admission and needing rehab is tantamount to 3 strikes IMO) for the full extent (ie 12 weeks)

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.

 

[Kakano]

It's the way people with half a brain perceive professional sport.

I guess Freo supporters think of themselves more as charity workers.

Fair enough.

lol hahahahaa

 

[FuManchu]

Your argument is inconsistent and illogical. It's like arguing that an injured player who gets suspended should only serve his suspension once he is over his injury. Who gets to determine when he is ready to play? Cousins would probably argue that he was ready to play from the first game of the season. It was only because of his drug problem that he got suspended in the first place.

He is suspended by the club for their own reasons, not AFL reason, the AFL are free to impose their own ban for their own reasons

Either you argue completely from the point of view of the rules... in which case Cousins has not broken any AFL rules (remember, he hasn't returned any positive tests).

the AFL standard player contract says illicit drug use for recreational purposes is a breach. When he admits his use (the club already has) the AFL can penalise.

Or you argue from the moral point of view... in which case we accept that he has been taking recreational drugs and has been caught, even if not via official testing procedures. He should therefore serve an appropriate sentence from when he was caught - ie, 12 weeks starting from Round 1.

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

What you are suggesting is that the Cousins should, in effect, be given a LONGER sentence because his club has chosen to go public BEFORE he was actually caught. How is this positive for the game?

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.

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

 

[Kakano]

Cousins was fit and ready to play football in round 1

physically yeah but mentally far from it, or westcoast sent him off to get away from the media and all.

 

[FuManchu]

There will be no full disclosure.

A public apology of any kind has never been demanded by the AFL.

You seem to think that they're going to force him to admit to something. That won't happen.

I guess we will see.

And we all await the AFL response

It will be interesting