Such is Life- Ben Cousins doco

[Magnum27]

Because you seem content to carry on as if Cousins' action effected no-one else when this is clearly NOT the case.

You have to fu#king kidding, Ben owes them an apology because Chris chose to take drugs, or did Ben sit there and force it down he's throat or injected it into him, i'm no lawyer or judge but if that was the case i'm tipping he would be on a murder charge.

I'll say it again slowly, if that helps.

Chris was a grown man and knew what he was doing, i don't know how much simpler that can be said.

 

[since95]

look up the rules - coke and amphetamines are only deemed performance enhacing if in the system on gameday - that's the impartial rules set down by WADA. taking them outside of gameday, for training or whatever are not deemed performance enhancing. thems the facts.

taking steroids in a pre-season or out of season or in season is deemed performance enhancing.

There's no grey line, it's black and white. It's like claiming caffeine use is performance enhancing. It's allowed within the rules - so they are not cheating

Caffeine is also legal - slight difference. There is a grey line in claiming you never took "performance enhancing drugs", only "recreational drugs" (all still illegal mind you) if you were using the "recreational drugs" to aid your training. It might be within the rules of WADA, yes, but apart from being against the law, it's still cheating - giving yourself an artificial advantage over yor competition.

 

[swannies]

Wow. Big leap there. Good job.

Denial runs deep eh?

No, what I was saying there esqui, is it's hardly a hard hitting report. You and I could have written more, just from news on the street.

Denial is not a part of my character esqui, unless it's my physique related!

 

[esquilax]

I'll say it again slowly, if that helps.

Not really. You're missing the point; illicit drug taking does not occur in isolation - MORE than one person knows about it - ALWAYS.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Caffeine is also legal - slight difference. There is a grey line in claiming you never took "performance enhancing drugs", only "recreational drugs" (all still illegal mind you) if you were using the "recreational drugs" to aid your training. It might be within the rules of WADA, yes, but apart from being against the law, it's still cheating - giving yourself an artificial advantage over yor competition.

Steroids are legal too - so are masking agents.

The rules are very clear - the drug is only performance enhancing on match day. It's why Wendell got 2 years. Ben would have got the same.

No grey line whatsoever - it's like saying the Docker's resurgence this year is due to the coke MJ snorted?

 

[since95]

no surprise that of the 15 AFL clubs, its mostly Fremantle supporters wading in here with "questions" to ask. Youre not fooling anybody you trolls. Youre desperately want to see some sort of evidence that makes our premiership in 2006 revoked or something.

And Cousins owes you nothing. So piss off flogs.

Shit the bloke isnt even allowed to have a sense of humour for the rest of his life is he? We won the cup that year and you didnt. Get over it.

At what point did I even mention the flag?? I didn't.

You could argue it's mostly Fremantle supporters wading in with questions because they were also in Perth when all of this happened, and are familiar with the whole circus.

If anything, I'm probably more on your side than you realise - my questions are directed at getting some accountability out of a club's management that has so far offered very little - I have no idea how someone like Nisbett has managed to keep his job, for example.

And the bloke can have a sense of humour, sure - but he is supposedly making this doco as a "warning" blah blah blah...laughing off a 5-day bender does little to help that cause.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

No, we want you to understand what you were worshipping, and the club culture (hopefully now past) that was in place.

Worship is a strong word and possibly he is or has been worshipped by Eagles supporters and Members. But why you may ask?

Well the most simple answer is that he was a champion footballer and lets be honest here that if he had never been a champion footballer then we would not be talking about him.

Did the club act as we now know they should have? Again the answer is no but at that time I don't believe any club would have handled it any different and because it can't be proved otherwise that they would have then we can only assume.

Clubs now jump on things very quickly because of what happened at the WCE who as it turned out have ended up the test case for all clubs not to follow.

Michael Johnsons incident would probaly of not made it to the news just 5 years ago, Freo would have almost certainly kept it in house. But now because of the nosy public and the media pumping all in sundry up that they are all role models it becomes so easy for us all to form opinions both negative and positve.

That is what clubs did then, Cousins because he was a huge celebrity in this state kept going out in public and eventually it came crashing down. He made some poor choices.

Make no mistake that clubs would still be keeping many things in house, that is what football clubs do right or wrong.

For me Ben Cousins is a superstar footballer, that really is all he is to me as a supporter and a member, I have no issue how the club tried to handle it because at the time they knew no other way.
I would like to think they have learned from that?? i understand now they are probably more advanced and have more knowledge of how to handle such an issue better than any other club now. they found that out the hard way.

It is easy to take the high moral ground after the event and slag down a club but really that also is with the knowledge now we all have and what we would do today.

Some say Cousins brought down the club, I say he raised the club. But that is a personel view.

I like the guy, its that simple and slag him and our club down all you like but just understand and try to think would your club have done things any different at the time??

 

[Magnum27]

Not really. You're missing the point; illicit drug taking does not occur in isolation - MORE than one person knows about it - ALWAYS.

No sh1t, go back and read my posts, i think i stated more than the club knew ( by the sounds of it last night Mainy's wife knew) and maybe if they put their hand up earlier and said something maybe this may not have happened, but to say he owe's the Mainwaring family an apology is a joke, when it seems they all knew it and let it go on until a terrible death happened.

 

[Obeanie1]

Not really. You're missing the point; illicit drug taking does not occur in isolation - MORE than one person knows about it - ALWAYS.

So who do you think at Freo knew about Johnson and his habit?

At the time 99% of Freo posters were saying Íts an isolated incident and no-one else is involved or was aware!'

 

[since95]

Steroids are legal too - so are masking agents.

The rules are very clear - the drug is only performance enhancing on match day. It's why Wendell got 2 years. Ben would have got the same.

No grey line whatsoever - it's like saying the Docker's resurgence this year is due to the coke MJ snorted?

Steroids are legal, yes - but also banned by all the major sporting codes. Caffeine is neither. Illicit drugs are illegal, and banned on game day - but my point is you cannot deny amphetamines are performance-enhancing if used in training.

Ben would have got the same as Wendell, or at least a strike, if he had tested positive at some point - which brings me to one of my other questions - how did he not?

If MJ was actually our BOG regularly as a hard-running possession getter, then you would have a point

 

[Obeanie1]

No, we want you to understand what you were worshipping, and the club culture (hopefully now past) that was in place.

Why?

What's your motive to want to educate us?

You are trolling, nothing more..........nothing less.

Troll.

 

[swannies]

^^ great post gws!

Because you seem content to carry on as if Cousins' action effected no-one else when this is clearly NOT the case.

Why is it anybody elses business? Why should the general public have a right to know? If it's your neighbour are you making sure their family is taking due care?

No, we want you to understand what you were worshipping, and the club culture (hopefully now past) that was in place.

Again, why? Why should you care about Eagles supporters understanding? Unless you're the local priest? Sounds like a bogus "human interest" to me.

 

[esquilax]

would your club have done things any different at the time??

That question is a gift; yes, of course our club would have acted differently, and DID act differently. Jeff Farmer springs to mind. His actions probably cost our club a better 2007.

We also have a recent example (Johnson) of the same leadership style I'm confident has been in place for sometime.

 

[dantheman06]

Does anyone know how much he sold his doco for? And is the money being donated somewhere?

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Steroids are legal, yes - but also banned by all the major sporting codes. Caffeine is neither. Illicit drugs are illegal, and banned on game day - but my point is you cannot deny amphetamines are performance-enhancing if used in training.

Ben would have got the same as Wendell, or at least a strike, if he had tested positive at some point - which brings me to one of my other questions - how did he not?

If MJ was actually our BOG regularly as a hard-running possession getter, then you would have a point

Of course I can - because the rules set down by the world governing body clearly states it isn't.

They are the ones that do the research - it it was performance enhancing - it would be against the rules.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

That question is a gift; yes, of course our club would have acted differently, and DID act differently. Jeff Farmer springs to mind. His actions probably cost our club a better 2007.

We also have a recent example (Johnson) of the same leadership style I'm confident has been in place for sometime.

That is not correct at all, Frematle acted quickly because this came after the Ben Cousins saga had started and it was flavour of the month to be seen to be a club jumping on things.

If the Cousins saga was not the dominating force it was in the news then the Farmer incidents would have more than likely been kept in house as best as possible.

But lets not let the facts get in the way of trying slag the WCE.

And that leadership style you are talking about was implemented by every club the day after the AFL put sanctions on the WCE.

 

[esquilax]

Why is it anybody elses business?

BECAUSE, his actions do not just effect him........... It's a truism of addictions. How hard is it to understand?

Why should the general public have a right to know?

I don't think they should. The fact people in office buildings called the media when he was arrested with Chick in Northbridge is appalling. Who are they to judge how strong/fragile he was mentally?

 

[since95]

^^ great post gws!



Why is it anybody elses business? Why should the general public have a right to know? If it's your neighbour are you making sure their family is taking due care?



Again, why? Why should you care about Eagles supporters understanding? Unless you're the local priest? Sounds like a bogus "human interest" to me.

If the AFL was serious about having a drugs policy that was aimed at preventing a case like Ben Cousins from occurring in the future, then it would want to know the answers to hard questions like "how did Ben manage not to test positive in all that time", and "how aware was the club? and if it was aware, what can we do to prevent clubs from covering it up?".

Look at the approach the NRL has taken to the Storm salary cap issue - dragged it all out into the open for scrutiny, to try and put measures in place to stop it happening again.

And before you start asking why should Ben's case be dragged out into the open for scrutiny - consider that this doco was made.

 

[esquilax]

That is not correct at all, Frematle acted quickly because this came after the Ben Cousins saga had started and it was flavour of the month to be seen to be a club jumping on things.

If the Cousins saga was not the dominating force it was in the news then the Farmer incidents would have more than likely been kept in house as best as possible.

That's a distortion. The club had been struggling with Farmer's KNOWN and admitted alcohol problems for some years. They were exercising a duty of care, he was in programmes, he was receiving support from the club and other players. Fremantle already had a duty-of-care culture, WCE did not.

 

[Obeanie1]

That question is a gift; yes, of course our club would have acted differently, and DID act differently. Jeff Farmer springs to mind. His actions probably cost our club a better 2007.

We also have a recent example (Johnson) of the same leadership style I'm confident has been in place for sometime.[/quote]

What a load of tripe.

Johnson has just had his second strike and what did your mob do?

A 6 week suspension. Soft.

What a joke. Your mob couldn't wait to get him back out there playing as he is an important player and you are desperate for success.

The only reason you did anything was he stuffed up and the media got hold of it .................. and then Freo were burying their head in the sand saying "Its a first offence and not a pattern" and then his juvenile record was made public.

Just get off your imaginary high horses Freo fans.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

That's a distortion. The club had been struggling with Farmer's KNOWN and admitted alcohol problems for some years. They were exercising a duty of care, he was in programmes, he was receiving support from the club and other players. Fremantle already had a duty-of-care culture, WCE did not.

It is not a distortion, it in fact is the same thing somewhat.
If as you say Freo had been struggling with his problems why were they keeping it behind closed doors and in house trying to deal with it.

How come when it became public knowledge did they then act with sanctions, why wait till it became public knowledge?

Mate its not a competition, I am just trying to point out that it is easy in hindsight to say we would have done this or that. The facts are that you or I don't know what your club would have done.

We know what they would do today but you seriously cannot sit there and take the high moral ground that you know your club would have done it any different even though you would like to think it would have.

 

[esquilax]

Why?

What's your motive to want to educate us?

You are trolling, nothing more..........nothing less.

I'm keen for Worsfold to keep his job........

 

[since95]

Of course I can - because the rules set down by the world governing body clearly states it isn't.

They are the ones that do the research - it it was performance enhancing - it would be against the rules.

actually, amphetamines are prohibited in-competition - http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...hibited-list/WADA_Prohibited_List_2010_EN.pdf

So, bascially, you are saying you do not believe using amphetamines out of competition as a training aid is performance enhancing?

In searching for the WADA code, I found this article - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ada-threat-looms/story-e6frg7mx-1111113242480 -

While the illicit nature of cocaine and ice prevents systematic research on their effect on elite sport performance, the pharmacological picture is revealing.
Andrew McLachlan, a professor of pharmacy at the University in Sydney who specialises in drug testing, said cocaine had the potential to deliver improved oxygen supply, enhanced mental awareness and a feeling of invincibility.
The potential effects of amphetamines are similar, with ice having the additional benefit of improving anaerobic performance. Amphetamines last longer, providing benefits - and associated risks - for up to three hours.
​

If they are banned in competition for having those properties, you honestly don't believe they don't offer the same properties in training?

 

[The Falcon Strike]

actually, amphetamines are prohibited in-competition - http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...hibited-list/WADA_Prohibited_List_2010_EN.pdf

So, bascially, you are saying you do not believe using amphetamines out of competition as a training aid is performance enhancing?

In searching for the WADA code, I found this article - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ada-threat-looms/story-e6frg7mx-1111113242480 -

While the illicit nature of cocaine and ice prevents systematic research on their effect on elite sport performance, the pharmacological picture is revealing.
Andrew McLachlan, a professor of pharmacy at the University in Sydney who specialises in drug testing, said cocaine had the potential to deliver improved oxygen supply, enhanced mental awareness and a feeling of invincibility.
The potential effects of amphetamines are similar, with ice having the additional benefit of improving anaerobic performance. Amphetamines last longer, providing benefits - and associated risks - for up to three hours.
​

If they are banned in competition for having those properties, you honestly don't believe they don't offer the same properties in training?

In competition equates to gameday - so yes they are performance enhancing on gameday for the period of a number of hours.

What I am saying is that amphetamines and cocaine not taken on match day are not deemed to provide any advantage to the performance on match day - irrespective of what it does outside of that day.

You don't win games at training - and there's no evidence to suggest that drugs at training improve gameday performance (unlike steroids) - otherwise they'd be against the rules.

Again - WADA is very clear - and has been for a while - taking drugs not on gameday - has no evidence to suggest it improves performance in a match. Thems the facts and the rules as they stand.

You don't have to like it - you don't have to agree with it - but they are the facts as we know it today!

That may change in the future, as will caffeine use - but you can only play by the rules of the day.

 

[88mph]

actually, amphetamines are prohibited in-competition - http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...hibited-list/WADA_Prohibited_List_2010_EN.pdf

So, bascially, you are saying you do not believe using amphetamines out of competition as a training aid is performance enhancing?

In searching for the WADA code, I found this article - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ada-threat-looms/story-e6frg7mx-1111113242480 -

While the illicit nature of cocaine and ice prevents systematic research on their effect on elite sport performance, the pharmacological picture is revealing.
Andrew McLachlan, a professor of pharmacy at the University in Sydney who specialises in drug testing, said cocaine had the potential to deliver improved oxygen supply, enhanced mental awareness and a feeling of invincibility.
The potential effects of amphetamines are similar, with ice having the additional benefit of improving anaerobic performance. Amphetamines last longer, providing benefits - and associated risks - for up to three hours.
​

If they are banned in competition for having those properties, you honestly don't believe they don't offer the same properties in training?

If Cuz was the junkie painted in the doco, he would have been under the influence at training. If the above is true he did have an unfair advantage.

Though one could argue being a junkie has detrimental effects that outweigh the positives.

On another note, lost a bit of respect for Cuz after watching last night. Came across as a typical rock smoking bogan you would expect to find in the far reaches of the Northern Suburbs. Seeing Kizon was interesting too, how much does that guy love himself! Didnt have the sort of house I imagined either.

Cuz still has a long road ahead of him.

Looks like a pretty good surfer too