WADA threat looms for Cousins

[Eagle87]

You would actually trust a player that uses drugs when it could jeopardise his own career and bring the club into disrepute?

You would trust a player that refused to talk to the police about his associations even after being directed by the club . That shows his regard for the club

You would trust a player that left his missus to face the cops while he did a runner, to avoid scrutiny. If he is so eager to avoid legal scrutiny, then he is liable to avoid any further scrutiny on personal matters which may affect his professional life.

You would trust a man you have taken the captaincy off, because he has shown that he does not display the attributes that a club captain should?

I hope you are not in a corporate head hunting agency.

Trust is a different issue. I would be unlikely to trust him in the same way ever again. But on what was known in July and his actions through to September, I cannot see that the trust given him was clearly breached. Clearly it has been now and Woosha has said that trust would/will be an issue going forward.

Not sure what the hell your corporate head hunting agency comment has to do with anything. Surely you arent suggesting that high end fully functioning corporate types never take drugs, misbehave and occasionally lie to or mislead their bosses?

One would suggest that such a view was naive in the extreme ... and yes, I know many fully functioning corporate types - some with serious "issues".

 

[Frederlick]

I guess it depends on what ASADA consider evidence in the absence of a positive test. It appears their interest is in his performance in-season (2006), so their investigation isn't going to be reliant on a test result, which means it doesn't matter what Ben would say (unless he breaks down and tearfully confesses to match day offences, which you'd suspect won't happen).

We will never know now, but I found his statistics last year amazing, particularly his ability to run out matches at high intensity and then back up the following week. I had honestly never considered a drug like say ice but after talking to some doctors (my in laws) they confirm that, depending on the circumstances, it could definately be performance enhancing. Remember this is not a street 'junkie' using it, it is an athlete who may have started on it, or another drug to enhance performance, and then got hooked. People are making assumptions about this without putting it in context. Very sad for the man involved, and fans who follow him as a talented footballer. Will the AFL now have to have an inquest into last years GF, what a can of worms! What is their policy if a player is found to have been taking performance enhancing drugs and their team has won? Will they forfeit? I'm not being faciecous, this is like the whole 'sirengate' affair which had already happened in the night comp years ago, but was swept under the carpet, this is far more serious. Take heart WC fans you can bet your bottom dollar someone else out there is in just as big a mess as Ben Cousins. By the way AFL, instead of worrying about the touch in the back rule, how about you get a real drug testing regime!Demitriou = "Mr Smoke and Mirrors". Tip of the Iceberg, and as the father of 3 children I love it. There should not be one rule for sports stars and another for us. I can't believe Vic Pol recorded players on tape with drug dealer scum and did nothing about it? Or did they AFL? If Pies players are found out, shame on them.

 

[campbell]

AFL and West Coast, want this to go away.
They don't want Cousins speaking to anyone.Thus they will do whatever it takes to apease him.

NRL and Sydney based media will be licking their lips on this one.It ain't going away with the start of the footy.

 

[Frederlick]

AFL and West Coast, want this to go away.
They don't want Cousins speaking to anyone.Thus they will do whatever it takes to apease him.

NRL and Sydney based media will be licking their lips on this one.It ain't going away with the start of the footy.

Too true, and The Age in Melbourne will be putting the boot in too. Why didn't the AFL pay huge cash for the druggo's from last year to 'go overseas', what about the evil gamblers that put the game at risk? Where was their cushy visit to a gambling addicts resort for people 'who don't really want to face the real world' in the USA. Fix it AFL, it probably won't be like Warny and his they were only 'diet pills' BS or Susie O'Neill and it was 'only asprin' (both masking agents for performance enhancers by the way).

 

[campbell]

Too true, and The Age in Melbourne will be putting the boot in too. Why didn't the AFL pay huge cash for the druggo's from last year to 'go overseas', what about the evil gamblers that put the game at risk? Where was their cushy visit to a gambling addicts resort for people 'who don't really want to face the real world' in the USA. Fix it AFL, it probably won't be like Warny and his they were only 'diet pills' BS or Susie O'Neill and it was 'only asprin' (both masking agents for performance enhancers by the way).

Not Susie O'Neil it was Sam Riley and she was on strong painkiller for migraine, the drug digesic has a component on the banned list.If they had of informed with the proper paper work, all would be ok.
Thats why players can play using banned substances like ventolin for their asthma.

 

[wce4premiership]

Also interesting that this form peak was after recieving a break from a game, maybe he just played better because he was rested...he started really good after the break and slowly decreased in performances...this reasoning makes more sense as it follows the patterns of wearing out again. Seems logical to me.

 

[joegreen]

The BALCO case was dealing with a conspiracy to provide and use PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS .... many sports people were implicated and very few (relatively) were suspended under the "comfortable satisfaction" standard now being applied by USADA.

This standard requires that doping be proved to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel hearing the case. Doping relates to the use of PERFORMANCE ENHANCING drugs and has only been applied to Olympic athletes due to a stricter doping code.

This would nt be applicable to non-performance enhancing drugs (i.e. Cocaine not on game day).

The interesting things is exactly that. What is deemed to be performance enhancing. Some are saying what has been suggested as the drug of choice taken at the tight time is in fact performance enhancing. This is what ASADA will be investigating. What was taken and when. A few meetings I dare say are being lined up. The last the sport & WCE needs is a cover up. They have all come clean saying drugs were taken during the season last year. Now ASADA will want to know what and when. If it can be proven it was performance enhancing and on game day then further action will be taken. This though will be hard to prove but WCE would need to be careful as to exactly what they say.

Amphetamines are performance enhancing in the right amount and at the right time. I have zero doubt players have taken certain "similar" type drugs to get that last quarter burst. The classic example is sudafed. pseudoephedrine is performance enhancing but was taken off the banned list on Jan 1st 2004. Nothing is stopping players from taking 6 tabs at 3/4 time. I guess ICE would be a super charged version of this... why do think pharmacists take your name when you buy it (sudafed that is)? Because scum druggies use it to make speed etc...

The AFL need to distance themselves from the drug issue and the best way is have an independent body administer the policy. It is a conflict of interest to have the organization that runs the sport also write the drug policy. Regardless of how good it might actually be: Justice must be seen to be done.

Watch out if ASADA or the Govt get a sniff of a conspiracy or a cover up to bury what has actually happened. For mine they have opened Pandora's Box by admitting to so much already. The have come clean to a point, much pressure will now be brought to bare to submit the full and truthful details... you never know it might wind up in court?? Esp in the light that Hay has also come out and said he took drugs - they all might be called as witnesses... It only takes one person to spill the beans... ASADA just need to speak to the right person - who ever that might be?

 

[FuManchu]

Trust is a different issue. I would be unlikely to trust him in the same way ever again. But on what was known in July and his actions through to September, I cannot see that the trust given him was clearly breached. Clearly it has been now and Woosha has said that trust would/will be an issue going forward.

Not sure what the hell your corporate head hunting agency comment has to do with anything. Surely you arent suggesting that high end fully functioning corporate types never take drugs, misbehave and occasionally lie to or mislead their bosses?

One would suggest that such a view was naive in the extreme ... and yes, I know many fully functioning corporate types - some with serious "issues".

I'm suggesting that anyone who would take Cousins on his word after that litany of behavioural problems is not a good judge of character and should not be involved in assessing character.

Interesting to note Demetriou said the other night at half time of Melb v St's that west coast were aware of the drug problems in July. Now are we going to argue semantics here as well?

 

[Eagle87]

I'm suggesting that anyone who would take Cousins on his word after that litany of behavioural problems is not a good judge of character and should not be involved in assessing character.

Interesting to note Demetriou said the other night at half time of Melb v St's that west coast were aware of the drug problems in July. Now are we going to argue semantics here as well?

Happy with paragraph 1.

Paragraph 2 is you going back to your long discredited argument.

I have said (on numerous occasions) that West Coast knew of the drug use/issue in July - this is not in dispute. What is in dispute and has been explained to you 4,000,035 times is that knowing of the drug issue in July and allowing a drug addict to play when taking drugs in the lead up to games - which is your allegation are not automatically related.

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that the club could have known about Cousins using drugs in July, acted on that, received assurances that the problem was resolved, seen evidence (performance, presentation at training) that supported the view that is was resolved and therefore reasonably concluded that all was ok????

You seem to believe that knowledge of a drug issue in July AUTOMATICALLY means that Cousins was (a) using for the rest of the season with the clubs knowledge and (b) that he should have been immediately suspended based on that knowledge.

Your logic remains flawed on this matter. This is not and never has been an argument about the meaning of words but rather the conclusions drawn from the simple statement that the club "knew of the (drug) issue in July". Your conclusions are leaps into the unknown rather than logical conclusions...

 

[Brewster_]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned but The Sunday Times today quotes Demetriou as saying that Cousins has been tested 14 times in all and 4 of those tests were in the second half of last year. The results were negative.

 

[FuManchu]

Happy with paragraph 1.

Paragraph 2 is you going back to your long discredited argument.

I have said (on numerous occasions) that West Coast knew of the drug use/issue in July - this is not in dispute. What is in dispute and has been explained to you 4,000,035 times is that knowing of the drug issue in July and allowing a drug addict to play when taking drugs in the lead up to games - which is your allegation are not automatically related.

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that the club could have known about Cousins using drugs in July, acted on that, received assurances that the problem was resolved, seen evidence (performance, presentation at training) that supported the view that is was resolved and therefore reasonably concluded that all was ok????

You seem to believe that knowledge of a drug issue in July AUTOMATICALLY means that Cousins was (a) using for the rest of the season with the clubs knowledge and (b) that he should have been immediately suspended based on that knowledge.

Your logic remains flawed on this matter. This is not and never has been an argument about the meaning of words but rather the conclusions drawn from the simple statement that the club "knew of the (drug) issue in July". Your conclusions are leaps into the unknown rather than logical conclusions...

And I will argue that allowed a player with a proven track record of dishonourable behaviour to give your club undertakings that he was doing the right thing. therein lies the first problem, it's either naivity or sheer refusal to acknowledge the problem for expedient reasons.

What did your club do to confirm that the player who you sacked as captain for poor off field behaviour, was not undertaking yet again more poor off field behaviour, once it was established drugs were a CONFIRMED problem?

Your club was either guilty of turning a blind eye, which it has done for years with this type of issue, or its is a grossly poor judge of human character. And remember, Worsfold treated cousins like his son, he loved him they say, so given that closeness, did worsfold, a trained pharmacist deliberately turn a blind eye in the hope of winning a flag before the problem became public fodder? And in doing so, put someone he has stated his affection for, in danger.

Or is he just a complete moron, whose professional training as a pharmacist should be called into question because of the training hewould have received in pharmacy college ,on the effects of drugs? Yet which he failed to observe in his capacity of trying to win a flag at all costs. yet again at the potential risk of damaging someone he supposedly cared about???

There are so many inconsistancies in the West Coast spin on this issue, that you only look foolish trying to justify any of it. You should just say we were wrong, we were very wrong and the club should readdress its priorities, the way it deals with players, player issues and the untouchable status it has fostered and its new public image.

 

[FuManchu]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned but The Sunday Times today quotes Demetriou as saying that Cousins has been tested 14 times in all and 4 of those tests were in the second half of last year. The results were negative.

NEWS FLASH

AFL drug testing regime is inadequate

fails to obtain positive test for known drug user

the shock of it all

 

[Eagle87]

NEWS FLASH

AFL drug testing regime is inadequate

fails to obtain positive test for known drug user

the shock of it all

The AFL testing regime is run by WADA the World Anti-Doping Agency i.e. the pre-eminent testing agency in the world who test all Olympic athletes etc.

Clearly Cousins was target tested (4 tests after July) and clearly he passed all the tests (no positives). As Demetriou points out, WADA would only test for amphetamines on game day because WADA (that pre-eminent body again) believe that while amphetamines may enhance perfomance this is only the case if they are taken ON GAME DAY.

Was interested in the comments of Geelongs doctor yesterday that he has more of a problem with athletes in Olympic sports when it comes to amphetamines etc because they are not tested for them at all (out of competition) and he has had to advise some to not compete in certain meets because of what they might have had at a recent party! This is alarming on many levels but passed through to the keeper!

Cousins gave assurances, was target tested, passed every test and performed on and off-field.

What the hell do you want? Shootings at dawn for anyone who ever admits drug use?

 

[imright]

Cousins is due back in 2 months. If all goes to plan, a couple of WAFL games then a half a dozen AFL games. He will be cherry ripe for the defence of the Premiership.

Unless Cousins gets a positive test during in season testing he will be available to play when the club sees fit. Afterall it was the club that suspended him, despite their being no positive drugs tests conducted by the AFL.

I don't think the Eagles need Cousins to defend the Premiership but it would be nice to include him just to pi$$ off the moaning whinges.

 

[FuManchu]

The AFL testing regime is run by WADA the World Anti-Doping Agency i.e. the pre-eminent testing agency in the world who test all Olympic athletes etc.

Clearly Cousins was target tested (4 tests after July) and clearly he passed all the tests (no positives). As Demetriou points out, WADA would only test for amphetamines on game day because WADA (that pre-eminent body again) believe that while amphetamines may enhance perfomance this is only the case if they are taken ON GAME DAY.

Was interested in the comments of Geelongs doctor yesterday that he has more of a problem with athletes in Olympic sports when it comes to amphetamines etc because they are not tested for them at all and he has had to advise some to not compete in certain meets because of what they might have had at a recent party! This is alarming on many levels but passed through to the keeper!

Cousins gave assurances, was target tested, passed every test and performed on and off-field.

What the hell do you want? Shootings at dawn for anyone who ever admits drug use?

I guess we all would want west Coast not to turn a blind eye for 5 years to cousins diplaying 'inconsistant' behaviour for a supposed leader of the club.

i guess we would expect west coast once they heard the first whisper of any drug use 5 years ago to put the fear of god into any player and NOT use the 'no proof, no action' stance it has hidden behind for years.

I guess if I was West Coast, I would have told cousins to go take a walk for a month after one drug confirmation, which they had in July. After all, once they knew drugs had been used (even once) they owed it to themselves, the player, the AFL to be proactive, rather than hide behind convenient minimilistic action, that seems to be their signiture policy in any wrong doings of any player of note.

Once Cousins' drug use (even once) was known they should have dropped him, like they did Gardiner, because in case you havent noticed, drug use is not acceptable, much like any of gardiner's indescretions were not acceptable.

I guess West Coast after dropping cousins, like they had dropped Gardiner, could have said to cousins 'you prove you are abiding by ALL your obligations' ' how you do that is up to you' , 'But make it believable, because everything you have done up to this point is unaccepatable '

But no, west Coast opted to go by the word of a drug using, continually misbehaving 'untouchable' . Its about as believable as some of the Bold and the Beautiful plots

 

[Eagle87]

I guess we all would want west Coast not to turn a blind eye for 5 years to cousins diplaying 'inconsistant' behaviour for a supposed leader of the club.

i guess we would expect west coast once they heard the first whisper of any drug use 5 years ago to put the fear of god into any player and NOT use the 'no proof, no action' stance it has hidden behind for years.

I guess if I was West Coast, I would have told cousins to go take a walk for a month after one drug confirmation, which they had in July. After all, once they knew drugs had been used (even once) they owed it to themselves, the player, the AFL to be proactive, rather than hide behind convenient minimilistic action, that seems to be their signiture policy in any wrong doings of any player of note.

Once Cousins' drug use (even once) was known they should have dropped him, like they did Gardiner, because in case you havent noticed, drug use is not acceptable, much like any of gardiner's indescretions were not acceptable.

I guess West Coast after dropping cousins, like they had dropped Gardiner, could have said to cousins 'you prove you are abiding by ALL your obligations' ' how you do that is up to you' , 'But make it believable, because everything you have done up to this point is unaccepatable '

But no, west Coast opted to go by the word of a drug using, continual misbehaving 'untouchable' . Its about as believable as some of the Bold and the Beautiful plots

Actually West Coast had him target tested. Which is clear from the 4 tests. He also was "rested" for 1 game.

The Eagles clearly demanded action from Cousins, in their view he took all the right steps. His on-field perfomance improved. He turned up at training AND he passed all the drug tests which were targetted at him based on a West Coast request.

They took on board what he said but they also judged him on peformance and he passed all the drug tests.

All the other stuff about 5 years etc etc is your opinion based on speculation and has absolutely nothing to do with your arguments in this thread which have been based on specifically what action West Coast should have take when they "knew" in July.

The shifting ground and the comparisons with Gardiner confirm what most of us have argued in this thread - your position is not one based on logic or a factual argument but based on a prejudice against the entire regime at West Coast and this prejudice clouds your capacity for logic and reason.

You hate West Coast, you think we should be disciplined and punished, you hate drugs.... we get all that.

Now move on...

 

[FuManchu]

Actually West Coast had him target tested. Which is clear from the 4 tests. He also was "rested" for 1 game.

The Eagles clearly demanded action from Cousins, in their view he took all the right steps. His on-field perfomance improved. He turned up at training AND he passed all the drug tests which were targetted at him based on a West Coast request.

They took on board what he said but they also judged him on peformance and he passed all the drug tests.

All the other stuff about 5 years etc etc is your opinion based on speculation and has absolutely nothing to do with your arguments in this thread which have been based on specifically what action West Coast should have take when they "knew" in July.

The shifting ground and the comparisons with Gardiner confirm what most of us have argued in this thread - your position is not one based on logic or a factual argument but based on a prejudice against the entire regime at West Coast and this prejudice clouds your capacity for logic and reason.

You hate West Coast, you think we should be disciplined and punished, you hate drugs.... we get all that.

Now move on...

explain to me why gardiner was supended from the eagles for drinking before a pre season game, yet cousins was not suspended for taking drugs during the AFL season

gardiner was gotten rid of because he was involved in a car crash and I assume he was drinking. Cousins does a runner , abandons his missus, to avoid a breatho. So there are similarities there also

Explain to me why one incurs a suspension for what is still a legal activity in drinking , yet the other keeps his place in the team for what is an illegal activity in taking illegal drugs?

Explain to me the inconsistant application of club penalties

BTW, who said I hate drugs? I just hate the crap the club did and has avoided scrutiny for. And if I had it my way, the club should be held to account for playing a player that had a drug problem, the club played a player that could have been at risk for playing that player. The club has avoided any censure for ineffective handling of a dangerous situation. And the club has used a firewall of ignorance to avoid proper scrutiny. And it has shown it has a two tier policy of dealing with the 'untouchable' and the lesser lights.

 

[bigsam]

explain to me why gardiner was supended from the eagles for drinking before a pre season game, yet cousins was not suspended for taking drugs during the AFL season

gardiner was gotten rid of because he was involved in a car crash and I assume he was drinking. Cousins does a runner , abandons his missus, to avoid a breatho. So there are similarities there also

Explain to me why one incurs a suspension for what is still a legal activity in drinking , yet the other keeps his place in the team for what is an illegal activity in taking illegal drugs?

Explain to me the inconsistant application of club penalties

give up on it....

 

[joegreen]

I think you could argue all day on what happened and what action should be taken. Without being in that inner sanctum it is nothing but speculation. Interesting but speculation none the less.

What I find more interesting is what action ASADA is now taking and what the official response of WCE will be. Someone in that club knows exactly what was taken and when. Who are these people? Kerr, Gardniner, Chick, Cousins? Any others? Which of these will come clean? Probably none, but who is to say there is a younger player/official/etc at the club under pressure from his own family to "spill the beans"?

Glen Archer during the week said he would do everything in his power to stop his son being drafted by WCE. What parents now have their sons at WCE and are desperate for them to get the hell out of there? How would a 19 year old respond to mum and dad saying "now what really happened? And you have to tell the authorities?

Will the official line of WCE align with the individual accounts of the players themselves? Does ASADA have the power to interview players?? This is where it gets interesting... It only takes one person...

 

[FuManchu]

give up on it....

so, thats a 'no I have no answer'?

 

[bigsam]

so, thats a 'no I have no answer'?

the answer is.... the footy has now begun.

give it a rest...

and good luck for saturday!

ha!

 

[FuManchu]

the answer is.... the footy has now begun.

give it a rest...

and good luck for saturday!

ha!

I guess that sums up the West Coast stance

waiting for something else to detract attention from its inept handling.

 

[Eagle87]

explain to me why gardiner was supended from the eagles for drinking before a pre season game, yet cousins was not suspended for taking drugs during the AFL season

gardiner was gotten rid of because he was involved in a car crash and I assume he was drinking. Cousins does a runner , abandons his missus, to avoid a breatho. So there are similarities there also

Explain to me why one incurs a suspension for what is still a legal activity in drinking , yet the other keeps his place in the team for what is an illegal activity in taking illegal drugs?

Explain to me the inconsistant application of club penalties

Gardiner was suspended from the West Coast Eagles after string of misdemeanours but most importantly after a number of breaches of team rules. Gardiners off field activities lead to him missing training, missing rehab and most not giving himself the best chance of recovery. His drinking before a game was the final breach of team rules before the suspension.

You need to further understand that many in the club wanted him traded at the end of 2005 because they believed he was beyond recovery - that is his unprofessionalism was problematic. It is believed that Nisbett argued for his retention and by the time of his idiscretion in early 2006 the club had lost all patience with his professionalism and his continuing breaches of team rules.

Cousins had NEVER been unprofessional as regards his performance and his training and other committments to the club until last season. We can argue all day about whether his off-season booze bus runs or his fight with Kerr (over Kerrs unfortunate comments about Cousins sister who he was ummm dating) but his professionalism was never questioned until July last year.

This is the fundamental difference between the 2 players. Cousins was always the professional and Gardiner wasnt. The club may well have had suspicions, it certainly heard the stories but Cousins denied a problem and always performed. Gardiner did not.

 

[FuManchu]

Gardiner was suspended from the West Coast Eagles after string of misdemeanours but most importantly after a number of breaches of team rules. Gardiners off field activities lead to him missing training, missing rehab and most not giving himself the best chance of recovery. His drinking before a game was the final breach of team rules before the suspension.

You need to further understand that many in the club wanted him traded at the end of 2005 because they believed he was beyond recovery - that is his unprofessionalism was problematic. It is believed that Nisbett argued for his retention and by the time of his idiscretion in early 2006 the club had lost all patience with his professionalism and his continuing breaches of team rules.

Cousins had NEVER been unprofessional as regards his performance and his training and other committments to the club until last season. We can argue all day about whether his off-season booze bus runs or his fight with Kerr (over Kerrs unfortunate comments about Cousins sister who he was ummm dating) but his professionalism was never questioned until July last year.

This is the fundamental difference between the 2 players. Cousins was always the professional and Gardiner wasnt. The club may well have had suspicions, it certainly heard the stories but Cousins denied a problem and always performed. Gardiner did not.

So gardiner was honest and paid the penalty, cousins lied and kept his place? thats a good way to operate.

But didnt cousins miss some training sessions and turn up for training sessions in an unfit state mid last year, and therefore is guilty of the same unprofessionalism as Gardiner?

Hasnt Cousins and gardiner been so inextricably linked to so many off field misdemeanours, that its hard to seperate the two in any wrong doings?

The consistancies between the two players behaviours are close, almost identical, the penalties dished out are the only inconsistancies here. The two tiered treatment at West Coast only fuelled the problems that you now face.

 

[imright]

I guess that sums up the West Coast stance

waiting for something else to detract attention from its inept handling.

Have you checked your closet lately. On second thoughts you'd better not, you might not like what you see.

Ironically West Coast will now have the cleanest club in the AFL, now lets have a look at each of the other 15 clubs individually like they have the Eagles.