What punishment will the AFL impose

[len_jet]

stop talking shit..the game has taken a battering thanks to a few players and not an entire team. The AFL gave permission for WCE to roll the dice so they're equally complicit. If you think that WCE not letting Ben play this year would avoid this situation then your as stupid as Farmer when he gets on the piss.

simple fact is that the man has serious health problems and the AFL who are keen to promote their "successful" drugs policy have failed one of their own as much as he's failed himself.

on a side note are you going to change your BF user id?

 

[Juddism]

on a side note are you going to change your BF user id?

you going to ask Carlton to change their president?

 

[len_jet]

you going to ask Carlton to change their president?

firstly there was no mallace involved in my comment it was purely a bit of light banter... but since you took it to heart... sorry.

secondly why am I asking Carlton to change president?

 

[have a RHG]

In all honesty i hope they don't lose draft picks as i feel sorry for the young fella who might be getting picked up late in the draft missing out on an AFL club because of all the clubs reshufflling their picks. I think you will see an almighty fine and probably start the premiership season in the minuses in terms of premiership points. Hop not for your sake but it could well be a possibility

 

[15_year_member]

All these opposition posters are confusing what they want to have happe with what is likely to happen. None of them have any logic in their arguments. They sound as reasonable and intelligent as all the carlton posters on our boards last week telling us we were going to hand over Judd at 9am monday morning for just pick 3. the deal had been done and if we wanted anything extra we were going to have throw in a sweetener for them.

If we get a penalty i look for ward to seeing what Carlton's penalty is for keeping on Karl Norman after his drug test and what Freo's penalty is for Polak landing on his 2nd strike when he was at the club. Freo didn't sack or trade him did they?

Cousins is finished, no matter what. But that will be the end of it. All that crap at the start of the year was just posturing by the AFL for the benefit of the melb papers.

 

[len_jet]

All these opposition posters are confusing what they want to have happe with what is likely to happen. None of them have any logic in their arguments. They sound as reasonable and intelligent as all the carlton posters on our boards last week telling us we were going to hand over Judd at 9am monday morning for just pick 3. the deal had been done and if we wanted anything extra we were going to have throw in a sweetener for them.

If we get a penalty i look for ward to seeing what Carlton's penalty is for keeping on Karl Norman after his drug test and what Freo's penalty is for Polak landing on his 2nd strike when he was at the club. Freo didn't sack or trade him did they?

Cousins is finished, no matter what. But that will be the end of it. All that crap at the start of the year was just posturing by the AFL for the benefit of the melb papers.

Are you sure?

Lets break it down. WCE from the start were offered 3, 20 and kennedy at the end of the day thats what they got. It's done... END OF STORY, get over it!

Karl Norman, Laurence Angwin, Justin Charles, Dale Lewis comments etc were the basis for the AFL bringing in a drug code. They also wanted to nip the thing in the but before ASADA got on their case hence why the three strike system was set up etc. At the end of the day Angwin was sacked as he turned up to training under the influence, Norman wasn't under the influence he was just out partying with Angwin.

Freo don't know Polak has tested positive that is pure speculation (although probably not far from the truth)... The club doesn't find out until the third strike!

If the AFL don't act on this situation it will make them look like a bigger basket case than the NRL. The NRL has taken a tough stance on everything after all the sex scandals etc that tarnished their image. They have cleaned up their act so much so that this year they installed a two strike policy for drugs and even right down to their tribunal they have gotten tougher as well. The AFL will come down on the WCE and they will need to make it hurt. As one poster said earlier money wont hurt the WCE that much as they are a reletively rich club. Draft picks and premiership points (alla Canterbury Bulldogs) is where it will hurt the most.

 

[Dramoth]

All these opposition posters are confusing what they want to have happe with what is likely to happen. None of them have any logic in their arguments. They sound as reasonable and intelligent as all the carlton posters on our boards last week telling us we were going to hand over Judd at 9am monday morning for just pick 3. the deal had been done and if we wanted anything extra we were going to have throw in a sweetener for them.

If we get a penalty i look for ward to seeing what Carlton's penalty is for keeping on Karl Norman after his drug test and what Freo's penalty is for Polak landing on his 2nd strike when he was at the club. Freo didn't sack or trade him did they?

Cousins is finished, no matter what. But that will be the end of it. All that crap at the start of the year was just posturing by the AFL for the benefit of the melb papers.

Karl Norman never played for Carlton again after that incident. He was put into the bullants with the instructions to get his head together, but after 2 years he hadnt improved his attitude, he was delisted from the club and never played AFL again.

Lawrence Angwin, who was also in that incident, was sacked immediately from the club and I think is currently serving a term in prison for offences of a criminal nature.

The West Coast Eagles had to give assurances to the AFL under the threat of a series of penalties that there would be no more off-field problems from any of the WCE players.

"The Eagles have been put on notice that if they appear before the commission again, they will be subject to the full force of the 1.6 rule of conduct unbecoming, which can lead to a fine, suspension, loss of draft picks or premiership points," Fitzpatrick said at the time.

Eagles fear Cousins aftershock

I think that the club does need some sort of punishment for not being able to control the players properly... I hope that it is just a fine and no loss of draft picks or suspension.

 

[15_year_member]

Are you sure?

Lets break it down. WCE from the start were offered 3, 20 and kennedy at the end of the day thats what they got. It's done... END OF STORY, get over it!

Karl Norman, Laurence Angwin, Justin Charles, Dale Lewis comments etc were the basis for the AFL bringing in a drug code. They also wanted to nip the thing in the but before ASADA got on their case hence why the three strike system was set up etc. At the end of the day Angwin was sacked as he turned up to training under the influence, Norman wasn't under the influence he was just out partying with Angwin.

Freo don't know Polak has tested positive that is pure speculation (although probably not far from the truth)... The club doesn't find out until the third strike!

If the AFL don't act on this situation it will make them look like a bigger basket case than the NRL. The NRL has taken a tough stance on everything after all the sex scandals etc that tarnished their image. They have cleaned up their act so much so that this year they installed a two strike policy for drugs and even right down to their tribunal they have gotten tougher as well. The AFL will come down on the WCE and they will need to make it hurt. As one poster said earlier money wont hurt the WCE that much as they are a reletively rich club. Draft picks and premiership points (alla Canterbury Bulldogs) is where it will hurt the most.

Chelsworthgale, you and fellow club members postings on here have the same level of credibility and logic attached to them as when your president stood up before the justices of the Federal Court last week and tried to tell them that the fact that executives from his comapny and Amcor (2 of the richest companies in australia and fierce rivals) were organising meetings between themselves using strictly only phone calls made with unregistered prepaid mobiles (which they changed every 2 weeks) and public phone boxes (no calls to the office) and that these meetings took place in deserted car parks in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night in no way indicated that they were trying to keep the meetings secret and that nothing dodgy or illegal was being discussed. He was laughed out of court, just as you are being laughed off this forum.

And you were one of the parties that was telling me last week that the deal was done, it was going to be announced on Monday and it was just pick 3 unless we threw in something else in which case we could have 20 aswell. You were wrong then and you are wrong now. You just want someone else to share your clubs misery at the bottom of the ladder of the AFL and the top of the ladder for dodginess.

 

[Outoftheblue]

Ther eagles as a club aren't guilty of anything.

Players at all clubs have sullied the brand at some time but the sheer number of incidents involving Eagles led to the AFL threat earlier this year - which looked a bit like grandstanding, but I guess the implication was that the Eagles weren't doing enough to rein these players in.

I would be very surprised if there was a major AFL penalty against the Eagles, particularly as the AFL's own doctors signed off on Cousins' return. The league has already come out in support of the Eagles' sacking of Cousins. As others have pointed out, though, even if there were draft penalties it would be a setback for the Eagles but nothing like the hammer blow the loss of picks were to Carlton. West Coast has a strong list and is one of the best clubs at recruiting and developing players. The Blues have been a complete mess and are only beginning to recover because Pratt's money has helped sign a few people with a clue.

 

[len_jet]

Chelsworthgale, you and fellow club members postings on here have the same level of credibility and logic attached to them as when your president stood up before the justices of the Federal Court last week and tried to tell them that the fact that executives from his comapny and Amcor (2 of the richest companies in australia and fierce rivals) were organising meetings between themselves using strictly only phone calls made with unregistered prepaid mobiles (which they changed every 2 weeks) and public phone boxes (no calls to the office) and that these meetings took place in deserted car parks in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night in no way indicated that they were trying to keep the meetings secret and that nothing dodgy or illegal was being discussed. He was laughed out of court, just as you are being laughed off this forum.

And you were one of the parties that was telling me last week that the deal was done, it was going to be announced on Monday and it was just pick 3 unless we threw in something else in which case we could have 20 aswell. You were wrong then and you are wrong now. You just want someone else to share your clubs misery at the bottom of the ladder of the AFL and the top of the ladder for dodginess.

Here you are calling for logical reasoning and then the best you can do is provide a ficticious report, fresh from an episode of CSI or NCIS, on our president and follow it up by an unfounded personal attack on me... I from the start called for 3,20 and Kennedy. The papers reported 3 and kennedy as what the deal had come to then richmond came on board and it was back to 3,20 and kennedy. I think you might have me confused with Parrot and thylacine.

Oh and by the way, heard of little companies like Macquarie Bank... Rio Tinto... PBL... BHP... I think you might find they are a little bit larger than Amcor and Visy... but hey that's logical thinking... you dont seem to recognise it yet call for it... hmmm...

 

[len_jet]

Karl Norman never played for Carlton again after that incident. He was put into the bullants with the instructions to get his head together, but after 2 years he hadnt improved his attitude, he was delisted from the club and never played AFL again.

Lawrence Angwin, who was also in that incident, was sacked immediately from the club and I think is currently serving a term in prison for offences of a criminal nature.

The West Coast Eagles had to give assurances to the AFL under the threat of a series of penalties that there would be no more off-field problems from any of the WCE players.


Eagles fear Cousins aftershock

I think that the club does need some sort of punishment for not being able to control the players properly... I hope that it is just a fine and no loss of draft picks or suspension.

Dramoth be prepared for your personal attack. You see 15_year_member has called for logical reasoning... that just puts him to shame... watch out for the next instalment of CSI: Dirty Deals, produced and directed by 15_year_member

 

[marcmurphy3]

Hopefully you guys don't lose draft picks. The Eagles shouldn't be kicked while they're down.

 

[94_Eagles]

The West Australian reckons we won't lose them.

And if we don't lose draft picks be rest assured they will tell the world that they were the ones to break the story.

 

[len_jet]

The West Australian reckons we won't lose them.

And if we don't lose draft picks be rest assured they will tell the world that they were the ones to break the story.

Oh don't worry the Herald Sun does the same in Melbourne... including about three pages in from the back "We broke the Cousins Sacking at 4pm yesterday" journos are all the same, pure BS until it is official.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Fredikanoute, i have made this point several times to opposition posters on our boards but i will make it again. There will be no penalties from the AFL for the eagles for the following reasons -

a) If the AFL is going to hold the eagles (or any other club) responsible for the behaviour of one player on their list and make them 100% accountable what resources and provisions have they made availabvle to the clubs to deal with the problem? Thats right - none. The clubs only get informed whne a player has his second strike. Drug testing is the AFL's domain. The clubs cannot perform their own testing on demand without permission even if they suspect a player. There cannot be any accountability and responsibility without the authority and resources to deal effectively with the problem. The clubs hands are ties. What more could west coast have done?

"West Coast" is inclusive of Ben Cousins. Ben Cousins could have not been in possession of a restricted drug without prescription. The team can be punished for a member of the organisation's behaviour, and that's Ben Cousins.

b) If the eagles are to be punished and held accountable for cousins behaviour what is the penalty going to be for all the other AFL clubs with players who have players on their lists who have tested positive for rec drugs, either 1, 2 or 3 strikes? There are plenty of them. 40 positive tests and counting. Probably at least one at every club. If the eagles get punished so must every other AFL club. Every one of the 16 that has had a player test positive. Can't have one rule for one club and one rule for everyone else. That would not stand up in the courts. if we go down then so does everybody else.

For one or two positive tests, the answer is "nothing". Ben Cousins isn't being sacked for testing positive to an ASADA test, he's being sacked for being charged with the offence of being in possession and failing to provide a blood test.

c) The AFL micromanaged, signed off on and untill yesterday was busy trying to take credit for cousins "rehabilitation". They were intimately involved every step and has the final say on the whole thing. They have worked hand-in-hand with the eagles and the 2 of them co-operated the whole way. Nobody forced them to sign off on it. They can't sheet all the blame home on the eagles now it's gone wrong. Nobody forced them to sign off on Cousins.

Again, Cousins was (at the time) part of the Eagles organisation. You are trying to separate a player from the club he plays for, and it's incorrect to do so. The club can be punished for a single player's actions, just like the team can be penalised 50m for a player's on-field indiscretion.

d) If we get punished for bringing the game into disrepute beyind the deregistration of cousins what is the penalty for carlton for fevola's disgraceful behaviour in Dublin last year which embarrassed the whole code or collingwood's penalty for Didak's complicity with an organised crime figure which ultimately resulted indirectly in the shooting deaths if 2 innocent people. Far biger crimes and far worse publicity than what cousins has caused.

Again, Didak committed no crime, or in the very least he was not charged with any crime. Not only is it not a "Far biger (sic) crime", it isn't a crime at all, and therefore the AFL Commission have no jurisdiction over the matter.

Cousins will be sacked but beyond that there will be no penalty. The eagles could not have done anymore to help avoid this hapenning. they have never acted dishonestly or gained an unfair advantage over the comp. And most importantly of all Cousins is not the only AFL player involved in drugs and if teh eagles are going to be punished so must every other club with a player with a positive test.

Again, "the Eagles" is inclusive of Ben Cousins. Ben Cousins could have done plenty, and he didn't. The AFL Commission has the power to basically make policy on the run, as they did during the Sirengate affair, and as they foreboded when they threatened the Eagles with sanctions if further damage was done by them to the AFL brand.

Let me assure you, you're in serious Barney.

Keep dreaming opposition posters and if you want to keep writing your illogical crap on our board explain why the AFL will still apply a penalty in spite of all these points.

All of your points are wrong, as described above. Not one of them is a legitimate point. Good luck.

 

[len_jet]

"West Coast" is inclusive of Ben Cousins. Ben Cousins could have not been in possession of a restricted drug without prescription. The team can be punished for a member of the organisation's behaviour, and that's Ben Cousins.


For one or two positive tests, the answer is "nothing". Ben Cousins isn't being sacked for testing positive to an ASADA test, he's being sacked for being charged with the offence of being in possession and failing to provide a blood test.


Again, Cousins was (at the time) part of the Eagles organisation. You are trying to separate a player from the club he plays for, and it's incorrect to do so. The club can be punished for a single player's actions, just like the team can be penalised 50m for a player's on-field indiscretion.


Again, Didak committed no crime, or in the very least he was not charged with any crime. Not only is it not a "Far biger (sic) crime", it isn't a crime at all, and therefore the AFL Commission have no jurisdiction over the matter.


Again, "the Eagles" is inclusive of Ben Cousins. Ben Cousins could have done plenty, and he didn't. The AFL Commission has the power to basically make policy on the run, as they did during the Sirengate affair, and as they foreboded when they threatened the Eagles with sanctions if further damage was done by them to the AFL brand.

Let me assure you, you're in serious Barney.

All of your points are wrong, as described above. Not one of them is a legitimate point. Good luck.

Intelligent Collingwood supporter?! Your not a Carlton supporter dressed in drag?

 

[15_year_member]

"West Coast" is inclusive of Ben Cousins. Ben Cousins could have not been in possession of a restricted drug without prescription. The team can be punished for a member of the organisation's behaviour, and that's Ben Cousins.


For one or two positive tests, the answer is "nothing". Ben Cousins isn't being sacked for testing positive to an ASADA test, he's being sacked for being charged with the offence of being in possession and failing to provide a blood test.


Again, Cousins was (at the time) part of the Eagles organisation. You are trying to separate a player from the club he plays for, and it's incorrect to do so. The club can be punished for a single player's actions, just like the team can be penalised 50m for a player's on-field indiscretion.


Again, Didak committed no crime, or in the very least he was not charged with any crime. Not only is it not a "Far biger (sic) crime", it isn't a crime at all, and therefore the AFL Commission have no jurisdiction over the matter.


Again, "the Eagles" is inclusive of Ben Cousins. Ben Cousins could have done plenty, and he didn't. The AFL Commission has the power to basically make policy on the run, as they did during the Sirengate affair, and as they foreboded when they threatened the Eagles with sanctions if further damage was done by them to the AFL brand.

Let me assure you, you're in serious Barney.

All of your points are wrong, as described above. Not one of them is a legitimate point. Good luck.

Firstly, i dont even understand your first rebuttal point. What are you trying to say. I am making he point that drug testing is the domain of the AFL and not the clubs. The club are not responsible for keeping their players clean other than if they dont the players concern might get suspended or deregistered and they may lose face in public and lose sponsorship etc. But that is not a punishment handed down by the AFL.

Secondly, name one other occasion when the AFL has taken away draft picks or handed down any kind of penalty to a fotty club for something one of their players did in his private life? Did Adelaide lose draft picks when Angwin was convicted of various crimes during his time there? Did Richmond lose draft picks when Justin Charles tested positive to drugs? Are Brisbane going to lose draft picks because Simon Black was found guilty of assault? No. But you argue that the eagles will because Cousins refused a blood test which is his and every other citizens right to do in WA with the law as it stands. They can not force you to comply.

Thirdly, i am not saying Didak is guilty of commiting a crime in the eyes of the law (although you could probably argue that he did). But i am talking about crimes in the court of public opinion. Consorting with gangland murderers and accompanying them on a shooting spree while they have a high speed car chase with the police and putting bartenders at a hotel in headlock for refusing to serve you while you are representing the AFL overseasis far more embarrassing for the AFL than Cousins being caught in possesion of an unprescribed anti-depressent. BTW Cousins has not been proven to have committed any crime ye either. They are still just allegations and his case probably wont be heard for months if he chooses to drag it out or contest it.

Fourthly, if there has never been any evidence of cousins use of illicit drugs untill a year ago ( and i am not talking about rumours, i am talking about hard evidence) and he has never tested positive, is still one of the best players in the AFL and is performing and he flat out denies everything every time the eagles ask him about it what action should the eagles take against him? They cant take any. he has a contract with them and he was never in breach of it untill earlier this year.

I know you really, really want for their to be penalties but i highly doubt that there will be and the fact that the AFL has made no mention of any possible penalties nor any meeting to discuss the matter further makes it all the more unlikely. A few harsh words and a bit of posturing for the benefit of the melb media is all we are going to get. You will all have to cry yourselves to sleep with disappointment.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Firstly, i dont even understand your first rebuttal point. What are you trying to say. I am making he point that drug testing is the domain of the AFL and not the clubs. The club are not responsible for keeping their players clean other than if they dont the players concern might get suspended or deregistered and they may lose face in public and lose sponsorship etc. But that is not a punishment handed down by the AFL.

It's quite clear you don't understand it.

Ben Cousins is (or was) an Eagle. You speak of the Eagles in terms of the club's administration only. "The Eagles can't be expected to do this", or "what more could the Eagles have done". Ben Cousins was an Eagle. He could have done something about his addiction. His actions as a representative of the Eagles are punishable.

Secondly, name one other occasion when the AFL has taken away draft picks or handed down any kind of penalty to a fotty club for something one of their players did in his private life? Did Adelaide lose draft picks when Angwin was convicted of various crimes during his time there? Did Richmond lose draft picks when Justin Charles tested positive to drugs? Are Brisbane going to lose draft picks because Simon Black was found guilty of assault? No. But you argue that the eagles will because Cousins refused a blood test which is his and every other citizens right to do in WA with the law as it stands. They can not force you to comply.

No other club had received a warning from the AFL Commission first. I see your point but the scale is totally different in the Eagles' case. Also, you appear to know more about WA law than I do, but it appears strange that refusing a blood sample in WA is "his and every other citizen's right" and yet he is being charged for it. Maybe your beef is with the WA police?

Thirdly, i am not saying Didak is guilty of commiting a crime in the eyes of the law (although you could probably argue that he did). But i am talking about crimes in the court of public opinion. Consorting with gangland murderers and accompanying them on a shooting spree while they have a high speed car chase with the police and putting bartenders at a hotel in headlock for refusing to serve you while you are representing the AFL overseasis far more embarrassing for the AFL than Cousins being caught in possesion of an unprescribed anti-depressent. BTW Cousins has not been proven to have committed any crime ye either. They are still just allegations and his case probably wont be heard for months if he chooses to drag it out or contest it.

So you're arguing that a crime in the court of public opinion is worse than an actual crime? LOL. Let's see how far you get with that argument.

Fourthly, if there has never been any evidence of cousins use of illicit drugs untill a year ago ( and i am not talking about rumours, i am talking about hard evidence) and he has never tested positive, is still one of the best players in the AFL and is performing and he flat out denies everything every time the eagles ask him about it what action should the eagles take against him? They cant take any. he has a contract with them and he was never in breach of it untill earlier this year.

Again, you just don't get it. Ben Cousins is the Eagles. This isn't a matter of the club's administrators being able to curb Ben's behaviour. When the AFL Commission warned the Eagles to keep their noses clean, that wasn't issued merely to the administrators, it was issued to the entire club, including the playing list. Ben Cousins didn't keep his nose clean, it doesn't matter what the administrators could or couldn't do about it.

I know you really, really want for their to be penalties but i highly doubt that there will be and the fact that the AFL has made no mention of any possible penalties nor any meeting to discuss the matter further makes it all the more unlikely. A few harsh words and a bit of posturing for the benefit of the melb media is all we are going to get. You will all have to cry yourselves to sleep with disappointment.

Andrew Demetriou hasn't made any mention of it because it's not his decision. It's the decision of Fitzpatrick and the AFL Commission, who don't meet until next month.

If you want to see some posturing, read this: http://sportal.com.au/default.aspx/AFL-news-display/sanctions-not-warranted-eagles-37442

 

[15_year_member]

If it clubs are able to controll what their players do 24 hrs a day then i guess collingwood as a footy club is 100% responsible for all of Didaks stupidity and the things that Tarrant and Johnson were doing at the club and will be punished accordingly aswell then?

And the court of public opinion is what we are talking about here. Isnt "bringing the game into disrepute" what you are accusing and charging cousins and th eagles with?

The eagles havent broken any competition laws and they have done as much as the AFL rules allow them to do to controll cousins. Most respected media commentators that i have heard and read (not rabid, hysterical drama queens like Patrick Smith and Mike Sheahan) are not expecting any meaningfull penalties to be applied to us. I would think that if it was a possibility the eagles would have been informed of that at this stage by the AFL and given an opportunity to attend the meeting and present a defence. No mention has been made of any metings at all by anyone at the AFL.

If i lived in Melb i would have a $100 bet on it with you. But then, hang on, you barrack for carlton so you probably dont have $100 or if you do you probably got it from mugging someone or burglarsing someone house or something in which case i couldnt accept the blood money anyway.

You stick to your opinion and i will stick to mine. When do you think we are going to hear more abut these penalties?

 

[The Royal Sampler]

If it clubs are able to controll what their players do 24 hrs a day then i guess collingwood as a footy club is 100% responsible for all of Didaks stupidity and the things that Tarrant and Johnson were doing at the club and will be punished accordingly aswell then?

Still not dawning on you that being drunk is not illegal? Nor is stupidity, a fact which should make you, personally very relieved I'd imagine.

And the court of public opinion is what we are talking about here. Isnt "bringing the game into disrepute" what you are accusing and charging cousins and th eagles with?

Rule 1.6 - Conduct unbecoming, yes. And no, we are not talking about the court of public opinion.

The eagles havent broken any competition laws and they have done as much as the AFL rules allow them to do to controll cousins.

No, the Eagles, through one of their ex-senior players, have broken state and federal laws... much worse.

I would think that if it was a possibility the eagles would have been informed of that at this stage by the AFL and given an opportunity to attend the meeting and present a defence. No mention has been made of any metings at all by anyone at the AFL.

Didn't read the article I linked to, huh?

If i lived in Melb i would have a $100 bet on it with you. But then, hang on, you barrack for carlton so you probably dont have $100 or if you do you probably got it from mugging someone or burglarsing someone house or something in which case i couldnt accept the blood money anyway.

Whatever, tool, my club has been listed as Collingwood since joining, so clearly you're only paying attention to the sound of your own voice here.

When do you think we are going to hear more abut these penalties?

I imagine it would be exactly when I said it would be in my last post, which you didn't read. I'm not prone to repeating myself for dullards.

 

[Jacks06]

I thinking the AFL will impose the following fines on the Eagles:

(1) $1mil fine - $500k being suspended fine.
(2) Lose first pick in draft.

Which I think is equitable, bottom line is Worsfold and the club knew Cousins has had a problem for some time, yet when the club was experiencing success they just turned a blind eye.

 

[WRFLBOY1]

I thinking the AFL will impose the following fines on the Eagles:

(1) $1mil fine - $500k being suspended fine.
(2) Lose first pick in draft.

Which I think is equitable, bottom line is Worsfold and the club knew Cousins has had a problem for some time, yet when the club was experiencing success they just turned a blind eye.

CUZ is a superstar!

As for punishing the eagles, your speakin SH1T they deserve no punishment as it wasnt there fault that this occured. How is $1m and 3rd pick in draft equitable for a club whose just lost some of the best midfielders in a long time!

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I thinking the AFL will impose the following fines on the Eagles:

(1) $1mil fine - $500k being suspended fine.
(2) Lose first pick in draft.

Which I think is equitable, bottom line is Worsfold and the club knew Cousins has had a problem for some time, yet when the club was experiencing success they just turned a blind eye.

If they do lose picks, they shouldn't lose the ones they traded for in the Judd deal, ie. #3 and #20. That would be illogical and unfair.

 

[15_year_member]

[sentence removed - libel issue - Mr E.]

Breaking rule 1.6 of the AFL is breaking he law of the land is it? Are AFL statutes the law of australia now are they? It is the court if oublic opinion we are talking about.

Cousins is not guilty of anything yet. He has only been charged and not convicted abd intends to contest the charges.

Tarrant and Johnson were not just drunk they were brawling with other people outside the club.

If you read foxsports.com.au Demetriou says everything but confirm that the eagles will not face any penalty. He praises the club and talks about how closely they have worked with the AFL, how many initiatives they have put in place at the club this year and also says that it is not the eagles fault cousins slipped through the cracks. Sometimes it doesnt matter what you do. And the opinion of the reporter who spoke to him is also that there is unlikely to be any penalty. All code for THERE WILL BE NO PENALTY.

So you are saying that we will hear no more about this untill the commission meeting? We wont hear that the subject is going to be debated and that the eagles are going there to present their defence? There will be silence for a month and then a penalty announced out of the blue? If anything is going to happen we will start hearing things shortly.

BTW your club is so gutless it didnt even suspend Didak, Tarrant or Johnson for a single game after these incidents. Talok about turning a blind eye and having a culture problem.

 

[Isandula]

They will impose nothing if they have half a brain, though they are been awfully quiet about the whole thing and if they are going to impose such harsh penalties wouldn't of they come out and said something by now? Should expect them to say something within the next week.