-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
WADA threat looms for Cousins
- Thread starter campbell
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I think there are several different issues there.
If BC was proven to have used a banned subtance on match day he should be stripped of his Premership medillion + AA + a two year ban
If it was done with clubs knowlodge then fines, lose of draft picks, lost of premership points for this year or next year ( start on negative).
If it was done with clubs knowlodge at the GF then you can talk about the stripping the eagles of the premership + the above penalities
Of course its going to be difficulty (impossible) to prove that he did use of game day and even more so to prove that the club had knowlodge of his use
none of those are existing penalties, except for the individual penalty.
But can you imagine how a coach can rort the system by playing a player on performance enhancing substances, knowing that the only sanction is against the individual. No results can be overturned. The AFL drug testing regime is flawed.
as I said carlton forced two of their players to submit to a drug test (against the rules i know, but when you are in breach, you really dont have much choice but consent or they can keep holding you in breach). West Coast knowing that he had used a banned substance and therefore in breach, could have said to cousins that he had to prove he wasn't in breach. Not just make gratuitous statements to that effect.
West Coast once they had a player in breach had the upper hand yet failed to exercise it.
Seems a lot of West Coast supporters here are exercising their upper hand by wanting/wishing West Coast knew nothing.
Liars will always get caught out sooner or later.
I reckon it is worth going back a bit from when Benny was actually suspended as I find it hard to believe He would have been stood down the very first time He missed a session.
R10 - Geelong - Juddless - big comeback -won
R11- Carlton - Juddless - big comeback
R12 - Port Adelaide - Juddless - no big comeback - got flogged
R13 - Bulldogs - Loss
R14 - Hawks Game - Was that the game Franklin cleaned him up? - very close win
R15 - Sydney game - very close win
R16 - Collingwood game -suspended - got flogged
A lot of this debate (I use the term loosely) seems to be based on what Worsfold said on the Footy Show last week and the different interpratations people have taken. You can watch the interview via the website but you need IE and I only use Firefox. If somebody could put the interview on YouTube or a similar site or provide an unedited transcript it may help to clarify the situation as to what was actually said.
nonsense, you are continually and deliberately misrepresenting and misinterpreting what he said to impugn the honour of the coach.
ie, acting like a troll
they knew of rumours only, so couldnt act. end of story
seems like the only proof you have that they did know anything is a deliberate misinterpretation of a quote.
youll have to come up with something else if you want to actually make a valid point.
which of course you plainly dont.
This has been answered many times already.
He did not know he was taking drugs during the week. In fact, nobody knows he was taking drugs during the week. Actually, the evidence is he was taking drugs every now and then on the weekend after games and missing the training session on the Monday. Also, Worsfold has never specified which training sessions he missed. I believe the first and last ones were Mondays. I would think all the other ones in between were off-season ones. I would doubt he would go to all the off-season training sessions, but be missing in-season ones.
On a separate point you have been harping on about, Worsfold did not say he knew he was taking drugs before July and this was not laid out in the letter. He specifically said on the footy show and elsewhere that in the letter he laid out Ben's requirements to attend training in a professional state. He couldn't outright accuse Ben of taking gear when there was no evidence other than a missed training session. My understanding is that this issue is something that has accelerated since the GF win. It is not something that was all too noticeable before, although I know from personal experience that Ben was having a good time well before last July. He just managed to keep it to the off season before.
Obi-Haive
All Australian
Nope, you are either a troll or you simply do not have the capacity to read and comprehend what is being said if it flies in the face of your own narrow minded point of view.
It is telling when you have known trolls like Ripper, who's throbbing erection for anything anti-eagles is well known, chiming in on your behalf.
Call it what you wish, but I have read and heard exactly what Worsfold said. Your attitude of denial is fantastic, much like West coast's attitude of denial and Cousins' attitude of denial now sees them without one of the best players.
keep it up, where else will this attitude get you?
I wonder why the club isnt denying that they knew that Cousins' was taking banned substances during the week?
Keep it up, I can feel your collective temperatures rising everytime someone dares to question the sacred cow that is west Coast.
Obi-Haive
All Australian
Fine!
Being that you are all knowing please advise us how this issue should have been handled? Or do you not have any ideas of your own, simply spouting the ignorant rubbish that is well documented on these boards.
Please enlighten us oh saged one
- Banned
- #215
You still want proof dont you.
It is too late to be setting up a witch hunt on what he did or didnt ingest GF day. That is done and dusted and all the hypotheticals in the world wont change it
I would hope that as an admitted substance abuser that WADA are going to ramp up their tests on Ben Cousins
I would have confronted the issue head on 5 years ago, in my first week as coach when a respected footballing person in the know who was living in perth at the time came to me and said we had a drug use problem at west Coast.
I would have confronted the issue 5 years ago, when media specualtion said the same. And forget about media speculation being speculation. they know, they in fact water it down to protect themselves. West Coast failed to act a number of times occasions at this earliest occasion in worsfold tenure.
Then to have known about the taped phone calls ( about another player)some years back and not have acted then only demonstrates a club culture hiding behind the convenience of 'specualtion' and 'innuendo'. if west Coast were fair dinks, they would have carried out a witch hunt and crushed that behaviour in their club. but no, they were more concerned with maintaining their 'sacred cow' and 'untouchable' status in perth. As long as nothing was proven, then the club could always maintain a deniability.
with cousins, even if you ignore the warnings from 5 years ago specifically relating to him, then the subsequent poor off-field behaviours since that time would have been enough for the club to say 'enough is enough', finally they were compelled to take the captaincy, but only after much outcry froma media that was astounded that the club could even tolerate, no act in denial, that cousins had a 'problem'
Why did they give Cousins more chances than Gardiner? because Gardiner was less important to the team, so they ditched him, yet he was linked to cousins in so many of the problems that cousins displayed.
Now, after using the convenient excuses of 'speculation' and innuendo' for not acting decisively, they suddenly had an 'epiphany' last July??? Give me a break. from what I gather, the players were starting to get a little restless that cousins was turning up in an 'unpresentable' state or not turning up at all. In a year where the flag looked imminent, players are very edgy about any little thing that would take away from their chances to win the big one. but the club saw cousins as 'essential' And yes he was. So that was their excuse to tread softly of the 'issues' that 'suddenly' came to light in July (give me a break)
Those 'issues' that are no different to the 'issues' today were not effectively dealt with, for to deal with it in the proper way, meant it would upset the team structure. Cousins was still essential to the team. Even tho he stood to erode team discipline and set up a two tier treatment of players within the club.
the club owed it to Cousins, the club , its supporters, the AFL and the image of the game to stand him down and force cousins to address his 'issues' which were drug use, there and then in July. Tell him he had a month to come back clean, to prove that he was clean, to submit to voluntary drug testing. West Coast were well within their rights to stand him down as he had already breached his player contract. as much as players dont have to submit to voluntary or club drug tests, when you have breached your contract, you probably have to go way out to prove yourself. west Coast failed in so many ways here.
to sit there and say West Coast didnt know anything only prolongs the culture of untouchable and unaccountability that they are now lumped with. they knew, they just refused to acknowledge it and play semantics to work around the issue, without actually confronting the issue.
To say you have addressed the issue with a letter to player and manager is like trying to win a fist fight using a wet tram ticket. It's innefectual, it's a token gesture, when hard decisions are needed. It's saying to all and sundry that the club will pretend to go thru the motions rather than meet the issue head on. A trained pharmacist not knowing that a player is not drug affected, give me a break!!!. An educated man given an avalanche of information over the years that one of the clubs stars that continually falls foul of club standards and walks the fine line with the law doesnt have a problem????? Who the hell do you think you are kidding????
Then to sit there on the footy Show and say we only became aware of the issues in July. And then wrote a letter and that was the clubs way of dealing with the issues. Thats clubs defining stuff. Wouldnt you have him in your office and tear him a new one? Wouldn't that sort of behaviour from the so called spiritual on field leader be intolerable and warrant severe words, verbally?
To sit there and say we took a drug user on his word is naive at best. To say that they took a man that refused a club directive to talk to the police, that left his missus and ran away from a booze bus, plus a whole range of other behavioural issues, to say you took this man at his word is ridiculous. He had proven he was unreliable. The club stood him down from the captaincy because he was unreliable, why was he all of a sudden reliable again in July with a drug problem occuring???
Worsfold said he addressed the issues in July, he clearly didnt.
The club should have knocked this on the head 5 years ago. They didnt. the club has had numerous times in the last 5 years to question cousins' behaviour and attempt to curtail and modify, they didnt. In a premiership year, they proved that the expediency of 'suspicion over proof' , innuendo over fact' speculation over substance' was just enough to let one of their players continue playing and in the process endanger himself and run onto a football field and chance heart failure.
They should have stood him down . Forget the semantics, they should have crunched him that hard, forced him to prove he is meeting all contractual obligations, which co-incidently would include a drug clause, and if not a drug clause, then a behaviour clause.
West Coast failed big time.
Other than that, I have no problem with west Coast
I would have confronted the issue head on 5 years ago, in my first week as coach when a respected footballing person in the know who was living in perth at the time came to me and said we had a drug use problem at west Coast.
I would have confronted the issue 5 years ago, when media specualtion said the same. And forget about media speculation being speculation. they know, they in fact water it down to protect themselves. West Coast failed to act a number of times occasions at this earliest occasion in worsfold tenure.
Then to have known about the taped phone calls ( about another player)some years back and not have acted then only demonstrates a club culture hiding behind the convenience of 'specualtion' and 'innuendo'. if west Coast were fair dinks, they would have carried out a witch hunt and crushed that behaviour in their club. but no, they were more concerned with maintaining their 'sacred cow' and 'untouchable' status in perth. As long as nothing was proven, then the club could always maintain a deniability.
with cousins, even if you ignore the warnings from 5 years ago specifically relating to him, then the subsequent poor off-field behaviours since that time would have been enough for the club to say 'enough is enough', finally they were compelled to take the captaincy, but only after much outcry froma media that was astounded that the club could even tolerate, no act in denial, that cousins had a 'problem'
Why did they give Cousins more chances than Gardiner? because Gardiner was less important to the team, so they ditched him, yet he was linked to cousins in so many of the problems that cousins displayed.
Now, after using the convenient excuses of 'speculation' and innuendo' for not acting decisively, they suddenly had an 'epiphany' last July??? Give me a break. from what I gather, the players were starting to get a little restless that cousins was turning up in an 'unpresentable' state or not turning up at all. In a year where the flag looked imminent, players are very edgy about any little thing that would take away from their chances to win the big one. but the club saw cousins as 'essential' And yes he was. So that was their excuse to tread softly of the 'issues' that 'suddenly' came to light in July (give me a break)
Those 'issues' that are no different to the 'issues' today were not effectively dealt with, for to deal with it in the proper way, meant it would upset the team structure. Cousins was still essential to the team. Even tho he stood to erode team discipline and set up a two tier treatment of players within the club.
the club owed it to Cousins, the club , its supporters, the AFL and the image of the game to stand him down and force cousins to address his 'issues' which were drug use, there and then in July. Tell him he had a month to come back clean, to prove that he was clean, to submit to voluntary drug testing. West Coast were well within their rights to stand him down as he had already breached his player contract. as much as players dont have to submit to voluntary or club drug tests, when you have breached your contract, you probably have to go way out to prove yourself. west Coast failed in so many ways here.
to sit there and say West Coast didnt know anything only prolongs the culture of untouchable and unaccountability that they are now lumped with. they knew, they just refused to acknowledge it and play semantics to work around the issue, without actually confronting the issue.
To say you have addressed the issue with a letter to player and manager is like trying to win a fist fight using a wet tram ticket. It's innefectual, it's a token gesture, when hard decisions are needed. It's saying to all and sundry that the club will pretend to go thru the motions rather than meet the issue head on. A trained pharmacist not knowing that a player is not drug affected, give me a break!!!. An educated man given an avalanche of information over the years that one of the clubs stars that continually falls foul of club standards and walks the fine line with the law doesnt have a problem????? Who the hell do you think you are kidding????
Then to sit there on the footy Show and say we only became aware of the issues in July. And then wrote a letter and that was the clubs way of dealing with the issues. Thats clubs defining stuff. Wouldnt you have him in your office and tear him a new one? Wouldn't that sort of behaviour from the so called spiritual on field leader be intolerable and warrant severe words, verbally?
To sit there and say we took a drug user on his word is naive at best. To say that they took a man that refused a club directive to talk to the police, that left his missus and ran away from a booze bus, plus a whole range of other behavioural issues, to say you took this man at his word is ridiculous. He had proven he was unreliable. The club stood him down from the captaincy because he was unreliable, why was he all of a sudden reliable again in July with a drug problem occuring???
Worsfold said he addressed the issues in July, he clearly didnt.
The club should have knocked this on the head 5 years ago. They didnt. the club has had numerous times in the last 5 years to question cousins' behaviour and attempt to curtail and modify, they didnt. In a premiership year, they proved that the expediency of 'suspicion over proof' , innuendo over fact' speculation over substance' was just enough to let one of their players continue playing and in the process endanger himself and run onto a football field and chance heart failure.
They should have stood him down . Forget the semantics, they should have crunched him that hard, forced him to prove he is meeting all contractual obligations, which co-incidently would include a drug clause, and if not a drug clause, then a behaviour clause.
West Coast failed big time.
Other than that, I have no problem with west Coast
Congratulations on finally, after lord knows how much ****, coming up with a good post!
Yes, with the benefit of hindsight, West Coast should have acted earlier. However, I believe that they could not for a number of reasons. Although these reasons may seem like crap excuses to you, you must understand that Worsfold did not have any proof of any drug taking by Ben. Also, Worsfold did confront Ben and other players about it when he started. However, as you would expect, they closed ranks and denied it all. Unbeknownst to Worsfold, Ben's drug taking continued. However, at this point in time, it was only in the off season and as such the knowledge was kept to his mates, who slowly spread it out to the rest of Perth. At least last year, maybe earlier, Ben started getting on it during the season. My understanding is, this was restricted to the weekend. He has never been taking drugs during the week as you have suggested. I would think that rumours of Ben's continued behaviour were getting to Worsfold on a regular basis now. However, as Worsfold said, he confronted Ben about it again and, as would be expected, he lied. Last July, this came to Worsfold's attention when he missed a training session. This was finally something Worsfold could act on. But under Ben's contract, all he could do is write a letter. When you think about it, this is all my employer could do too if the same thing happened. If I missed a day of work and they thought I was on drugs, all they could do is give me a formal warning. They can't fire/suspend you on that evidence! I do not know what behind the scenes work went has been going on over the past 6-9 months, but the last missed training session (bringing it to 5 including the July one) was the last straw. I think there is slightly more to the story than has been explicitly said. They must have built a fair body of evidence over the past 6 or so months and this was the final straw.
I do wish the West Coast management had maybe been a bit more confronting with the issue, but I think they could only do this with the benefit of hindsight. They didn't have the advantage of ever seeing Ben in that kind of state and, quite frankly, they probably didn't want to believe it either!
You said that West Coast failed big time. I think pretty much every club would fail the same test. They are football clubs, as such their primary goal is to win football matches, not babysit players.
Congratulations on finally, after lord knows how much ****, coming up with a good post!
Yes, with the benefit of hindsight, West Coast should have acted earlier. However, I believe that they could not for a number of reasons. Although these reasons may seem like crap excuses to you, you must understand that Worsfold did not have any proof of any drug taking by Ben. Also, Worsfold did confront Ben and other players about it when he started. However, as you would expect, they closed ranks and denied it all. Unbeknownst to Worsfold, Ben's drug taking continued. However, at this point in time, it was only in the off season and as such the knowledge was kept to his mates, who slowly spread it out to the rest of Perth. At least last year, maybe earlier, Ben started getting on it during the season. My understanding is, this was restricted to the weekend. He has never been taking drugs during the week as you have suggested. I would think that rumours of Ben's continued behaviour were getting to Worsfold on a regular basis now. However, as Worsfold said, he confronted Ben about it again and, as would be expected, he lied. Last July, this came to Worsfold's attention when he missed a training session. This was finally something Worsfold could act on. But under Ben's contract, all he could do is write a letter. When you think about it, this is all my employer could do too if the same thing happened. If I missed a day of work and they thought I was on drugs, all they could do is give me a formal warning. They can't fire/suspend you on that evidence! I do not know what behind the scenes work went has been going on over the past 6-9 months, but the last missed training session (bringing it to 5 including the July one) was the last straw. I think there is slightly more to the story than has been explicitly said. They must have built a fair body of evidence over the past 6 or so months and this was the final straw.
I do wish the West Coast management had maybe been a bit more confronting with the issue, but I think they could only do this with the benefit of hindsight. They didn't have the advantage of ever seeing Ben in that kind of state and, quite frankly, they probably didn't want to believe it either!
You said that West Coast failed big time. I think pretty much every club would fail the same test. They are football clubs, as such their primary goal is to win football matches, not babysit players.
funnily enough, I've said all of these at various stages, i just couldnt be bothered lumping them into one piece.
I believe that, if as you suggested they had suspicion, without confirmation, that that was enough to warrant crunching him right from the outset and making it clear in no uncertain terms that any continuance would be met with harsh sanctions. They failed to penalise Cousins for poor behaviour until a year ago. Cousins had every right to feel he was immune to sanction, they allowed him to feel that.
I wonder if it was a lesser being at West Coast, whether they would have tolerated this behaviour and suspected drug use? I doubt it, very much and this is borne out when Gardiner became superfluous to their needs, they dumped him in quick time for off field bahaviour. Yet Benny, kept getting treated differently.
Now there has been a lot of semantics argued here. A club arguing semantics might win a court case, but they lose in the court of public opinion. But really, as a footballing administration with responsibilities above that of fielding a team, West Coast failed the basics of what we expect from a responsible corporate citizen. Firstly, they allowed their brand to be linked to innapropriate activities for 5 years without crunching it.
Secondly, even with only suspicions of a player involved in drugs, how could you as a club that boasts about player welfare, even contemplate endangering a player's health by putting him on the field. If I was coach, I'd want to be damn sure that all my players were 100% and not prone to something that the club could have prevented. The evidence was already there that drug use can cause cardiac failure. Suspicion, that one of your hardest running players may be placing himself in jeopardy should have alarm bells screaming.
Thirdly, even if it was suspected, not proven, that a player may be indulging in drugs, how could any club be sure that the players wasnt taking drug traces into game day? Even if the player had it down pat, when he could indulge and be clean by game day, as a club, could you be that sure? Would you be comfortable that your player wasnt escalating his activities and jeopardising individual penalty by testing positive on matchday, maybe because the use got a little bit heavier and a little bit closer to the match? As a coach, even if the penalty isn't aimed at the team, would you want your GF victory tainted by the fact that someone you could have stood down and avoided any such reading? You all say you won fair and square, and I have no reason to doubt it. But now there can be some doubt if one player would have tested positive or not, when the club could have put paid to that by definitive, team orientated action. Some call it the asterik syndrome. Why even entertain it?
As I said, West Coast supporters will argue semantics, and probably might even win it. But you've already lost the arument in most peoples minds because of what has been rumoured and not acted upon in the preceeding 5 years. The tapes of Kerr dont help.
Just as much as West Coast supporters can argue semantics, so can others with the opposite view. The club will never admit outright what transpired which might paint them in a poor light. To do so, may actually invoke some form of action from a pathetic AFL, who seem to scared to burn the sacred cows. I'm sure they would prefer a truck load of lesser lights to test positive and be penalised than one champion of the game. They could then say 'we are proactive'. Now they are faced with a PR disaster, which to change now would admit either defeat or impotency.
But they also know now that this wont go away. I await with anticipation the dilution of the current testing regime to be replaced with another farcical measure.
What stands out in all of this is the ability now for an expedient, ruthless coach to manipulate the system and possibly win a GF with a drug tainted player, as the sanction is not to overturn the result, but is on the individual. the coach can turn a blind eye, create a firewall between the players activities and the coach. And as long as the player doesnt test positive 3 times before that match out of comp, or once on a game day, the player can play.
Its a joke
It amazes me that this is the same person who has been posting for the majority of the thread. Have you been drunk for the previous three days? The typical Collingwood supporter all of a sudden becomes not so typical.
I think really what it comes down to here is that most West Coast supporters are happy that we won a premiership last year. Whilst we may not all approve of the way the WC management handled the situation. I think if Ben was suspended on rumour and innuendo, more WC supporters would be annoyed and the AFLPA may have something to say about it too.
While it is regrettable that more was not done to stop Ben's slide, as he was performing on the field and I believe this is primarily a social issue, I think that too much action too early would be premature. I don't think anything short of a suspension would have caused anything to sink into Ben anyway. I doubt very much they had enough to suspend him on before. What he can be suspended for is unfortunately governed by his contract.
I totally disagree that Ben Cousins was drug tainted. That implies performance enhancing. Which at the very least means illicit drugs on game day. There is no proof, evidence or even rumour that this is true.
Once again, great posts, especially compared to before.
look who I have been arguing with. Doesnt exactly inspire to go into too much detail.
I know Cousins cant and shouldnt be suspended for what has happened in the past. There is no retropectivity and so there shouldnt be. if the AFL are that inept that they cant catch a footballer whose deeds have been well documented in the media, whose extra ciricular activities have been subject to continual speculation, then they dont deserve to catch him. By diluting the testing regime, they have ended up with the scandal they deserved.
You feel they couldnt have suspended him as per his contract. Others on the same basic player contracts, on which all contracts are based, have been suspended for far less, others have been demoted and told to clean their acts up for much less. West Coast tolerated his behaviour, because on field he more than made up for it. What message is that to anyone? Excel in a sporting sense and you will be granted carte blanche in every other sense?
And the point of contention in all this argument is what exactly did Worsfold mean when he said they knew of the issues in July. Some WC supporters are saying that he didnt mean the drug issues. I say that to speak of the issues, then the drug issue is at the very core. Why didnt Worsfold elaborate further and say drugs werent the issue in July in his Footy Show statement, when drugs was the basis of all the furore? If Worsfold knew drugs was the basis of all problems in July, then all I have said stands
If Worsflod said he addressed the issues in a letter (god knows why he didnt rip into him), then I assume he meant he included any drug related issues, as it was the turning up to training in an unfit manner and not turning up at all, that were the issues. Both seem to have drug issues around them. No-one from the club had denied any of this. Organisations are very proactive in nipping this stuff in the bud. West Coast have allowed yesterday's article in the Australian to go unanswered. It queries everything I have. Silence to me is tacit approval.
Let West Coast come out and say drugs were not an issue in July. We know they wont given the previous history and speculation and now the Kerr tapes and Cousins' need to seek rehab. They have lost the PR war and were either negligent or underhanded in their handling in all of this.
- Banned
- #221
See you were doing really well with your last few posts but then in your last few paragraphs you want to display your lack of logic again.
You do not seem to grasp that there is a difference between knowing Ben used drugs in July and that automatically leading to a situation in which Cousins was using drugs in the weeks leading up to games.
You do grasp that someone could use drugs in July and then advise that all issues are in hand and then present themselves professionally and play well?
In such circumstances, wouldnt the club be reasonably able to form a view that the issue was in fact "in hand"?
Isn't it also true that this could actually have been true? Cousins got worse, got pulled into line, improved behaviour for a few months and then completely lost it in the last 6 months? That is not only possible but quite normal for a substance abuser....
Also, one other minor point, just because Worsfold wrote a letter to Ben & his father (manager) does not mean he did not also "rip into him" - the 2 are not mutually exclusive. Stop drinking, you were doing well this morning!
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.
Athletes have and can be suspended without EVER testing positive. Check out the link below for the full story but in brief:
The were linked with the BALCO drug scandal and evidence given in court and from investigations lead to them being suspended and previous results wiped from the record board with NO positive test.
In this case it was USADA the US version of ASADA / WADA and to be honest I am not 100% sure whether the rules for Aus are the same, but I am confident they are. As to whether the AFL is bound by them is another story. Simply if it is proven you take drugs even with no positive then you are gone. What it is saying is that there is more than one way to prove someone takes drugs.
One of the key differences between the the old ASDA and ASADA is the ability to investigate drug use without a positive test. Considering a number of parties have admitted that Cousins has taken drugs and the it was raised in Parliment I think that ASADA will fully investigate and suggest a ban - pending the time - game day or not. This is what ASADA will be investigating. The fact people are admitting in public he took drugs and he is not disputing this then it is akin to a positive test. The ball is then in the AFL's court to comply.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/balco-glance.htm
- Dec 7, 2001
- 23,445
- 8,520
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Thread starter
- #224
I assume that then Kerr and Gardiner will be investigated as well.
With the admissions on tape from both of them in criminal investigations, also didn't Kerr say tot he club he used to be silly but not now?
With the admissions on tape from both of them in criminal investigations, also didn't Kerr say tot he club he used to be silly but not now?
- Banned
- #225
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).
Similar threads
- Poll
