WADA threat looms for Cousins

[greennick]

Its the inconsistancies in all of your arguments, (not just yours ) that make your implausible denialability even more ridiculous.

One point, how did West Coast know that Cousins had used drugs come July? Are you now telling everyone that they only found out that he used drugs in the off season, but only found that out in July? Give it up.

What implausible garbage are we going to hear now about west Coasts deliberate policy of ignorance?

Why did West Coast take a recalcitrant on his word at all after they found out he had taken drugs? The man had proven to be antithesis of everything a club leader was meant to be. Yet they took him on his word?????

I can hear the conversation: Club: " benny are you still using drugs?"

Benny: " errrrrrrrrrrrr no, is that what you want me to say?"

Club: "thats good enough for us" ................ " errrrrrrrrr, you're not going to do anything to embarrass us are you?"

Benny: " errrrrrrrrrr, have I ever?"

Club: "Now, stop shaking and fidgeting and get out there and train will ya?"

Benny: "are you talking to me?"

You are either ignoring or failing to understand the ridiculousness of your argument. Please let me know what they could do with no evidence! Give me one example of another club that has acted on a player in the last 100 years where there has been no evidence of wrongdoing. Can you?

Yes, there was rumour and a missed training session. But that can hardly be called enough of a body of circumstantial evidence.

I think even Worsfold has said that he asked for assurances from Ben last July (when the problem was nowhere near as big), and was given them. You must realise that it got worse over the off-season, when their is at best limited contact between player and coach. Worsfold acted once there was enough evidence.

You say how could they trust the word of a recalcitrant. So are you saying that they should not have trusted his word because he has a problem with authority?? I would like to see them explain that one to everyone. Here, I can hear the press conference right now:

Gooding: "Ben has been suspended from the West Coast Eagles. This is because some guy that knows this girl that went out with this guy that was friends with Ben told Trevor that he is hooked on smoking ice and snorting cocaine."

Media: "So, has Ben admitted that he has a problem?"

Gooding: "No, he denied it. However, but he missed a training session today and because he has some previous issues with the authorities, we decided he cannot be trusted. He decided that it must be true and we suspended him anyway."

Media: "Is that guy that met Ben going to come out and make a statement."

Gooding: "No, he wants to stay anonymous and we have to protect our sources."

Media: "Is that the first training session Ben has missed."

Gooding: "No, he had the 'flu' a few years back and missed about three training sessions."



Haha, imagine what the fans and AFLPA would think of that!! But on the evidence they had before them at the time, how else would it have gone??

 

[greennick]

You dont think Demetriou wouldn't be on the phone the minute the story broke, screaming at the eagles, demanding information? He knows and he made the statement on national TV.

BTW, Worsfold has been seen to try and fudge the details on this issue, he has no credibility left. One minute there is no drug issue at the eagles, then all of a sudden its 6 to 8 players having admitted to using. He should hide for the next 6 months and hope we all forget.

Did he get his pharmacology degree on a weeties packet?

Yes, he did say that the Eagles did and do not have a drug problem. That is because he believes that a couple of current players who claimed to have quit using drugs, a couple who admitted to using once or twice, a couple who are no longer at the club and one substance abuser is not a problem. That is less of a problem for the Eagles than it is for your average 23yo group of 44 random people. Hence, it is not anymore of a problem than it is in society in general.

 

[greennick]

Unfortunately, due to the stupidity of the AFL, the AFL dont know who they are. But if they did, they should be suspended. Unfortunatley for Cousins, the AFL do know he has, and therefore he should be sanctioned. But that all boils down to how it has been confirmed how Cousins was using. If Cousins has copped to it, then they have to act.

What are they going to sanction him under you dimwit? They can't sanction him under drugs, because there still is no positive tests. The rules don't have any alternative other than the testing regime. They can suspend him for bringing the game into disrepute. Then why don't they do it for the 33 KNOWN illicit positives? At least they could do it for the 3 double positives everyone knows about. There is more evidence for them than Cousins. The system is there for a reason you idiot. They can not and will not go outside it.

 

[greennick]

We need to read it in L'Equipe before anyone takes it seriously.

Gold

But we would never hear about it because none of the Footy writers know a second language!

 

[greennick]

Unfortunately, due to the stupidity of the AFL, the AFL dont know who they are. But if they did, they should be suspended. Unfortunatley for Cousins, the AFL do know he has, and therefore he should be sanctioned. But that all boils down to how it has been confirmed how Cousins was using. If Cousins has copped to it, then they have to act.

What about the three known positives then, do they have to act on them too? Your arguments are ill-conceived and not based in reality!

 

[zero]

Yeah, but the chances of actually being caught under the current system are minute.
All the AFL's negative tests, especially of Cousins, show is that the players are ahead of the testing program.

are they? i would say that the competitions random testing would make for a fairly accurate picture of drug use in the AFL. 33 players have tested positive out of competition, and 0 in competition.

from that we can surmise that a lot players get on it in their spare time, and noone uses steroids or stimulants on gameday

considering the effects of stimulants, the penalties, the testing regime, and the amount of money and time these young blokes have, that seems perfectly correct to me

 

[FuManchu]

What are they going to sanction him under you dimwit? They can't sanction him under drugs, because there still is no positive tests. The rules don't have any alternative other than the testing regime. They can suspend him for bringing the game into disrepute. Then why don't they do it for the 33 KNOWN illicit positives? At least they could do it for the 3 double positives everyone knows about. There is more evidence for them than Cousins. The system is there for a reason you idiot. They can not and will not go outside it.

You complete fool, the AFL are not meant to know the names attached to the 33 positive tests. Only the club doctor and the testing pathologist. The AFL and the club are only notified after the third, when sanction takes place

But, with Cousins, they know.

Learn about the policy before imploding online will you?

 

[FuManchu]

What about the three known positives then, do they have to act on them too? Your arguments are ill-conceived and not based in reality!

The AFL will sanction the player after they have been notified of the third positive. before that, in theory, the AFL will not know who has tested once or twice. My arguments are based on how the AFL drug testing regime works. What are yours based on? Implausible denialability?

 

[FuManchu]

Woosha has more credibility in his fingertip than you have in your entire family tree.
I heard straight from the mouth of one of the Eagles premiership players that at the next couple of training sessions after Cuz was suspended some of the players were afraid if they stuffed up Woosha would belt them. He was a very angry man. I would say right at this minute the Eagles are drug free, whether they stay that way is another matter. He also said the sqaud were shellshocked when they found out about Cuz. They knew he partied hard but no idea at the extent of it.
I know everyone else has tried to tell you this but here goes anyway-
NO POSITIVE TEST= NO CASE TO ANSWER= NO SANCTION.
Now get over it, you've had your fun.

I see your family tree was traced back up until the point where they found your family living in it.


Mike Sheahan on 'On the couch" said last night, Cousins was known to have a drug problem a long time before July. Interesting

West Coast knew, they admitted they knew in July, Dememtriou admitted West Coast knew in July that Cousins had a drug problem. West Coast did nothing substantial. They are guilty of negligence

 

[FuManchu]

You are either ignoring or failing to understand the ridiculousness of your argument. Please let me know what they could do with no evidence! Give me one example of another club that has acted on a player in the last 100 years where there has been no evidence of wrongdoing. Can you?

Yes, there was rumour and a missed training session. But that can hardly be called enough of a body of circumstantial evidence.

I think even Worsfold has said that he asked for assurances from Ben last July (when the problem was nowhere near as big), and was given them. You must realise that it got worse over the off-season, when their is at best limited contact between player and coach. Worsfold acted once there was enough evidence.

You say how could they trust the word of a recalcitrant. So are you saying that they should not have trusted his word because he has a problem with authority?? I would like to see them explain that one to everyone. Here, I can hear the press conference right now:

Gooding: "Ben has been suspended from the West Coast Eagles. This is because some guy that knows this girl that went out with this guy that was friends with Ben told Trevor that he is hooked on smoking ice and snorting cocaine."

Media: "So, has Ben admitted that he has a problem?"

Gooding: "No, he denied it. However, but he missed a training session today and because he has some previous issues with the authorities, we decided he cannot be trusted. He decided that it must be true and we suspended him anyway."

Media: "Is that guy that met Ben going to come out and make a statement."

Gooding: "No, he wants to stay anonymous and we have to protect our sources."

Media: "Is that the first training session Ben has missed."

Gooding: "No, he had the 'flu' a few years back and missed about three training sessions."



Haha, imagine what the fans and AFLPA would think of that!! But on the evidence they had before them at the time, how else would it have gone??

Seems to me, that everyone that counts has now said they knew that Cousins had a drug problem and they knew it in July. Some in the press are now saying that it was known a long time before that.

Too bad they didnt ask the coach at your press conference

Press: "has Cousins taken drugs?'

Worsfold: "It has been confirmed"

Press: "What did you do about it?"

Worsfold: "We held our collective breaths and hoped no-one found out and we kept playing Benny, oh and we wrote him a nasty letter, which really told him off"

 

[yeah-nah]

Funniest thread ever.

What WCE should have done at least 3 years ago is what they just did. Suspend Cousins for some stupid made up reason and bring the secretly known drug issue to a head.

If theyd done that then perhaps the boy would not be in the crapper he is in now. As much as some WCE fans argue otherwise, deep down they know this.

Maybe not negligent legally. But certainly morally.