# Ben Cousins - what action should the AFL take?



## The Mint Man (17 October 2007)

Well its a simple question should he be kicked out or banned for life or should he just be slaped on the wrist.... AGAIN!

I just dont understand it... good life, good wage and they go and bugger it up, I just dont get it!

How are we ment to tell kids not to take drugs? I mean we had 11 year old kids overdose on E's yesterday at a school for gods sake

I dunno... :dunno:

Heres the latest:


> A passenger in a car driven by former West Coast Eagles player Daniel Chick has been charged with possessing cocaine and cannabis.
> 
> Chick's car was on Tuesday pulled over in the inner Perth suburb of Northbridge at the same time a separate vehicle driven by fellow player, former Eagles skipper Ben Cousins, was stopped nearby.
> 
> ...




Just an observation; If the other polls I've seen on news sites are anything to go off then he's Gooooone!


----------



## Prospector (17 October 2007)

As he hasnt tested positive for any of the AFL drug tests  they probably cant do anything about it yet.

What a waste of talent!  Others work damn hard to play football at their level, he just kind of, snorts it away really!


----------



## >Apocalypto< (17 October 2007)

Prospector said:


> As he hasnt tested positive for any of the AFL drug tests  they probably cant do anything about it yet.
> 
> What a waste of talent!  Others work damn hard to play football at their level, he just kind of, snorts it away really!




LOL

snorts it away, very good!


----------



## Lucky_Country (17 October 2007)

Devoted his life too AFL in the public spotlight from day 1 pressures untold on a young man too constantly perform.
He needs help not punishment from the AFL !


----------



## Gspot (17 October 2007)

Considering the large amount of money the government has spent advertising and mailout guides about drugs and talking to your kids. 
Then this is best and cheapest advertising we could ask for. 
Banishing Ben forever, and then pretending that he's the only one out there using, would be a waste. We should try a take something positive from this horrible event, that will help everyone. Maybe it's time he spoke genuinely to the media.


----------



## doctorj (17 October 2007)

Why is it up to the AFL to handle it?  The Eagles have and will continue to handle the situation very professionally. There's every likelihood he'll be given the boot from the WCE and I'm certain the AFL should be happy with it and that'll be the end of the issue.

The only reason this topic is raised is because the media love a good story and beating it up.  He's a player and he'll be dealt with by his club.  The Eagles shouldn't lose draft picks or be fined for what a player does out of seasoon when they've already taken appropriate action over the matter.
Why isn't there a similar thread on what the AFL will 'do' to Hawthorn for their 3 players?  Is it because Hawthorn isn't as successful?  Is it because they're a Victorian club? Or is it just because the media can't talk about it?

The real issues are the AFL's drug policy and a particularly sad, wayward individual.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (17 October 2007)

He cant Kick, cant tackle, can't hide his drug habit, Send him to the sin bin
Then when he returns, let the clubs decide if they want o coke snortin, cannabis smokin, eratic drivin hobo on their team  Heh heh i like Rugby league (at least Johns kept it a dark secret for what Ten years and got caught in his leasure time after he gave the game the Flick and came out like a man and admitted his wrong doings  to set his demons lose) Thats my


----------



## dutchie (17 October 2007)

Two strikes and your out - banned for life if sports body says no drugs in or out of season.


----------



## chops_a_must (17 October 2007)

doctorj said:


> Why is it up to the AFL to handle it?  The Eagles have and will continue to handle the situation very professionally. There's every likelihood he'll be given the boot from the WCE and I'm certain the AFL should be happy with it and that'll be the end of the issue.



*Snickers*

I'd be very very surprised if the AFL didn't take any action on the club. And they have to do something about that Dalton Gooding. Clearly one of the most incompetent board members in Australia. Doesn't know if he's arthur or marthur.

I don't know how anyone can be sympathetic towards Cousins. How many chances does a guy need? And why should the AFL help him? Look at what they did for Lawrence Angwin...

But talk about the definition of a loser... Giving up a superb AFL career for drugs... What a total waste of a life.


----------



## chops_a_must (17 October 2007)

dutchie said:


> Two strikes and your out - banned for life if sports body says no drugs in or out of season.



The AFL doesn't work like that.

Amateur athletes can be tested 12 months of the year, 24 hours a day, without discretion shown for "recreational drugs" or performance enhancing substances. I see why it shouldn't be the case for professional, full time sportspeople.

If it's good enough for the cricketers, it's good enough for the AFL as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## The Mint Man (17 October 2007)

dutchie said:


> Two strikes and your out - banned for life if sports body says no drugs in or out of season.




Couldnt agree more.
Surely there has tio be a cut off point when enough is enough?
I'm not against rehabilitation but you can't rehabilitate anyone by saying 'its okay, we will let you off the hook' what lesson is there to be taken away from that? none, zero, nothing, zip.
First part of rehabilitation should be a tough stance. Simple as that. your O.U.T, out!


----------



## doctorj (17 October 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> *Snickers*
> 
> I'd be very very surprised if the AFL didn't take any action on the club.



Disappointed, don't you mean?  What have the club done wrong? They punished him the first time by suspending him of their own accord for months and months and discharged their duty of care by getting him professional help.

They also put in place a new contract with the player which included a massive pay cut, drug testing and clear repurcussions should it happen again.

It's now happened again and they will act in accordance with the agreement.

I also believe that any termination of Cousins as a player does not discharge the Eagles of further obligations to Ben's well being.  I hope they continue to help him seek professional help - like him or hate him he's a human and he's gone seriously off the rails, probably largely due to his involvement in football.



> And they have to do something about that Dalton Gooding. Clearly one of the most incompetent board members in Australia. Doesn't know if he's arthur or marthur.



Gooding has lead the Eagles to be one of the biggest and most successful clubs over the last decade by any metric you care to name.  He's brought a degree of professionalism to the league that simply didn't exist when he first came in.  He's also handled Cousins with the upmost professionalism.


----------



## gordon2007 (17 October 2007)

The fact that he is a public figure and a sport star should have no bearing whatsoever. He's a druggie. Plain and simple. Does the average joe rock up to work stoned and get chances to redeem himself? Yes he should get rehab and everything else. But remember, he made the conscience decision to become a user. He knew well in advance it was against the law before he had his first pill, needle or puff or whatever you want to call it. He willfully broke the law and now he should pay. If that means he is banned from the AFL so be it. Let him then go work at a grocery store as a checkout person.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (17 October 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Couldnt agree more.
> Surely there has tio be a cut off point when enough is enough?
> I'm not against rehabilitation but you can't rehabilitate anyone by saying 'its okay, we will let you off the hook' what lesson is there to be taken away from that? none, zero, nothing, zip.
> First part of rehabilitation should be a tough stance. Simple as that. your O.U.T, out!



Maybe they should have a salary sacrifice clause That depletes their earnings everytime time the misbehave (like your car licence with the points, Right down till you aint got ****) That should contain them and use the revenue to help those unfortunate to have made the wrong choice in life (Drug and alcohol dependance)


----------



## Prospector (17 October 2007)

Well, in the past he has run away from a random breath test site, leaving his girlfriend in the car; has again refused a blood test after drink/drug driving at 10am in the morning - lucky he didnt injure someone, had hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on his rehabilitation; played in a Grand Final winning team under suspicion of drug use, won a brownlow medal under suspicion of drug use, and some people think he deserves another chance?  And there was also the episode of him being associated with gang land criminals.

Why do you hold West Coast responsible for him DrJ?  That goes way past employer responsibility?  When does an individual stand up for themselves and make themselves accountable for their own actions?


----------



## doctorj (17 October 2007)

I don't blame the WCE for Cousins, though, I do think they should make efforts to help him.  I think it's the honourable and professional thing for the club to do.  They're not short of money and it's unlikely Cousins has a lot of cash saved up if he's an addict.

What is he to do then if he has no savings, no income and is unable to work?  Rot in an alley somewhere? 

The eagles need to start by ending the speculation over his playing future.  I suspect they're in the process of doing this privately.  I imagine it's quite a long process - legal advice and the like...


----------



## chops_a_must (17 October 2007)

doctorj said:


> Gooding has lead the Eagles to be one of the biggest and most successful clubs over the last decade by any metric you care to name.  He's brought a degree of professionalism to the league that simply didn't exist when he first came in.  He's also handled Cousins with the upmost professionalism.




I could not disagree more. Gooding's outside of football ventures are total failures, except one.

And I'd say it should be Brian Cook that takes credit for turning the West Coast into a power house. As he is doing the same now in Geelong...


----------



## chops_a_must (17 October 2007)

doctorj said:


> What is he to do then if he has no savings, no income and is unable to work?  Rot in an alley somewhere?



Why should he live any differently to any other junkie? It's only once they get to that point, or face the very real possibility of this happening, that they begin to consider changing. It's obviously a reality he has never had to face, and maybe that's a part of the problem...


----------



## Prospector (17 October 2007)

doctorj said:


> What is he to do then if he has no savings, no income and is unable to work?  Rot in an alley somewhere?




Isn't this what happens to the 'normal' person?  No-one would pick up after them!  And yes chops, that realisation is what he needs.


----------



## doctorj (17 October 2007)

Yup, it's probably what does happen to the average junky, but that doesn't make it any more desirable for them either.

I agree that he needs to come back down to Earth, but at what cost?  I don't think the WCE throwing him out and slamming the door behind him is the right solution.

Fire him, then see he get's proper help.


----------



## Prospector (17 October 2007)

doctorj said:


> Fire him, then see he get's proper help.




Didnt he just get that in the US though?  Paid for by the club?  I think they have done more than there fair share of help - where do you draw the line.

I think maybe this patronising attitude to Cousins has been part of the problem - he is 29 years old and everyone simply keeps on protecting him.  He needs to grow up and people need to let him go so he has some accountability for his own actions, and others need to stop mopping up after him.


----------



## The Mint Man (17 October 2007)

Prospector said:


> Isn't this what happens to the 'normal' person?  No-one would pick up after them!  And yes chops, that realisation is what he needs.



you make a good point.


----------



## cuttlefish (17 October 2007)

doctorj said:
			
		

> What is he to do then if he has no savings, no income and is unable to work? Rot in an alley somewhere?




his behaviour is shocking - he's not only using drugs heavily, he's also risking lives unnecessarily by driving under the influence, and not allowing a blood test is clear evidence he's got no intention of facing up to responsibility.  

Forget whether he can play again, has money or is in a gutter - he's lucky he's not in jail and lucky he hasn't accidentally injured someone seriously through his actions.  He's clearly taking no responsibility at all for what he's doing and deserves no special treatment whatsoever.  

A dose of reality will do him no harm at all at the moment he's acting as though he's above the law and treating society with contempt.


----------



## nomore4s (17 October 2007)

doctorj said:


> Yup, it's probably what does happen to the average junky, but that doesn't make it any more desirable for them either.
> 
> I agree that he needs to come back down to Earth, but at what cost?  I don't think the WCE throwing him out and slamming the door behind him is the right solution.
> 
> Fire him, then see he get's proper help.




Does he want help though? The first step to beating an addiction is admitting you have a problem and then wanting to change/give up. I have my doubts about whether Cousins actually wants this, I think it has been "forced" on him so he can play footy and he has said and done whatever people wanted to hear so he could play footy again, I don't think he has any real intention of changing atm.


----------



## Kimosabi (17 October 2007)

Cousins days as a footballer are over, he's not much use if he can only play along the white lines...


----------



## surfingman (17 October 2007)

Prospector said:


> Didnt he just get that in the US though?  Paid for by the club?  I think they have done more than there fair share of help - *where do you draw the line.*




That is the problem, cousins draws (snorts) the line where ever he wants to


----------



## Barrw (17 October 2007)

Who cares what these blokes do
They're grown men, know what rec. drug use can do to them its certainly not giving them an unfair advantage
The media makes such a big deal about the role models these players are meant to be, if they didn't make such a big deal about it the kiddies'd never know
Some people are just screw ups
Surely there is somthing more important to fill prime time news


----------



## nomore4s (17 October 2007)

Lucky_Country said:


> Devoted his life too AFL in the public spotlight from day 1 pressures untold on a young man too constantly perform.
> He needs help not punishment from the AFL !




Thats a cop out imo, the problem no one has to take responisablity for thier own actions anymore. Take his high paying contract away from him and see how he copes with the pressure of a mundane everyday life stuggling to pay bills etc. and when he's got to look after himself.


----------



## Prospector (17 October 2007)

surfingman said:


> That is the problem, cousins draws (snorts) the line where ever he wants to




:


----------



## doctorj (17 October 2007)

The eagles have announced they have sacked Ben Cousins and they'll be holding a press conference within the hour.


----------



## IFocus (17 October 2007)

I am a Eagles supporter (on this thread its a bit like declaring I am a alcoholic at AA) 

As such I agree with DJ's comments.

Maybe because of this I wonder why the need for some of the revengeful posts I read here.   

Theres no augment as to the seriousness of Ben Cousins conduct / behaviors but after watching him play AFL for so long at the absolute highest levels with the skills and courage of a champion player i just cannot stand in line and stick the boot in demanding damnation now he has fallen by the wayside.

I hope he recovers to lead a successful life.

I guess many will read this in disbelief but you have to understand I am a Western Australian and we are well known to be cowboy's, utterly corrupt and now apparently rampant drug takers..... 


Focus


----------



## Julia (17 October 2007)

nomore4s said:


> Thats a cop out imo, the problem no one has to take responisablity for thier own actions anymore. Take his high paying contract away from him and see how he copes with the pressure of a mundane everyday life stuggling to pay bills etc. and when he's got to look after himself.




Completely agree, also with comments by Prospector and Chops.
It appears everyone has been so busy protecting him and "helping" him he has no comprehension of taking responsibility for himself.  Cut him loose and let him do some thinking.


----------



## IFocus (17 October 2007)

Hi Julia  



Julia said:


> Completely agree, also with comments by Prospector and Chops.
> It appears everyone has been so busy protecting him and "helping" him he has no comprehension of taking responsibility for himself.  Cut him loose and let him do some thinking.




And if he was your son..... committed suicide?


Focus


----------



## godzillaismad (17 October 2007)

I can't believe how much media coverage is on Ben... he is an adult, let him do what he wants! Also, I think the WCE and AFL have overreacted by sacking him. Put yourself in Ben's shoe; he will be devastated to have lost his job, his teammates and everyone that supported him! It is all downhill for him now... He needs to be supported now, not criticism from the media and us!!! Miracle does happen!


----------



## tvhead (17 October 2007)

The eagles should lose their first 2 picks, because they knew about it but winning is everything at thier club. They know about other players, but they will turn a blind eye. They are the junkies of the afl!!!


----------



## dogwithflees1983 (17 October 2007)

Couldnt agree more TVhead, cousins is an idiot who deserves to be a sacked. I certaintly would not want him at my footy club!! 

You would think after all that has happened, and esp after his good mates manny's death he would pull his head in and stay on the straight and narrow. 

For too long has wet toast supporters and the media in West Oz protected cousins.

No Sympathy at all!


----------



## wayneL (17 October 2007)

IFocus said:


> Hi Julia
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cutting a player loose from a football team is a bit different to a persons family and friends refusing in helping him with a problem.

A bit of a tenuous link here - sack from WCE = suicide?

The team NOT acting would be sending entirely the wrong message to BC, all other players, and the general public.

He's had plenty of support from all and he blew it. There must be a price. But as a human being, he deserves all the social help he can get to get over this problem, but only if he wants it.


----------



## Stan 101 (17 October 2007)

I'm sorry if this will offend...Wayne, please remove it if you see it is unfit for the forum. I think it is worth saying.

This guy and many like him have had many benefits in life that most others an only dream of.
They have personal managers, they have team managers, they have docotrs all at their beck and call. If they are in any position where they feel they are out of control, they have backup.
Sure, people make mistakes so he made a mistake and he now has broken down and ackonowledged his issues. In fact he got national news admitting it. The secret is out... No excuses now. There is nothing to hide now. Everyone knows his problem.He still has all the backing of his entourage and more and he still screws up. 
Yet, he still finds it okay to socialise with a guy busted for dealing quantities of whizz. The guy is a fool and if he tops himself, he tops himself. 
What has he done for society? Why is he any better than anyone else? He has shown children it is OK to be an **** and that yes, you can get away with it in the national limelight and then mock it again... Some other team will pick him up if the AFL don't scrub him out..

The guy should have quite a paypacket from his footbal so far. So he's lost about 5 more playing years. He still had a good run. To say the guy will top himself for losing his job is lunacy.

HE could be a bumbling fool and still live on a realistic wage for the rest of his life. Maybe even start a new career through study, heaven forbid. Hell, he'll have time on his hands when in the can and when he gets out of it.

He is the wasted product of society's love of heroes. He has many benefits from it, how about the child that is Cousins takes a little responsibility to counteract the rights he has gained...

I cannot bevieive this is even in the news. I was watching Sky news from a motel room last night and this was given much more coverage than the election or Burma..

He needs a good kick in the ****!





cheers,


----------



## explod (17 October 2007)

Stan 101 said:


> I'm sorry if this will offend...Wayne, please remove it if you see it is unfit for the forum. I think it is worth saying.
> 
> This guy and many like him have had many benefits in life that most others an only dream of.
> They have personal managers, they have team managers, they have docotrs all at their beck and call. If they are in any position where they feel they are out of control, they have backup.
> ...




Now that is a pretty good post.  The punch line, lets move on and forget Ben Cousins, he will survive and look after himself.

By the way the oil price is making new highs and with the dollar weaker it will be crook at the petrol pump soon.


----------



## Stan 101 (17 October 2007)

IFocus said:


> I am a Eagles supporter (on this thread its a bit like declaring I am a alcoholic at AA)
> 
> As such I agree with DJ's comments.
> 
> ...




Ifocus, I don't know about you but I watch a game of football. Game over I go on with my life. It was entertaining, sure. But it's now over and off I go..
I don't care what colour jocks the full forward was wearing or who he's dating. I have my own full life to be engulfed in..

To me a fallballer is nothing more than my milko delivering my milk. It's a part of my life and it feeds a need. Nothing more...Sure there is emotion in sport. There is in my milko, too. I like to hear his stories about my family, his daughter's new baby, their new house.. Much like a great kicked goal.. I'm moved, but it's not my world.

People need to pull their heads in and realise this just a game. These players are not GODS, they are people who kick and catch balls better than the average person...


cheers,


----------



## wayneL (18 October 2007)

Stan 101 said:


> Ifocus, I don't know about you but I watch a game of football. Game over I go on with my life. It was entertaining, sure. But it's now over and off I go..
> I don't care what colour jocks the full forward was wearing or who he's dating. I have my own full life to be engulfed in..
> 
> To me a fallballer is nothing more than my milko delivering my milk. It's a part of my life and it feeds a need. Nothing more...Sure there is emotion in sport. There is in my milko, too. I like to hear his stories about my family, his daughter's new baby, their new house.. Much like a great kicked goal.. I'm moved, but it's not my world.
> ...




:iagree:


----------



## doctorj (18 October 2007)

dogwithflees1983 said:


> Couldnt agree more TVhead, cousins is an idiot who deserves to be a sacked.



He deserves to be sacked and was sacked, as announced tonight.

In the press conference the club made a statement that whilst he was no longer past of their playing group, they would still do what they can to ensure he gets the help he needs.

Big ups to them for that, irrespective of what some here might think.


----------



## tvhead (18 October 2007)

doctorj said:


> He deserves to be sacked and was sacked, as announced tonight.
> 
> In the press conference the club made a statement that whilst he was no longer past of their playing group, they would still do what they can to ensure he gets the help he needs.
> 
> Big ups to them for that, irrespective of what some here might think.




I suppose they have babied him this whole time why stop now. Introduce him to their new draft picks, so he can show them what some of the eagles players have been doing for years but every one didnt want to know about it. That may be why their best player left, he wasn't stupid.


----------



## Prospector (18 October 2007)

IFocus said:


> Hi Julia
> 
> And if he was your son..... committed suicide?
> 
> Focus




That is hardly what anyone here has said!  But his current behaviours - well, he is well on the way.  Or driving like he did the other day, may well kill someone else.  He could barely stand.  He was lucky he didnt kill a child on the way to school.  He has lost all sense of right and wrong - abuse his own body if he wants, but why do we condone behaviour on a public road that puts others at risk!   Oh, poor thing, he is a drug addict.  Good grief - he is a drug addict that is driving!

He has had plenty of opportunities to rehabilitate, but clearly, despite being giving far more opportunity to do so than anyone else, HE has clearly not taken on the mental toughness that rehabilitation involves.  Despite his staged apologies, he does not want to rehabilitate. Not yet anyway.  And while others continue to make those decisions for him, he will not rehabilitate.

He has to want to do it himself, and he is not there yet!  And by being propped up, as he is (was) that is not helping him one little bit.  His family will stick by him and in the long run that is all that counts.

And DrJ, good on West Coast for continuing to support him, but my comments were more that they are certainly not morally obliged to do so; unless of course, it is their fault that they gave him such a big pay packet that he had nothing better to spend it on than drugs!  And good on Chris Judd; he seems a fabulous bloke and no surprise in hindsight he was keen to get back to his family and friends.

I get this sense that WA in general is somewhat of a 'maverick' state?


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 October 2007)

If he's got to the point where he can't be trusted - can't even trust himself (as happens of course) - the monkey is out of control etc - then you have to give that monkey plenty of time to prove it's well and truly dead and gone - try 3 or 4 years

Just thinking aloud - but I was speculating (always dangerous I know) whether or not there was a chance they are really trying to get him on the defensive so that they can wear him down for the main game - and get the real facts in Chris Mainwaring story for instance.   Better not go there.  Time will tell.

PS Prospector - I didn't see the footage to which you refer - but of course you're right - he's DUIED driving under influence of ..who knows - but he's unsafe at any speed  (with any speed?)


----------



## Gspot (18 October 2007)

"I get this sense that WA in general is somewhat of a 'maverick' state?"
Don't be fulled Prospector. If you think this is only a problem in WA, then you have too much bling around your head. 
Watch out vics, "drugs are coming to a club near you, soon." 
As Jackovic said last night on radio, " there are about 5 or 6 clubs in the same position as the Eagles were 3 years ago."


----------



## IFocus (18 October 2007)

Hi Julia 

Apologies for the post it was aggressive and harsh

Stan 101 no offence ever taken / Wayne and others agree with many of your points but the individual we are taking about is not a commodity but human like me.

He will need to face the consequences of his actions just like everyone else and here in the West for Ben Cousins that actually means more so.

No argument if this is fair or not.  

I think the Eagles have handled the situation as though he is a human and regardless of other comments there have been consequences along the way but dealing with addiction is not black and white nor is it as simple as some here seem to believe.

Chops may have other information that I am not aware of…….

But I don’t accept that some how sports stars are some sort of commodity to be cheered and treated with adulation when they succeed (did you watch the grand final) and thrown onto the scrap heap when they fail to meet the standards we as a community demand.

To soar as high and fall as low is a serious consequence one that few would have to experience never alone survive. 

Sorry if this is a ramble like I said before I hope he recovers to lead a successful and productive life

One eyed Eagles supporter
Focus


----------



## doctorj (18 October 2007)

Prospector said:


> I get this sense that WA in general is somewhat of a 'maverick' state?



Why generalise based on a single footballer?

What about Hawthorn?


----------



## Julia (18 October 2007)

IFocus said:


> Hi Julia
> 
> Apologies for the post it was aggressive and harsh
> 
> ...



Hi Focus,

That's very civil of you - thank you.  But I didn't take it as being personally directed at me, given your previous post which makes your feelings about Cousins (and probably his colleagues) clear.

Others have said all that I would have said in response, and probably much better.


----------



## Kauri (18 October 2007)

Not wanting to take the thread off subject but.....
  What if the drug that the" *2 carloads of Major Crime Squad*" detectives found was Diazepam... admittedly non-prescription, but from my limited knowledge a form of Valium used by addicts to help with bad withdrawl symptoms???  :sheep:
 Cheers
..........Kauri


----------



## chops_a_must (18 October 2007)

Kauri said:


> Not wanting to take the thread off subject but.....
> What if the drug that the" *2 carloads of Major Crime Squad*" detectives found was Diazepam... admittedly non-prescription, but from my limited knowledge a form of Valium used by addicts to help with bad withdrawl symptoms???  :sheep:
> Cheers
> ..........Kauri




They would have then arrested Kerr...

AAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHA!


----------



## Prospector (18 October 2007)

Gspot said:


> " If you think this is only a problem in WA, then you have too much bling around your head.
> Watch out vics, "drugs are coming to a club near you, soon."




It was just a question, not based solely on football, but because of its isolation, WA has always seemed to have to 'go it alone' and was just wondering if this an accurate perception.  So it was more of a question of perception rather than statement of fact.  Of course the drug problem is widespread, and while I do like the bling, do not assume I don't have the brain to go with it

And even DrJ, you've got to admit that the West Coast does have more than its share of players involved in the drug culture.  To an outsider anyway, it seems embedded in the culture, rather than just a couple of players doing the wrong thing.  But then, maybe it is the media.  But the fact that West Coast has in recent years been so successful in finals and the Brownlow, that it does cast aspersions on what exactly was going down within the team when those events were being played out.


----------



## greenfs (18 October 2007)

Whatever they do, I sure hope the wipe the perennial smurk of his face. Just to make this 100 characters...


----------



## Prospector (18 October 2007)

greenfs said:


> Whatever they do, I sure hope the wipe the perennial smurk of his face. Just to make this 100 characters...




only in share discussions:


----------



## doctorj (18 October 2007)

Prospector said:


> And even DrJ, you've got to admit that the West Coast does have more than its share of players involved in the drug culture.



There are serious problems at West Coast.  Gardiner was involved in the wrong circles and getting rid of him helped.  The likes of Cousins and Chick allegedly have done wrong as well.

That said, it was announced that Hawthorn had 3 players with serious drug issues that have thus far escaped scrutiny from the media.  So yes, WCE have far more than I'd like to see, but it's not just limited to then.  Just the media scrutiny is...


----------



## Prospector (18 October 2007)

doctorj said:


> That said, it was announced that Hawthorn had 3 players with serious drug issues that have thus far escaped scrutiny from the media.



Yep, but does anyone care about Hawthorn:?  Although the media would have loved to have outed them but the courts put a stop to that!

I heard that Cousins is on his way to the US.  Wouldnt he need a Visa to get in - he has now been charged with a drug offence which makes him, at least for the moment, a criminal? So no automatic entry?


----------



## explod (18 October 2007)

Prospector said:


> Yep, but does anyone care about Hawthorn:?  Although the media would have loved to have outed them but the courts put a stop to that!
> 
> I heard that Cousins is on his way to the US.  Wouldnt he need a Visa to get in - he has now been charged with a drug offence which makes him, at least for the moment, a criminal? So no automatic entry?





Being charged at law does not make one a criminal.  A conviction from a court hearing records the conviction.  Of course public opinion and media conviction is a whole different ball game.


----------



## The Mint Man (18 October 2007)

Stan 101 said:


> He needs a good kick in the @rse



nods


----------



## Prospector (18 October 2007)

explod said:


> Being charged at law does not make one a criminal.  A conviction from a court hearing records the conviction.




Yes, I know that, but I dont think this definition applies when trying to enter a country? Particularly when the case is still to be heard.


----------



## chops_a_must (18 October 2007)

Prospector said:


> It was just a question, not based solely on football, but because of its isolation, WA has always seemed to have to 'go it alone' and was just wondering if this an accurate perception.  So it was more of a question of perception rather than statement of fact.  Of course the drug problem is widespread, and while I do like the bling, do not assume I don't have the brain to go with it



As a Perthie, I actually agree with it. Look at our two biggest cultural exports: David McComb and Kim Salmon. Both were/ are on massive amounts of drugs, and David ended up dying from his drug use at age 36.

But yeah, even in the mid and late 90s, Perth "art-rock" bands (and most touring acts for that matter) were paid in acid for instance. Perhaps the reason for a thriving music scene, but perhaps not the best feature when you begin having things like this said about your latest big act: 

_Their latest album ‘'''Chubby'''’ is the follow up to their 2003’s deliciously twisted ‘Bish Bosh II: The Bosh Bosh’, which saw them described as ‘the biggest pack of whackos to wander onto the Australian music scene in a long time._

Which is actually true of the Tucker b's... they are whackos. But anyway. We had the absurd situation a few years back where a band was nearly given a deal (no pun intended) purely because at every gig, they were nearly totally incapable of standing on stage, and hence, drew a large following. Lol!

Perhaps I should post a bit more about David in the music thread, check it out there Prospector.


----------



## kgee (18 October 2007)

doctorj said:


> There are serious problems at West Coast.  Gardiner was involved in the wrong circles and getting rid of him helped.  The likes of Cousins and Chick allegedly have done wrong as well.
> 
> That said, it was announced that Hawthorn had 3 players with serious drug issues that have thus far escaped scrutiny from the media.  So yes, WCE have far more than I'd like to see, but it's not just limited to then.  Just the media scrutiny is...




I'm not sure WA does seem to have a prevalent drug culture .... a friend pointed it out to me that a lot of the young guys in WA have a strong bent towards self destructive behavior and drugs...at first I kinda of disagreed we were working in the fishing industry, an industry thats riddled with drugs (presciption and otherwise) but I'm starting to sway towards his way of thinking as every season we'd be getting kids that were almost carbon copies of each other and they all seemed to take pride in heavy drug usage and getting "smashed"...and in my opinion more so than other places I've lived
So  maybe it is part of western australia culture...I do know that it is the state with the highest prescriptions of medicines for Attention Deficit Disorder (spelling?)


----------



## IFocus (18 October 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> As a Perthie, I actually agree with it. Look at our two biggest cultural exports: David McComb and Kim Salmon.




Sheezz Chops whats a "Perthie" ? Its not catching is it might stay south if it is LOL


----------



## explod (18 October 2007)

Gspot said:


> "I get this sense that WA in general is somewhat of a 'maverick' state?"
> Don't be fulled Prospector. If you think this is only a problem in WA, then you have too much bling around your head.
> Watch out vics, "drugs are coming to a club near you, soon."
> As Jackovic said last night on radio, " there are about 5 or 6 clubs in the same position as the Eagles were 3 years ago."




Drugs have been a cronic part of the youth scene for a decade or two now and growing as pointed out.

It reflects a state of dispair within the new social paradigm.   

Spoke to a couple in their early twenties a few days ago representing Greenpeace.  They were well presented and optomistic because they are on a cause and somehow see a way out of the earthly mess.   Most young people do not.  Subconsciously because we are for example not doing anything about global warming we are saying that we dont' give a stuff about the future, a future that belongs to the younger generation.  So if the leaders and mentors have given up then there is nothing left but to party.  We can speak of other subjects as analogies to support the argument, I am not just hooked on green issues.

Too much here to explain in a few lines anyway but you get the drift.   The planet is dying and the younger generation are going with it.   We will roadblock all the worlds freeways when it is too late.  And I am an old conservative explod.

My heart bleeds for Cousins and all the other millions like him  because they are our children and we have not collectively shown them the right path.


----------



## Julia (18 October 2007)

Kauri said:


> Not wanting to take the thread off subject but.....
> What if the drug that the" *2 carloads of Major Crime Squad*" detectives found was Diazepam... admittedly non-prescription, but from my limited knowledge a form of Valium used by addicts to help with bad withdrawl symptoms???  :sheep:
> Cheers
> ..........Kauri



If he did in fact have any prescription only drug without the appropriate prescription then he would have to explain that one too!


----------



## Julia (18 October 2007)

explod said:


> Drugs have been a cronic part of the youth scene for a decade or two now and growing as pointed out.
> 
> It reflects a state of dispair within the new social paradigm.
> 
> ...



Explod, I'm sad that you are so pessimistic about our young people.  I know lots of great young people whose parents have given them great guidance and who are making a great success of their lives.  You've given the Greenpeace couple as a good example.  None of the young people I know are into drugs at all - too focused on their education and part time jobs, and often doing some voluntary work as well.

I understand what you are saying, but do worry that if we keep on generalising about all young people being drug crazed no hopers, they may take on that expectation.  Someone much wiser than I once said:
"most folk behave pretty much as you expect them to".
If we continue to reinforce and appreciate the good stuff young people do, then that may be more useful than focusing on the ones who let their generation down.

Ah, but maybe I just have a panglossian view of the world!


----------



## Sprinter79 (18 October 2007)

WA isn't the only state with a drug problem, and WCE aren't the only club with a drug problem. 

Hawthorn has 3 players that have tested positive twice, and one of those who has since tested positive a 3rd time, and also has a charge of possession with intent to sell or supply hanging over his head. 

There were clouds hanging over the Brisbane Lions during their rein, St Kilda have had their dramas too, don't let current events blind you.

The rumour that was doing the rounds over here in Perth since Cousins was first outed by the club was that Judd had made an ultimatim, either him or Cousins, he wouldn't play in the same team as Cousins next year. WCE certainly backed the wrong horse there. 

Gardiner, Kerr, Cousins and Fletcher have all had high profile run ins with drugs, and its just unfortunate that the young players at the eagles have been tarred with the same brush. WCE should have in hind sight prohibited Cousins from playing this year, but the lure of another premiership was just to strong to resist.

As for those who are apologists for Cousins, and say that he is a nice guy, I went to school with him (back in primary school), and he was always arrogant, and always thought that because his dad was a footy player, he could get away with anything. He's never had to deal with the consequences of anything he's done, and he's never had to live in the real world. That's where his real problems have stemmed from.


----------



## >Apocalypto< (18 October 2007)

6 months in rehab, a piss test every week, 

then a spot in the St Kilda mid field!


----------



## Kauri (18 October 2007)

Julia said:


> If he did in fact have any prescription only drug without the appropriate prescription then he would have to explain that one too!




  Possessing and or taking prescription drugs without a prescription is of course illegal... but when being pulled over by the uniforms for a driving offence does it warrant having *TWO carloads* *of organised crime/major crime squad* detectives turning up, being held and searched in front of the public for two hours in the middle of Perth, having the Australian press report it in such a way that implied that he was in possession of serious hard drugs when they *knew* that it was Diazepam, and having the eager Australian public jumping to conclusions and convicting him blindly(just read back through this thread for example). Where did all of the righteously indignant David Hicks supporters go? I see Daniel Chick comes in for a bit of a lashing as well (I wonder if he only *supposedly *succumbed to the Eagles drug culture after he returned from Hawthorn? Interestingly his car was also stopped and searched, his *passenger* was charged with possession of hard drugs and implements, Chick was not and has not been charged, despite his house being searched also.
   If, as implied elsewhere in this thread, W.A is indeed a "_maverick state",_ then I would humbly suggest that that term is not limited only to the general public_._ 
  P.S.  I hear that tall poppies produce the best opium when cut down.
    Cheers
.............Kauri


----------



## chops_a_must (18 October 2007)

Kauri said:


> Possessing and or taking prescription drugs without a prescription is of course illegal... but when being pulled over by the uniforms for a driving offence does it warrant having *TWO carloads* *of organised crime/major crime squad* detectives turning up, being held and searched in front of the public for two hours in the middle of Perth, having the Australian press report it in such a way that implied that he was in possession of serious hard drugs when they *knew* that it was Diazepam, and having the eager Australian public jumping to conclusions and convicting him blindly(just read back through this thread for example). Where did all of the righteously indignant David Hicks supporters go? I see Daniel Chick comes in for a bit of a lashing as well (I wonder if he only *supposedly *succumbed to the Eagles drug culture after he returned from Hawthorn? Interestingly his car was also stopped and searched, his *passenger* was charged with possession of hard drugs and implements, Chick was not and has not been charged, despite his house being searched also.
> If, as implied elsewhere in this thread, W.A is indeed a "_maverick state",_ then I would humbly suggest that that term is not limited only to the general public_._
> P.S.  I hear that tall poppies produce the best opium when cut down.
> Cheers
> .............Kauri




You take your life in your hands when you refuse police orders... Why would they be sending him off to rehab again if he wasn't on anything?

They obviously had something on him, and probably have had for a long time. It was obviously a stuff up, or the passenger in Chick's car agreed to be the mule... Remember the phone conversations of a number of years back that they did nothing about? I think the cops have decided to get him, and that's that. And as with any other underworld figure, it will likely drag out for years...


----------



## Kauri (19 October 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> They obviously had something on him, and probably have had for a long time. It was obviously a stuff up, or the passenger in Chick's car agreed to be the mule... Remember the phone conversations of a number of years back that they did nothing about? I think the cops have decided to get him, and that's that. And as with any other underworld figure, it will likely drag out for years...




   I remember the phone conversations, they (Cousins and Gardiner) talked to a couple of those reported *underworld connections *(actually Coffin cheater bikies.. not Perths answer to Vics Williams and Moran clans).. just after the bikies were involved in some serious trouble at a nightclub.. the uniforms did nothing because, well, what could they do, charge them with illegal use of a telephone??
  They have decided to "_get him", _I just hope the public looks beyond the "_sensationalised_" gutter media we are continually fed and looks at the facts. Whilst we are remembering.. try Mallard, Button, Mickleburgs.... not to mention the Silver Fox and good old Hamburger Bob of course.
    Cheers
.............Kauri


----------



## Prospector (19 October 2007)

Kauri said:


> If, as implied elsewhere in this thread, W.A is indeed a "_maverick state",_ then I would humbly suggest that that term is not limited only to the general public_._
> P.S.  I hear that tall poppies produce the best opium when cut down.
> Cheers




Yes, that was my point, I wasnt just limiting this thought to footy players and others!  So it could rightly apply to law enforcement people, politicians and the like!

And Cousins did refuse a blood test - if you are driving a vehicle (doesn't even have to have a motor, so a bike will suffice!) it is an absolute offence - ie there is no defence, and the penalty is as harsh as if you tested positive. So there has to be a conviction for that charge.

The tall poppy thing - that line gets trotted out when someone 'famous' gets caught doing things that society regards as being wrong.

For instance, Pat Rafter - has there ever been a harsh word said against him? Similarly James Hird, and several other AFL players.  In entertainment - Rove, Kylie - they are there for the chopping but it has never happened!  There are many, many people who are potential targets for 'tall poppy' but it is only the ones who transgress in some way who get the chop!


----------



## Red Fatboy (19 October 2007)

Who cares? I don't.


----------



## petervan (19 October 2007)

Read an interesting letter to the editor in todays advertiser where someone questioned Cousins is sacked after being caught with a valium and Richard pratt is still calton president after rorting tens of millions from the taxpayer.money still talks


----------



## doctorj (19 October 2007)

petervan said:


> Richard pratt is still calton president after rorting tens of millions from the taxpayer.



As someone else pointed out, the media doesn't care about Hawthron, probably the same could be said for Carlton.


----------



## Kauri (19 October 2007)

Oh dear, what a surprise... :sheep: 
  Cheers
............Kauri


----------



## kgee (19 October 2007)

yeah I wonder if they did a blood test


----------



## YELNATS (19 October 2007)

What now? Just maybe the ham-fisted WA police are victimising Cousins. He's never been convicted of driving with or taking illicit drugs, has he? Is refusing to take a roadside test a heinous crime?

Will the WCE now reinstate him or put him on the open transfer list? Can Cousins sue the WCE for taking action without sufficient cause? There's a few struggling Vic clubs that can do with a marque player like him, but would they have him? Just maybe.


----------



## hangseng (19 October 2007)

Lucky_Country said:


> Devoted his life too AFL in the public spotlight from day 1 pressures untold on a young man too constantly perform.
> He needs help not punishment from the AFL !




Lucky_Country

The most understanding intelligent comment I have read.

And now that Tom Percy QC is on the case after the ridiculous false charge was withdrawn the AFL and Eagles are clearly in a legal hot seat.

The decision to sack Ben will come back to haunt the AFL and Eagles for the unprofessional way they handled this before the lad was even found guilty of anything. Despite what you may think Tom Percy is 100% correct, everyone has the right to presumption of innocence untill proven guilty, clearly a basic right of us all in this country denied Ben in this case.

The heading of the poll should include a public apology to Ben from Demetrou and Nisbet over the apalling way this matter was dealt with. My view of the Eagles and AFL management has lowered significantly over this.


----------



## kgee (19 October 2007)

I'm not really up to date with this but I know why valium is used ...it's a nice way to come down from a hard night out....and he's not young he's nearly 30 aint he....call me cynical but pamper to these people and they'll take you for a ride


----------



## Bushman (19 October 2007)

Unbelievable story this. Witch hunt and kangaroo court are two phrases that come to mind. 

How the media can place so much pressure on an individual who is undergoing drug rehabilitation and has just lost one of his best mates in tragic circumstances beggars belief. Just because an individual is 'famous' does not make them lose the right to the presumption of innocence and just common humanity. 

My views only. This world we live in is so black & white. It seems modern society can only swing between those we worship and those we vilify. 

I, for one, hopes that Couso can overcome his demons and once more grace the football field in a way only he can. Now that would be human interest story I would find worthwhile to read. 

As for all those journos stacking the timber to burn someone with an addiction at the stake, shame on you. What if he was your son?  

Rant, rant, rant ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 October 2007)

This from a fortnight ago (see also photo)


> http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,22515734%5E20322,00.html
> Sources have confirmed Cousins was with Mainwaring at his Perth home on Sunday.
> 
> The Brownlow medallist went to check on his mate, who was at the tail end of a weekend bender after his marriage breakdown.
> ...



Also from then..


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/02/2048973.htm
> Devastated Cousins was with Mainwaring: West Coast
> Posted Tue Oct 2, 2007 2:30pm AEST
> Updated Tue Oct 2, 2007 3:09pm AEST
> ...




This from yesterday
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/18/2063531.htm


> Eagles uncertain if Cousins tested after Mainwaring's death
> Posted Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:46pm AEST
> Updated Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:48pm AEST
> 
> ...




Ths from today  (as per the last few posts). - who knows what's really going on here - gotta be more that just whether Cousins had a few pills or not (imo)


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/19/2064629.htm
> 
> Police drop Cousins drug charge
> Posted 5 hours 35 minutes ago
> ...




I notice the West Australian front page is saying he'll be pretty much unemplyable after his football career ends  - "spoiled goods" in the marketing sense etc.

Gee whiz it would be nice if the police told us the facts without the spin.


----------



## Prospector (19 October 2007)

YELNATS said:


> Is refusing to take a roadside test a heinous crime?




Well, it is treated that way by the courts.  It is presumptive of guilt, and the fines/penalties are the same as if the test is positive for alcohol/drugs. This is the second time he has avoided either a breath or blood test after 'incidents'.   He is hardly off the hook, I dont understand this talk of suing - one charge (valium) was dropped; but if he was driving and his driving ability was affected by even legally prescribed valium, that is still an offence.  Unfortunately he refused a blood test - which would have either cleared him or provided the evidence to convict him.  He was keen to take a blood test after the recent death of his friend, why was he reluctant to take one the other day I wonder!


----------



## kgee (19 October 2007)

Bushman said:


> Unbelievable story this. Witch hunt and kangaroo court are two phrases that come to mind.
> 
> How the media can place so much pressure on an individual who is undergoing drug rehabilitation and has just lost one of his best mates in tragic circumstances beggars belief.




Put me staight here but weren't his friends death drug related??


----------



## godzillaismad (19 October 2007)

Ben can sue the police and WCE for deformation and he might end up rich enough to enjoy life and never need to find another job!


----------



## kgee (19 October 2007)

godzillaismad said:


> Ben can sue the police and WCE for deformation and he might end up rich enough to enjoy life and never need to find another job!



so you mean he might never have to really work at all?


----------



## nomore4s (19 October 2007)

Prospector said:


> Well, it is treated that way by the courts.  It is presumptive of guilt, and the fines/penalties are the same as if the test is positive for alcohol/drugs. This is the second time he has avoided either a breath or blood test after 'incidents'.   He is hardly off the hook, I dont understand this talk of suing - one charge (valium) was dropped; but if he was driving and his driving ability was affected by even legally prescribed valium, that is still an offence.  Unfortunately he refused a blood test - which would have either cleared him or provided the evidence to convict him.  *He was keen to take a blood test after the recent death of his friend, why was he reluctant to take one the other day I wonder!*




Was he definately tested after Mainwaring's death though? I thought I read somewhere that he wasn't tested, at least not by the WCE, can anyone clear this up for me?
Also was the charge of refusing a blood test also dropped or are they still proceeding with that charge?


----------



## nomore4s (19 October 2007)

godzillaismad said:


> Ben can sue the police and WCE for deformation and he might end up rich enough to enjoy life and never need to find another job!




If he's managed his money right he'd have enough to enjoy life & not work now. He would have been earning at least a mil a year with endorsments etc, wouldn't he?



kgee said:


> so you mean he might never have to really work at all?




lol


----------



## kgee (19 October 2007)

Bushman said:


> As for all those journos stacking the timber to burn someone with an addiction at the stake, shame on you. What if he was your son?
> 
> Rant, rant, rant ...




I'd dis-own him simple as that.


----------



## Bushman (19 October 2007)

kgee said:


> Put me staight here but weren't his friends death drug related??




Err I would place a drug related death at the age of 42 as a 'tragic circumstance'. I have one philosophy in life that I try to adhere to. 'There, but for the grace of God, go I'. 

The emphasis is on the loss of a human life rather than some sham moral argument. Drugs are a part of society. Some people, due to a variety of mental and social issues, take drugs. When one of them, a good man by all accounts, succumbs to a drug related death, then it is a tragedy in my eyes. Further when another tries to overcome his addiction by checking into rehabilitation then I think we owe him the chance to overcome his addiction. Addiction is hard to shake and it takes time and support to overcome an addiction. A media fuelled moral witch hunt certainly wont be helping him in anyway.


----------



## kgee (20 October 2007)

Bushman said:


> Err I would place a drug related death at the age of 42 as a 'tragic circumstance'. I have one philosophy in life that I try to adhere to. 'There, but for the grace of God, go I'.
> .



 Does that try and excuse you from any personal responsibility?
Ben cousins is a mess... a man without any dignity but we might forgive him because he's a sportsman?
or because he is what he is?
yes I have sympathty with people that have struggled with drugs....but this is more than that; this is a "blessed son"- (like Iccaruss)
I don't know the guy but I've seen the "footage" just show me one iota of dignity and I might consider what I've said...but for me...I don't think he regrets a thing apart from being caught.
I'm not great at evaluating people ...


----------



## Sprinter79 (20 October 2007)

The ONLY charge that was dropped was the drug possession one, not the failing to undertake a driver assessment (ie drug test). Failing to comply with that lawful request carries a fair penalty, and in some instances can warrant a jail term. PLUS, there will be more charges laid pending the results of forensic testing (ie that $20 note found with traces of drugs on it).

As for all the talk about law suits, it depends what was written into the contract, and over the coming days I'm sure that will become common knowledge, so suing for breach of contract may not be successful. In terms of defamation, has the AFL or the WCE actually said anything defamatory? In order to substantiate that claim, Cousins' character would have to be analysed, and well, we all know what he's been up to over the last few years, plus all the stuff that has been swept under the carpet (including recent troubles up in Broome).


----------



## hangseng (20 October 2007)

kgee said:


> Does that try and excuse you from any personal responsibility?
> Ben cousins is a mess... a man without any dignity but we might forgive him because he's a sportsman?
> or because he is what he is?
> yes I have sympathty with people that have struggled with drugs....but this is more than that; this is a "blessed son"- (like Iccaruss)
> ...




You are 100% correct!
You don't know the guy; and
Your not great at evaluating people.

The rubbish being posted here based on media hype is amasing, the herd mentality is clearly alive and well.

Listen to those who know not journo's who thrive on hype and speculation that sells papers.

Listen to Tom Percy QC (who doesn't like Cousins by the way).

Listen to Dr McNeil world renoun in drug rehabilitation.

Listen the the Dr who *DID* test Ben for drugs, not the "I heard he didn't get tested".

Listen facts not the speculative hype. Ben has made some life errors no doubt, *stand up one of you who hasn't!*


----------



## aaronphetamine (20 October 2007)

What do tasmanians and meth have in common ?

they both f**K cousins.

hahah.


----------



## Prospector (20 October 2007)

hangseng said:


> .
> 
> Listen the the Dr who *DID* test Ben for drugs, not the "I heard he didn't get tested".
> 
> Listen facts not the speculative hype. Ben has made some life errors no doubt, *stand up one of you who hasn't!   *




I also understand he wasn't tested, although he requested it.  Again media discussion.  Which Doctor did the test? I haven't heard him speak out nor read about him. Yet you have?  I would be interested in reading about that.

Actually, I think I can stand up for not having made any poor life choices.  I don't and have never, even smoked - cigarettes or anything else.  I dont drink much alcohol, haven't driven while drunk, never got a speeding ticket even.  Amazing what experiencing someone else's experience with a life threatening illness can do for the things one chooses to do with their lifestyle though.  Why throw away a life with booze and drugs when others are struggling to stay alive.  

And today I read a story of a teenage girl in Adelaide, who a few months ago received a new heart after being on a mechanical heart for many weeks. She was not expected to live for much lomger without a transplant. She has made an amazing recovery and just recently returned to play Basketball for her school. *She is a sporting legend*, not those who just happen to get lucky yet throw it away.  (I think her heart transplant is featuring on 'The gift' on Thursday night, Channel 9.)


----------



## hangseng (20 October 2007)

Prospector said:


> I also understand he wasn't tested, although he requested it.  Again media discussion.  Which Doctor did the test? I haven't heard him speak out nor read about him. Yet you have?  I would be interested in reading about that.




Straight from Dr. Rod Moore live on Ch7 news last night;
Every WA newspaper, TV and radio station;
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/ne...er-mates-demise/2007/10/02/1191091115098.html

I take it you don't live in WA. I wouldn't expect the Melb media would report anything positive or factual, that would have been conveniently edited to maintain the "I heard" hype.

Facts, not fiction or fantasy.

Add this in as well:
"Under the AFL policy, a player cannot be suspended by the AFL until he tests positive out-of-competition to illicit drugs three times."

Cousins has never returned a positive test.


----------



## Prospector (20 October 2007)

Thanks Hang Seng, will check it out.  You comment about the Victorian media but I also get the impression that WA isnt all that positive either?  Or maybe it is those pesky Docker supporters.

I agree that he has never received a positive AFL drug test, but maybe that says more about the AFL drug policy than anything else.  And when you see the likes of Marion Jones getting the all clear in Sydney 2000, after a highly publicised 'you will get caught campaign' the year before, well, as you say Cousins isnt the only one who is involved in such activities.  Another thing about Cousins that gets me somewhat amped is that, like Peter Costello, he has this unfortunate smirk on his face.    But of course, that is just a little part of the problem I see.


----------



## tech/a (20 October 2007)

Well I have had a concern from a different angle.

Daughter was going out with one of the West Coast players.
Currently dating a local SANFL player.

I'm watching like a hawk and not the Hawthorn type either.


----------



## Prospector (20 October 2007)

Maybe it is the media negative spin again, but it certainly makes one wonder what else there is we dont know yet:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22595619-5006301,00.html


----------



## chops_a_must (20 October 2007)

hangseng said:


> Add this in as well:
> "Under the AFL policy, a player cannot be suspended by the AFL until he tests positive out-of-competition to illicit drugs three times."
> 
> Cousins has never returned a positive test.



It doesn't matter. Refusing to provide a sample to any authorities (police included) is an automatic 2 year ban from sport.


Prospector said:


> Maybe it is the media negative spin again, but it certainly makes one wonder what else there is we dont know yet:
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22595619-5006301,00.html




Yeah, you wouldn't have seen it in SA, but this has been a long long saga. Even in the local prosh (UWA yearly fundraising joke paper) in 2001, had a multi page special on the Eagles drug use. This was just after some Eagles players had had their phones tapped, and could be heard ordering drugs.

Jakovich was quoted in the paper, saying, "I'm not smart but I can lift heavy things". It is widely regarded that he wasn't given the captaincy over this fiasco, being blamed as the ring leader. Cousins was given it ahead of him. And Jakovich has seemingly held a grudge about it ever since. And in retrospect, probably rightly so.


----------



## IFocus (20 October 2007)

Hi Tech

Hanson is center half forward (when not injured), West Coast picked him up from Victoria, his father who has had a long look at West Coast and its players to ensure his son was in good hands was commenting in the media about any young draft picks hesitating going to the Eagles because of the media attention to contact him so he could set them straight.

Being positive news about the WCE i guess no one heard it......


Focus


----------



## hangseng (20 October 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> It doesn't matter. Refusing to provide a sample to any authorities (police included) is an automatic 2 year ban from sport.
> 
> 
> Yeah, you wouldn't have seen it in SA, but this has been a long long saga. Even in the local prosh (UWA yearly fundraising joke paper) in 2001, had a multi page special on the Eagles drug use. This was just after some Eagles players had had their phones tapped, and could be heard ordering drugs.
> ...





"PROSH"  you are seriously kidding aren't you? 

Not a word of truth has ever been in a PROSH paper and you cite this as a reference. This is without a doubt the most laughable post I have ever read on any forum.

PROSH for those who don't know is a send up paper put out for a laugh and it targets everyone and everything by a bunch of stirring (light hearted) and big hearted uni students dressed up for a day selling the PROSH rag raising funds.

Get real!

Next we will be citing the Melbourne Truth, rolol.

Cousins still has not been convicted of anything and loosely quoting Tom Percy QC unlikely he will be. This whole saga was a debacle from the beginning and will be shown to be just that.


----------



## godzillaismad (20 October 2007)

Well, I really don't care if he doesn't need to work again! Ben deserved the benefit of the doubt and he is innocent until proven guilty. The media did the trick once again, tricking us into thinking/judging Ben is in the wrong from the beginning!


----------



## chops_a_must (20 October 2007)

hangseng said:


> "PROSH"  you are seriously kidding aren't you?
> 
> Not a word of truth has ever been in a PROSH paper and you cite this as a reference. This is without a doubt the most laughable post I have ever read on any forum.
> 
> ...




You have clearly missed the point absolutely entirely. The point was, that these things were widely known in the public arena at the time. Especially after the drug dealing phone calls had just been released. See what I'm getting at here?

And it's besides the point. Any athlete that refuses a drug test at anytime, by any legitimate authority, is automatically treated as a drug cheat and is given a 2 year ban. Simple. The Greek athletes refusing tests prior to the Athens Olympics are a prime example of this...


----------



## 3 veiws of a secret (20 October 2007)

Ben Cousins should think about Guantanamo Bay ! I mean I have'nt read this thread ( and will not),but after listening to Marian Jones crying for mercy or acceptance??? ,and Ben amongst the elitest players of the AFL ,and all codes fighting for #1 status on the TV rights ,this is either poor scripting for Channel 7 or 10 ( whoever has the rights today) or a total piss take of how we veiw sport today.Comedy capers stuff.Proffesional payouts for amateurish performances)
When I was bricklaying in NSW circa 1994 ,soccer was bad news on the front NSW page tabliods,and when i went to St Georges (R League )to see them play, at the bar that afternoon the police helped me and escorted me out of the building,fighting was rampant!!!!! 
The spin doctors nailed other codes......But the rapes or whatever happened with the Bulldogs etc etc ,was another matter ,more slander no doubt!
Suddenly tips the Cousin *"ice"*berg question,and the code has absolutely shat itself ,suddenly soccer seems clean not as clean as netball,but Mutu had his problems and the Columbian Higuera ( spelling) and Marandona  .....I cannot help but think of the French Tour also everybody is trying to stay greener then green! 
Thank Cousins for the process!


----------



## hangseng (20 October 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> You have clearly missed the point absolutely entirely. The point was, that these things were widely known in the public arena at the time. Especially after the drug dealing phone calls had just been released. See what I'm getting at here?
> 
> And it's besides the point. Any athlete that refuses a drug test at anytime, by any legitimate authority, is automatically treated as a drug cheat and is given a 2 year ban. Simple. The Greek athletes refusing tests prior to the Athens Olympics are a prime example of this...




I have missed no pont at all. I am protesting at the trial by media and misinformation that is rife. Lets just hope the oh so squeaky clean melbourne teams don't come to the surface. Oh sorry, thats right they don't count legal privilege and all that (how convenient).

You have missed the point, quoting something like PROSH as fact is completely laughable.


----------



## Prospector (21 October 2007)

Refusing a blood test from the Police is termed in legal speak, an absolute offence.  There are no legal excuses.  That being the case, it is not defendable.  Once charged = guilty; the only unknown will be the sentence.


----------



## hangseng (21 October 2007)

Prospector said:


> Refusing a blood test from the Police is termed in legal speak, an absolute offence.  There are no legal excuses.  That being the case, it is not defendable.  Once charged = guilty; the only unknown will be the sentence.




All due respect Prospector, Tom Percy QC has a different view.

He is without doubt one of the best defence QC' in the country and is rarely wrong. I will listen to him.

The police have bungled big time here and the treatment that Cousins has endured following this is tantamount to a crime in itself. He has been convicted by media trial, sacked by the Eagles, condemned by the AFL, slandered by people that have no factual basis to their argument and *he has not yet been convicted of anything*.

Where is the ethical AFL players support group that came so quickly to the defence of a Victorian player and yet they hang Ben out to dry.

This will be seen for what it is, a complete farce and destruction of basic justice in this country being the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.


----------



## IFocus (21 October 2007)

Hi Propector



> Refusing a blood test from the Police is termed in legal speak, an absolute offence. There are no legal excuses. That being the case, it is not defendable. Once charged = guilty; the only unknown will be the sentence.




The justice system is still you are gulity when found by Judge or Jury not that the police may have some thing on you or worse still make out they do and that includes (us) the public as well.

He actually refused a driver assessment test which may have led onto a drug test. 

Its also a new law here in the West and given the way the police behaved I am sure they would have bungled that charge as well and will be surprised if Ben Cousins is convicted.

A member of the media here reported that the police knew Wednesday that the drug charge was not valid but went ahead Thursday anyway. Makes sense when you see that very senior police were in involved as they paraded Cousins around one would have thought that information would have come to light sooner rather than later.

The people who do finance and supply drugs in the state must think its hilarious and feel very safe. 

Focus


----------



## Prospector (21 October 2007)

IFocus said:


> Its also a new law here in the West and given the way the police behaved I am sure they would have bungled that charge




Yep, I agree that is very possible!  



IFocus said:


> The people who do finance and supply drugs in the state must think its hilarious and feel very safe.
> Focus




That is the sad truth in all of this.

But being formerly involved in the legal system there are some things that are black and white.  However, to be honest, there is one thing that can get him off this charge which will be some technicality issue - ie the police didnt say the right things in the right order for instance,  which is what QC's are very good at ferreting out.  Kind of the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law kind of thing.

HangSeng, I think you feel that Cousins has been victimised; the thing is, most people go through life without being victimised; in this instance, Cousin's history and him just managing to evade the law on several actual events has given them cannon fodder.


----------



## Miner (21 October 2007)

The best action against Ben Cousins would be send him to Somalia and Rwanda for one month mission living in refugee camp and then to Iraq and Afganisthan to work with front end Australian soldiers.

No joke : it will give him soul searching on poverty, fight against terrorism  and make him a much nobler man with little arrogance developed from too much media coverage, bad habits of substance usage and  undue financial returns from a game of shame.


----------



## Kimosabi (21 October 2007)

Miner said:


> fight against terrorism




Yay, he can learn the lunacy of having a war against a tactic...


----------



## hangseng (22 October 2007)

Prospector said:


> Yep, I agree that is very possible!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't think that at all.

I just believe the basic right of presumption of innocence until proven guilty should be vigourously upheld and valued highly by us all.

He has been denied this basic right in our justice system and has endured trial by media. "kangaroo court"

Now as it stands:
If found guilty then the media (and most here) will flog him, if found innocent then the media (and most here) will flog him. The good old Aussie tall poppie kick'em while they are down is alive and well, I find this an ugly part of our country.

So much for natural justice and thank god we have QC's like Tom Percy who fight tirelessly for justice to be done.


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (24 October 2007)

hangseng - i agree with you 100%

This is a disgrace.

Every case must be judged individually.

I challenge anyone here to put themselves in this guys position and see how you would feel about being treated like this, to lose your job without a charge being laid.

Its unfair and i do not see how you can justify anything else, unless you think its ok for others to be treated different from the way you would be treated yourself.


----------



## chops_a_must (24 October 2007)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> I challenge anyone here to put themselves in this guys position and see how you would feel about being treated like this, to lose your job without a charge being laid.
> 
> Its unfair and i do not see how you can justify anything else, unless you think its ok for others to be treated different from the way you would be treated yourself.



Better look again I suggest...

So you think Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery should still have jobs too?

If you are a professional athlete, you live by a different code to anyone else. In any sport.

If you refuse a drug test as a professional athlete, you have absolutely no right to still have a job.

P.S. I'm sure most young men here have had their cars searched at least once...


----------



## nomore4s (25 October 2007)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> hangseng - i agree with you 100%
> 
> This is a disgrace.
> 
> ...




Ben Cousins signed a contract for alot of money, he has broken that contract. These guys get paid a lot of money to do what they love, I would happily trade places with him and I can assure you I wouldn't be throwing away my career for a few pills. And I think he has got more of an issue then just taking drugs every now & then, seems to be a bit habit hence the rehab.

I refuse to feel sorry for Ben Cousins, he has been given plenty of chances, warnings and opportunites to do something about his problems and has been given plenty of help, alot more help then alot of other drug users ever get, but he still doesn't really seem to understand that there will be consequences to his actions. Maybe taking away what he loves & gets paid big bucks for might give him something to think about.


----------



## dutchie (26 October 2007)

Cousins misses his connecting flight. Footage of Cousins at the airport confirms this.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 October 2007)

what a difference a year makes


----------



## patto190366 (26 October 2007)

Ben has NEVER tested positive. He had 1 valium pill on him. He's doing Rehab. Stop attacking him - help him. Please don't judge or critisise (half of the AFL, NRL have and still take party drugs) - don't make an example of him - think HAWTHORN players!!! The facts you know are only from the media.  Hes a brilliant football player that has a lot to offer...let him finish his rehab...leave him alone!!!  THE AFL SHOULD RE-LIST HIM AND WHOEVER PICKS HIM UP IS A VERY LUCKY CLUB AND WILL HOPEFULLY SUPPORT HIM MORE THAN THE EAGLES...GO BENNY WE LUV YA'


----------



## kitehigh (26 October 2007)

patto190366 said:


> Ben has NEVER tested positive. He had 1 valium pill on him. He's doing Rehab.




I don't know if he has or hasn't tested positive, but if his doing rehab than what does it matter.  He and his family have already admitted that he has a drug problem.  



> Stop attacking him - help him. Please don't judge or critisise (half of the AFL, NRL have and still take party drugs)




That a big call, I think you are just plucking number out of thin air now.



> Hes a brilliant football player that has a lot to offer...let him finish his rehab...leave him alone!!!  THE AFL SHOULD RE-LIST HIM AND WHOEVER PICKS HIM UP IS A VERY LUCKY CLUB AND WILL HOPEFULLY SUPPORT HIM MORE THAN THE EAGLES...GO BENNY WE LUV YA'




Blind love for him will do nothing to help him overcome his addiction.  Maybe facing up to the harsh realities will do more good for him than allowing him to continue to play at the moment.  If he is just allowed to switch clubs and continue on his marry way, what will he have learnt.  Very little I expect.

Well thats my view, I am tired of hearing about these footballers, they are suppose to be professionals.  Like any professional, you make a bad call than you are expected to answer for it, I just don't think he has had to answer for his bad call at the moment.


----------



## patto190366 (26 October 2007)

I'm so glad "professionals" were mentioned!!! I wonder how the community would react if lawyers, doctors, teachers, politicians etc and other professionals were randomly tested on a regular basis for drugs/alcohol.  Wouldn't fair too well...especially after thos long lunchies and drinkies.
Ben is facing up to his addiction that is why he is going to rehab!  The facts are that he has never tested positive to a AFL drug test.  He has so much pressure on him...his private life is subject to so much media attention...I would like to see him treated fairly.  I don't believe in kicking someone when they're down and that's my opinion


----------



## kitehigh (26 October 2007)

Most mine sites have a zero drugs and alcohol policy and testing takes place all the time.  Fail the test and you are sent packing there are no second chances.

What the big deal in not having failed a AFL drug test, if you come out an admit you are a drug user.  I don't see your point here, when he has already admitted to the fact.

Pressure is what he gets paid to perform under.  Its whats makes the difference between a good individual and a great one.  And I'm not just talking sport here.

I do agree that the media does put too much focus on sporting individuals.  They are after all only footballers, but maybe its a reflexion of a society that has lost touch with what is important.


----------



## hangseng (27 October 2007)

kitehigh said:


> I don't know if he has or hasn't tested positive, but if his doing rehab than what does it matter.  He and his family have already admitted that he has a drug problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Very selective on what you choose to comment on there. The AFL (Hawthorn notably) has players with confirmed drug tests that still play. No comment by you or the media or AFL, no banned players there. Ben has never had a positive test, ever, and he is probably the most tested in the AFL.

And "don't think he has had to answer", you should get out more, this young man has been condemned without conviction and publicly humiliated.

Victorians are seemingly very selective and protective, of there own. If Ben was Victorian he would have been wrapped in cotton wool and would never have been banned by the AFL and the players assoc might have been consistent in their protective ways for the player members. They did nothing for Ben, not a word.


----------



## chops_a_must (31 October 2007)

Well, it's all a bit academic now. Ben Cousins wont be able to play in the AFL next year, as the Eagles have refused to de-list him, thereby preventing him from being picked up by another club in the pre-season draft.


----------



## 1234 (31 October 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Well, it's all a bit academic now. Ben Cousins wont be able to play in the AFL next year, as the Eagles have refused to de-list him, thereby preventing him from being picked up by another club in the pre-season draft.




I thought it was illegal ( players association ) to have a player sacked and delisted - ( taken off the playing list ) before there contract was up, or something to that effect. It's a timing issue regardless.

Eagles are not restricting him per-sae, they are doing what they have to, to abide by AFL & Player association ruling.


----------



## greenfs (1 November 2007)

You couldn't even sript what he has allegedly been up to now. Fancy being picked up by two blondes from the LA airport instead of heading off to the detox centre. 

All I can say is "goodbye AFL careeer & I hope they were worth it Benny boy'. Darn but I guess he has still got that stupid perennial smirk on his face. I was so hoping that he would lose it one day.


----------



## trinity (1 November 2007)

I heard over the radio that Ben did not check into rehab ... so, those two blondes drove him elsewhere...


----------



## kitehigh (1 November 2007)

Maybe those blondes are running his Detox....

What a wasted talent, had the world at his feet (still does if he gets his act together).

Can't say I feel for the guy though, it all of his own making.  Feel for his parents though, must be extremely tough for the parent of any addict.


----------



## Kauri (1 November 2007)

I don't know what surprises me more, the willingness of people to believe the worst about someone without knowing any of the facts, or thier willingness to believe anything they read ...    
 Cheers
..........Kauri


----------



## hangseng (1 November 2007)

kitehigh said:


> Maybe those blondes are running his Detox....
> 
> What a wasted talent, had the world at his feet (still does if he gets his act together).
> 
> Can't say I feel for the guy though, it all of his own making.  Feel for his parents though, must be extremely tough for the parent of any addict.




Your comments and those of other uncaring ignorant individuals do not help the situation. If any of you had half a heart you would not be promoting the innuendo you do.

Andrew Demetrou should also be ashamed making a public statement about Ben' supposed whereabouts without first speaking to the one who really knows, his father, Bryan. Oh so caring he is~!

You disgust me to the core with this continued rubbish and lack of empathy for his mother and father.


----------



## kitehigh (2 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> Your comments and those of other uncaring ignorant individuals do not help the situation. If any of you had half a heart you would not be promoting the innuendo you do.
> 
> Andrew Demetrou should also be ashamed making a public statement about Ben' supposed whereabouts without first speaking to the one who really knows, his father, Bryan. Oh so caring he is~!
> 
> You disgust me to the core with this continued rubbish and lack of empathy for his mother and father.




Just because I don't have empathy for this goose and his kind doesn't mean I lack empathy for other people.  I prefer to give my time and support to those who through no fault of their own are doing it tough.  So if that disgust you, than frankly I don't give a damn....


----------



## tech/a (2 November 2007)

This "Ice" epidemic is a real problem.

Our local pub is mourning the tragic suicide of 2 employees.
Same day different events.
I knew both and there was no way Id have picked either as Drug dependent.
One in his late 20s and the other early 30s.
Out going,friendly guys who'd have a laugh and a chat.

Both recently lost their wives (who walked out) and friends say they were both un reachable.

Ice is by far the most deadly and addictive drug developed.It grips you immediately and kills within 2 yrs most addicts.Manic depression evidently gets most including these 2.
They hung themselves one Saturday and one Sunday.


----------



## patto190366 (3 November 2007)

I agree with Hang-Seng on everything that he has written about 
Ben and I applaud him as he is a talented wordsmith and I wish there was more of him out there supporting those that need to be supported.
It sickens me to read the untruths people/media are writing about Ben and I know a lot of people here in the West support him and his family.  I think its very sad that society loves to pass judgement on someone they know nothing about only what they read in the paper or hear on the news...I just hope none of you go through what the Cousins family are going through let alone every ounce of it being in the news and then some....as they say never let the truth get in the way of a good story!!!  As for the Eagles - whatever happened to the saying "United we stand - divided we fall"....I wish Ben and his family all the best and hope all the negativity stops....Go the Dockers


----------



## chops_a_must (3 November 2007)

Mmm.... I'm more inclined to feel sorry for Charmaine Dragun, her family, and the people that gave up their careers in order for her to move east. Namely, a very notable Perth band.

It looks pretty clear the AFL just want Cousins out.


----------



## kgee (3 November 2007)

"sympathy for the devil" 
I've had one friend fall from grace that was in the public eye...and maybe thats why I have a gripe
 yeah we know nothing about Ben cousins but we know the man he should be, or might I say what we want him to be....I'm thinking there's been a hand of helfulness extended to him for some time even a place to escape?
Maybe its our fault that we see sporting greats as great people when only its a physical excellance that they excel at?
and I'm not in the know but he has the choice ( like every one else) to abide by rules or not to....which makes me believe either he's a total F##k up or just a normal person like the rest of us - in which case he should take the penalty's just like we all do?
either way he's made mistakes and there is a penalty to pay
my apologies for sounding so piou:s but I've had a couple


----------



## Julia (3 November 2007)

kgee said:


> Maybe its our fault that we see sporting greats as great people when only its a physical excellance that they excel at?




Finally someone has come up with the core of this issue.


----------



## hangseng (4 November 2007)

OK so Ben is going to continue to cop a public flogging and the AFL is going to take him for bringing the game into disrepute.

Now lets have some consistency!

What about the four (non eagles) players that have been tested positive for drugs twice (Ben not once yet) and now we have Pratt from Carlton found guilty of a serious corporate charge while holding a senior position, "Court lays blame on Visy's Pratt" http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22690758-30538,00.html

So are these obviously disgraced people going to be brought forward for the same charge? They clearly have done the same and brought the game into disrepute by their actions. I guarantee not or ever nor even a mention on this thread.

Double standards rife in Victoria within the AFL (what a joke that is, VFL in disguise) and remain so.


----------



## Prospector (4 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> OK so Ben is going to continue to cop a public flogging and the AFL is going to take him for bringing the game into disrepute.
> 
> Now lets have some consistency!
> 
> ...




HangSeng, I absolutely agree with you.  It is these mixed messages that the AFL send out that make their whole anti drug cause pathetic.  Out the lot of them!  

And yes, the $$ fine handed to Pratt while substantial, hardly dented his pocket money, yet he is allowed to remain as Carlton figurehead (Carlton attracts corporate dealers, doesnt it!)  

BUT that in no way excuses the behaviour of Ben Cousins, nor the fact that he has avoided drink drive charges in the past, and refused the drug assessment currently.  Let alone his continued association with known criminals.

I think Tony Modra from the Crows was charged with bringing the game into disrepute - cant remember what for now.  But there were a number of nasty incidents overseas recently by AFL players that dont seem to have caused any AFL action!

Nor will you get any argument from me that the AFL is the VFL in disguise - I dont understand how the non VFL teams let them get away with it.


----------



## austek (4 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> Victorians are seemingly very selective and protective, of there own. If Ben was Victorian he would have been wrapped in cotton wool and would never have been banned by the AFL and the players assoc might have been consistent in their protective ways for the player members. They did nothing for Ben, not a word.




Hang Seng you may be a good humantiarian, but you know little about Victorians or it's football history.

A young tall guy called 'Charles' that played for Richmond and had plenty of football ability, took a banned "medicine" that offered no advantage to his ability to play football, and was made to give a public apology and was very sincere about it, blubbering into the microphone.

He never played AFL again, cannot remember what his penalty was though.

 I don't follow Richmond but Charles and Ben Cousins's parents are those I feel sorry for, not Ben Cousins.


----------



## hangseng (4 November 2007)

austek said:


> Hang Seng you may be a good humantiarian, but you know little about Victorians or it's football history.
> 
> A young tall guy called 'Charles' that played for Richmond and had plenty of football ability, took a banned "medicine" that offered no advantage to his ability to play football, and was made to give a public apology and was very sincere about it, blubbering into the microphone.
> 
> ...




I am very aware of Justin Charles and his use of the anabolic steroid boldenone taken for groin and hamstring injuries. It is performance enhancing and a banned drug.

I am also aware of Krakouer (Essendon and former WA player) and Ablett (Geelong).

Both Krakouer and Charles sunsequently employed by the AFL for drug education as reverse role models. A very positive move that I can guarantee you even if Ben shone following rehab that he would never be offered by the 'Big V'. Unless they let him play then Eddie has said he will have him, watch the AFL overturn any ban then.

The AFL is so full of it. Ben is in Rehab and they know it. They have given him 8 days to turn up to the AFL to face the AFL charges. Now that is really going to aid any rehabilitation.

Think before you say someone doesn't know something. I am 51 and have passionately followed and played football for most of my life. Never a great player, just love the game and dislike the internal politics.


----------



## IFocus (4 November 2007)

tech/a said:


> This "Ice" epidemic is a real problem.
> 
> Our local pub is mourning the tragic suicide of 2 employees.
> Same day different events.
> ...




Tech there are real fears here in Perth that we are going to lose a fair chunk of the current generation of users

This article tells the story of how heavy it is.....


http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/crystal-meth-is-worse-than-heroin/2007/11/03/1193619199365.html

Focus


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 November 2007)

kgee said:


> "sympathy for the devil"
> I've had one friend fall from grace that was in the public eye...and maybe thats why I have a gripe
> yeah we know nothing about Ben cousins but we know the man he should be, or might I say what we want him to be....I'm thinking there's been a hand of helfulness extended to him for some time even a place to escape?
> *Maybe its our fault that we see sporting greats as great people when only its a physical excellance that they excel at?*and I'm not in the know but he has the choice ( like every one else) to abide by rules or not to....which makes me believe either he's a total F##k up or just a normal person like the rest of us - in which case he should take the penalty's just like we all do?
> ...



well ... 
If Adam Gilchrist gets caught with drugs - just  don't tell me !! 

ok.!!

even if he does screw up with his habit of walking 
http://www.theage.com.au/news/crick...lking-gilchrist/2005/07/01/1119724809451.html


----------



## chops_a_must (4 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> I am also aware of Krakouer (Essendon and former WA player) and Ablett (Geelong).



How is Gary Ablett's treatment from the hall of fame committee and AFL any different to how Ben is being treated? At least his indiscretions were post his football career.


----------



## patto190366 (4 November 2007)

Ben is guilty of one thing and that is BEING HONEST!!!  He volunteered his issued relating to drug abuse and has been and is currently in Rehab.  He is doing something about his problems and I think the AFL should applaud him for his honesty instead of the mentality of sweeping everything under the carpet.  If he was a Victorian he would be held on a pedestal and applauded then wrapped in cotton wool....The media and the majority of Victorian have hung and quartered him!!!!  Shame on you.....The amount of AFL players that have tested positive not once but twice have been protected and their identities kept secret as well as the Hawthorn players!!!!....Ben has NEVER tested positive...lets all have the same rules for all teams or future kids will not want to play this fantastic game!!!!


----------



## hangseng (4 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> How is Gary Ablett's treatment from the hall of fame committee and AFL any different to how Ben is being treated? At least his indiscretions were post his football career.




Were they?????

I thought that would strike a nerve......protected species.


----------



## Prospector (4 November 2007)

patto190366 said:


> Ben is guilty of one thing and that is BEING HONEST!!!  Ben has NEVER tested positive...lets all have the same rules for all teams or future kids will not want to play this fantastic game!!!!




Oh pulease....honest?  Why did he run away from a breath test station and leave his girlfriend in the car late at night; why did he refuse a driving assessment as he staggered from his car?  Hounded by the media, yes, honest


----------



## chops_a_must (5 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> Were they?????
> 
> I thought that would strike a nerve......protected species.




Actually, I'll take that back. But my point still stands, Ablett has not been treated well by administrators. He's not a protected species in my mind. I'm from WA but I just don't see the favouritism you seem to suggest.

The difference between Cousins and the Hawthorn players you bring up, is that the Hawthorn players aren't continually bringing themselves to the attention of the police - plus their medical records were illegally acquired. It's no different to say, Graham Polak, a WA player at a WA club at the time, having his rights protected.

We've had the private lives of Victorian players played out in the media as well. Whitnall's family spats and Fevola's marital problems to name two. Not to mention Laurence Angwin.

But the conclusions are simple: if you don't want the media hounding your private life, you do your best not to come to the attention of the police.

And secondly, if you don't want to be thought of as a drug cheat, you give drug tests. Failing to do so automatically makes you a drug cheat.


----------



## Happy (5 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> The AFL doesn't work like that.
> 
> Amateur athletes can be tested 12 months of the year, 24 hours a day, without discretion shown for "recreational drugs" or performance enhancing substances. I see why it shouldn't be the case for professional, full time sportspeople.
> 
> If it's good enough for the cricketers, it's good enough for the AFL as far as I'm concerned.




This should be good enough for everybody, there is enough of legal drugs for recreational purposes.


----------



## DB008 (6 November 2007)

l don't understand how the system works. He got caught with drugs in his possession. Now, just because it wasn't in an injectable form, they can't charge him. that's like saying that if l was carrying FROZEN METH, they can't change me because it not in a smokable form?!?!?!


----------



## Happy (6 November 2007)

DB008 said:


> l don't understand how the system works. He got caught with drugs in his possession. Now, just because it wasn't in an injectable form, they can't charge him. that's like saying that if l was carrying FROZEN METH, they can't change me because it not in a smokable form?!?!?!




Reminds me of OJ Simpson's case, where incorrectly obtained by police blood covered glove could not be used as evidence.


----------



## Julia (6 November 2007)

DB008 said:


> l don't understand how the system works. He got caught with drugs in his possession. Now, just because it wasn't in an injectable form, they can't charge him. that's like saying that if l was carrying FROZEN METH, they can't change me because it not in a smokable form?!?!?!




The diazepam (Valium) being referred to in this charge is a legal drug in tablet form.
However, the injectable (liquid) form is not legal.  
It's incredible that the police could have made this mistake and charged him in the first place.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 November 2007)

Julia said:


> The diazepam (Valium) being referred to in this charge is a legal drug in tablet form.
> However, the injectable (liquid) form is not legal.
> It's incredible that the police could have made this mistake and charged him in the first place.




It's a terrible precedent though. Now I can openly sell my meds to dead heads ala Abe Simpson, and there isn't anything that can be done about it, because they aren't injectable. Makes a bit of a mockery of the prescription system when you don't have to have one to be able to take certain drugs.


----------



## Julia (6 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> It's a terrible precedent though. Now I can openly sell my meds to dead heads ala Abe Simpson, and there isn't anything that can be done about it, because they aren't injectable. Makes a bit of a mockery of the prescription system when you don't have to have one to be able to take certain drugs.




Yes, I was a bit surprised about this.  Naively imagined that if you were in possession of a prescription drug you would need to be able to produce a prescription for same.


----------



## hangseng (6 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> It's a terrible precedent though. Now I can openly sell my meds to dead heads ala Abe Simpson, and there isn't anything that can be done about it, because they aren't injectable. Makes a bit of a mockery of the prescription system when you don't have to have one to be able to take certain drugs.




That is simply a completely ignorant statement. You cannot sell you can only have them for your own use as a prescribed drug.

The plain untruths and innuendo continues.

Comparing this to the Simpson case is just plain ridiculous.


----------



## Julia (6 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> You cannot sell you can only have them for your own use as a prescribed drug.




That's what I would have thought too.  So, in view of the charge having been withdrawn, is it assumed that Mr Cousins did in fact have a prescription for the valium tablets?


----------



## chops_a_must (6 November 2007)

Julia said:


> That's what I would have thought too.  So, in view of the charge having been withdrawn, is it assumed that Mr Cousins did in fact have a prescription for the valium tablets?




Well, the police haven't said that. Only that it wasn't an offence because it wasn't injectable.


----------



## hangseng (7 November 2007)

Julia said:


> That's what I would have thought too.  So, in view of the charge having been withdrawn, is it assumed that Mr Cousins did in fact have a prescription for the valium tablets?





Oh Julia, you have been so balanced in this thread for which I applaud you. There is so much more to this but I am not going to place on a pulic forum. Suffice to state there was never any basis for the charge in the first place injectable or not injectable, prescribed or not prescribed. Also the car and it's contents did not belong to Ben, and there was nothing sinister in that either.

As for the 'OMG Ben has his shirt off' from someone here, the police took it off him he didn't have it/or take it off. However I suppose it made for more gutter press and innuendo.


----------



## Prospector (7 November 2007)

Isn't the issue that Cousins was driving a vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public, and when he had the opportunity to disprove that this was caused by drug/alcohol use, he refused to undertake a driving assessment, which also included a drug test.  Certainly when he exited the vehicle he was very unsteady on his feet, and in the US this alone that behaviour alone would have been enough for him to be arrested for dangerous driving, and in Australia, for DUI (note - there does not have to be a breath/blood reading above .05 to be charged with DUI).  

Having refused the assessment test then the police also look for other evidence of substance use/abuse, whether prescribed or not.  It doesn't matter a jolt if any medication is legally prescribed; if you take it, and your driving is impaired as a result of taking it, and you drive a car then you are committing an offence. 

eg If I am legally prescribed codeine for pain relief for a bad back, and I drive a car, and I am picked up by police for driving too slowly, erratically, crossing the white line etc etc then I could be charged with all manner of driving offences.


----------



## Kauri (7 November 2007)

Strange days indeed....
    Ben was pulled over for driving erratically... was he charged with that???... why not..
    Chick, in another car a bit further back was also pulled over and searched.. was he too driving erratically... or maybe his tail-light wasn't working   was he charged.. no??.. why not???
    In these days of rampant crime and police staff shortages how lucky was it that two carloads of major crime squad detectives just happened to be sitting around doing nothing??   
    Cousins not taking a test was on the advice of his lawyer.. who knows how legal minds work.  
     Cousins was into drugs when he was drafted, the Eagles knew this and chose to ignore it.... until now when it seems it is a surprise revelation..
     Seven other Eagles had/have drug usage problems, one is now with an interstate club, one has been delisted/retired, the rest are still currently with the Eagles on their squad.. let the management be consistent, if they are genuine that is, and drop/suspend all of them until they sort out themselves..
      The Eagles managements action wouldn't have had anything to do with the fact that the AFL (VFL??) was threatening, and may still be, to strip the Eagles of their early draft picks that they got for Judd?? surely not..
 Cheers
..........Kauri


----------



## patto190366 (7 November 2007)

Well said Kauri....agree with everything you have stated....I would just like the media AFL to be consistent and fair....
Didak.....Mmmmm......lucky he didnt' know the guy that murdered a couple of people etc......Mmmmm....out clubbing during the season etc.  didn't even miss one game!!!!!
I just hope everyone leaves Ben and his family alone and that he will play next year for a Club that will look after him...Maybe Eddie....!!!!  Oh!!! and that people don't believe all they read and jump to conclusions...God I'm glad I don't drive erratically!!!!


----------



## Julia (7 November 2007)

Prospector said:


> Isn't the issue that Cousins was driving a vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public, and when he had the opportunity to disprove that this was caused by drug/alcohol use, he refused to undertake a driving assessment, which also included a drug test.  Certainly when he exited the vehicle he was very unsteady on his feet, and in the US this alone that behaviour alone would have been enough for him to be arrested for dangerous driving, and in Australia, for DUI (note - there does not have to be a breath/blood reading above .05 to be charged with DUI).
> 
> Having refused the assessment test then the police also look for other evidence of substance use/abuse, whether prescribed or not.  It doesn't matter a jolt if any medication is legally prescribed; if you take it, and your driving is impaired as a result of taking it, and you drive a car then you are committing an offence.
> 
> eg If I am legally prescribed codeine for pain relief for a bad back, and I drive a car, and I am picked up by police for driving too slowly, erratically, crossing the white line etc etc then I could be charged with all manner of driving offences.




Good to clarify all that, Prospector.  
But wasn't one of the original charges - and the one which was subsequently dropped - that he was in possession of an illicit substance, viz diazepam/valium?  I understand that he had valium *tablets*
which are not an "illicit substance".  Only the injectable form of the drug is illegal (unless of course in the possession of a doctor).  So this is what I was meaning when I indicated surprise that the police should have screwed up by bringing a charge against Mr Cousins which they should have known  wouldn't stick.

I'm not at all commenting on any other charge and completely agree about the implications of his refusing to be tested.


----------



## imitrust (7 November 2007)

They say that if you can't eradicate drugs from sport then they must become mandatory so there is a level playing field.

Buy Stocks in Pfizer or Lilly...stat!


----------



## Prospector (7 November 2007)

Julia said:


> But wasn't one of the original charges - and the one which was subsequently dropped - that he was in possession of an illicit substance, viz diazepam/valium?  I understand that he had valium *tablets*
> which are not an "illicit substance".  Only the injectable form of the drug is illegal (unless of course in the possession of a doctor).




I think the legislation may be at fault with regard to specifying whether valium is injectable or in tablet form.  Would it really be legal for people to have a restricted drug, in their possession, that was not prescribed for them?  I dont think that would be the intent of the law at all. But it seems to have been written this way. Taking this further, with pseudoephidrine (as in sudafed); people are frequently arrested for having stockpiles of this tablet as it is a precursor to an illicit drug.  Yet you can buy it over the counter.  

So there are some real issues in how the legislation is worded.


----------



## Stan 101 (7 November 2007)

Prospector, have you tried to buy any over the counter pseudoephidrine prodcut in the last couple of years? I'd imagine it's easier to get a low doc loan hehe.

ID required and name and address recorded for purchase.


Cheers,


----------



## Prospector (7 November 2007)

Stan 101 said:


> Prospector, have you tried to buy any over the counter pseudoephidrine prodcut in the last couple of years? I'd imagine it's easier to get a low doc loan hehe.
> 
> ID required and name and address recorded for purchase.
> 
> ...




Yes, it is a trial but you can get it.  Unlike valium, for which you need script.  But since when have drug producers obtained pseudoephidrine in the legal way.  I can remember when you could buy sudafed in Coles! Such is progress!


----------



## Aussiejeff (9 November 2007)

Forget about the Valium....

It's the cocaine binge he has just been on (for four days?) while he was supposed to be in a US drug rehab centre that has me fuming....

What an ***hole. He's been laughing his t1ts off at society and our laws all along. What a great PUBLIC role model for young people.

Grrrrr....




AJ


----------



## son of baglimit (9 November 2007)

and to all the bleeding hearts out there, who think its just so hard for a young sportsman, or anyone, to cope with situations, and need all the assistance in the world, dont forget their families LIE TO THE WORLD TOO.

as with anyone in this situation, ignore him and he will go away - maybe for good.


----------



## patto190366 (10 November 2007)

Poor Ben!!!  How I would hate to have my every move splashed around the media like his is!!!   Don't believe all you read....
I just hope none of you ever suffer from a mental illness!!!!  Or be treated unfairly or just be a little bit different!!!  I feel that Ben is being discriminated by the Media/AFL and it is not a fair trial!!!!  I feel for his family, friends and anyone else that is struggling in times of need....


----------



## chops_a_must (10 November 2007)

patto190366 said:


> Poor Ben!!!  How I would hate to have my every move splashed around the media like his is!!!   Don't believe all you read....
> I just hope none of you ever suffer from a mental illness!!!!  Or be treated unfairly or just be a little bit different!!!  I feel that Ben is being discriminated by the Media/AFL and it is not a fair trial!!!!  I feel for his family, friends and anyone else that is struggling in times of need....




Oh yeah.

Because everyone with a mental illness or a drug induced psychosis gets a $250,000 rehab programme to "blow".

What a joke of a person, and a complete and abject failure.


----------



## kgee (10 November 2007)

some say its not untill you hit rock bottom that you cam make a change....seems this guy has a way to go yet


----------



## Julia (10 November 2007)

"Poor Ben"??????  
How much more help do you want to see him offered?
Dozens of people falling over backwards on his behalf and he is thumbing his nose at all of them.
What the **** is it with you football fans that you can't perceive any level of reality about these so called stars?


----------



## greggy (11 November 2007)

Ben Cousins will need to get more serious about the problem he has.  He needs to properly face up to it and comply with the rehab program. I reckon that the AFL should suspend him until he proves that he's taken the issue seriously.  He's been an excellent footballer on the field, but needs to realise that he's not seting a good example for young and impressionable fans.
Its foolish to play with drugs. For his own sake I hope he wakes up before its too late.  I for one would like to see him play provided he becomes a good role model.


----------



## cuttlefish (11 November 2007)

I suspect this latest episode has probably brought him a bit closer to the reality of his situation.  He looks like he's been in a fair bit of denial and its going to be a tough time for him. I wish him luck, he's only human, its going to be a difficult time for him and he'll find out what he's really made of.  

At the end of the day most addicts tend to burn quite a few bridges before coming to their senses so he's not alone there.   And until he realises his plight there's not much point anyone trying to help him.  In some ways lavishing the attention on him and sending him off to rehab when he's clearly not committed to it, and defending him and his behaviour, is probably only serving to prolong the situation.


----------



## Flying Fish (11 November 2007)

cuttlefish said:


> I suspect this latest episode has probably brought him a bit closer to the reality of his situation.  He looks like he's been in a fair bit of denial and its going to be a tough time for him. I wish him luck, he's only human, its going to be a difficult time for him and he'll find out what he's really made of.
> 
> At the end of the day most addicts tend to burn quite a few bridges before coming to their senses so he's not alone there.   And until he realises his plight there's not much point anyone trying to help him.  In some ways lavishing the attention on him and sending him off to rehab when he's clearly not committed to it, and defending him and his behaviour, is probably only serving to prolong the situation.




Disgrace. He had his chance let others


----------



## cuttlefish (11 November 2007)

flying fish not sure what you meant to imply by quoting my post above but in case my comments have been misinterpreted.

I agree completely with what you're saying - his behaviour has been a disgrace and he doesn't deserve any special sympathy or treatment whatsoever.  He's done a lot of damage and shown only contempt to those that have given him olive branches and support.

BUT

*IF* he does actually come to the realisation of what he's doing and what he's done and try's to turn himself around he's going to have a hard time achieving it - not least because he's pi*sed a lot of people off and justifiably so and he's not going to find much sympathy for his situation even if he does turn it around.  So IF he genuinely realises the errors of his ways and genuinely wants to try to turn it around he's going to have a tough time and I do wish him luck with it.

Should he get any special treatment in that process? - absolutely not.  Should he be allowed to play again - no not at the expense of others.  He should be thanking his lucky stars that he's alive, he's not in jail, and that he's still got people surrounding him that are willing to support him if he tries to get through this. 

On the other hand, If he doesn't face up to what he's doing and stays in denial then he's just going to keep going down the slippery slope creating misery for himself and those around him. And those around him shouldn't keep enabling his behaviour by defending it.


----------



## Agentm (13 November 2007)

have you all hung this guy enough yet?

wheres the crosses and the white hoods??

pretty sad thread


----------



## Prospector (13 November 2007)

So you are saying that Cousins refused the assessment because he knew the process was flawed?  

From the media, the reasons given for the charges are being dropped are that the 'wrong' person was going to do the assessment.  Not that the other elements of the offence weren't there, but a process error occurred which was enough to cause evidentiary issues in court.  

Explains why many disaffected youth don't know the difference between right and wrong anymore.

It's pretty offensive to compare the KKK who targetted people just because they were black; with the situation where someone is known to abuse drugs, has avoided the consequences of drug and alcohol abuse through fair means and foul over and over again, be paid a salary which the public contribute to by means of membership and games tickets, and not expect some media and public scrutiny.  The media have been all over the top with this, but it isnt as though they didnt have the fuel in the first place.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 November 2007)

well I just want to say well done hangseng  - you called it correctly from day 1.  
likewise explod ..

you'd have to conclude that it's best not to be in the crosshairs of the cops when they have "made up their mind" (irrespective of the facts) 

and the tainted publicity and the lopsided media - sheesh !  (maybe not as bad as the Chamberlains - but heading that way) 

ok Cousins isn't perfect - but then again, at the end of the day, it's the cops who are apologising here. (and sounds like they should be too)  - valium sheesh   



hangseng said:


> And now that Tom Percy QC is on the case after the ridiculous false charge was withdrawn the AFL and Eagles are clearly in a legal hot seat.
> 
> The decision to sack Ben will come back to haunt the AFL and Eagles for the unprofessional way they handled this before the lad was even found guilty of anything. Despite what you may think Tom Percy is 100% correct, everyone has the right to presumption of innocence untill proven guilty, clearly a basic right of us all in this country denied Ben in this case.
> 
> The heading of the poll should include a public apology to Ben from Demetrou and Nisbet over the apalling way this matter was dealt with. My view of the Eagles and AFL management has lowered significantly over this.






explod said:


> Being charged at law does not make one a criminal.  A conviction from a court hearing records the conviction.  Of course public opinion and media conviction is a whole different ball game.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 November 2007)

Geez... the redneck WA cops who totally screwed up their case against Cousins have acted like rank amateurs. Whoever is/are responsible for the fiasco should be hauled over the coals and sacked for bringing the WA Police force into disrepute... 

Mind you, as an ex-sandgroper of many years meself, I never did have much faith in the WA Walloper's policing effectiveness. There have been so many mis-trials and mis-carriages of "justice" in the Wild West in the past and more recently due to police corruption or just plain stupid incompetence (usually someone stuffing up the paperwork or "losing the evidence somewhere, or wrongful arrests") that it beggars belief.

Now, not only does the Justice system look bad, but Bennie's off the hook to go run amock again with impunity and the AFL looks like a bunch of schmucks to boot.

Go figure....


AJ


----------



## Kauri (13 November 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Geez... the redneck WA cops who totally screwed up their case against Cousins have acted like rank amateurs. Whoever is/are responsible for the fiasco should be hauled over the coals and sacked for *bringing the WA Police force into disrepute*...
> 
> 
> 
> AJ




Not possible... they are already there...
  This whole beat-up is about a lot more than just Cousins... a whole lot more..
Cheers
..........Kauri


----------



## hangseng (13 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> well I just want to say well done hangseng  - you called it correctly from day 1.
> likewise explod ..
> 
> you'd have to conclude that it's best not to be in the crosshairs of the cops when they have "made up their mind" (irrespective of the facts)
> ...




Cheers Hindsight.

Unlike some others I don't go out of my way to destroy people and as I said I uphold our basic right of innocence until proven otherwise.

The outcome surprises me not one bit. Some on this thread should hang their respective heads in shame and have displayed a trait I dislike immensely about Australians in 2007. Putting the boots in while someone is down is cowardly, even more so behind a nic.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2007)

this one addressed to Mint Man - (since you started the thread m8 ) 
but this sort of poll is sooo similar to what Channel 9 etc so - they have these sorts of polls all the flaming time.  sheesh. 

Media Watch rips em to shreads of course.  

Seems to reinforce Hangseng's point that *you can't play judge until "all the evidence is in" * 

I have to admit I started off highly suspicious , and I thought maybe Mainwaring's recent death was a factor - why else did they ambush "him" (and not someone else) I kept asking myself - 

whatever - *at the end of the day*, he seems to be able to look the world in the eye, - and by the time his lawyers finish with the police, he'll be even richer.

PS and the saddest thing is that we all imitate the media these days  - the coffee urn conversations etc  etc


----------



## Duckman#72 (14 November 2007)

What a magnificent victory for Hang Seng, Explod and most importantly for Ben himself.

Civil libertarians around Australia can charge their glasses and toast to the success of the justice system and its dogged protection of the innocent. 

It is all very well to see clearly with the benefit of hindsight - but since relocating Ben in the US, it is obvious that he DOES NOT have a drug problem. What were the police thinking!!! 

And his decision not to undertake a drug test was completely understandable considering that the police officer in question asked ANOTHER officer to perform it. Hell!!!! Everyone knows that THAT protocol went out with the legislation changes 3 days earlier. 

No this has been a victory of the highest order. We can all sleep easier in the knowledge that the hard working WA Police force, who we rely on to serve and protect us have been embarrassed by protocol and bureaucracy.

But more significantly - isn't it great for Ben that once again those in authority have turned the other way and effectively said "Do what you like".    

As the legal fraternity sip their Champers, eat their smoked salmon and caviar parcels, and congratulate each other I hope they think about who they've really helped. Hang on..........that's the phone............it's from LA (time to get to work QC's, on who signed certain documents and if events took place in the right order.) God forbid that he actually needs real help.


----------



## Julia (14 November 2007)

Great post, Duckman.


----------



## tronic72 (15 November 2007)

Remove him from the Game and from the public eye ASAP. Whether he's meant to or not, Counsins has done, His family, The Eagles, the AFL and his fellow players a massive injustice. He's got massive amounts of support and spat in the faces of those that gave that support. 

What about the hundreds of fellow players who do the right thing. The sport that they love has been tainted by the actions of one selfish person. And the thousands of supporters who stood by him only to see him go on a Coke Binge. 

The sooner he's away from football and the public eye the sooner he can get on with his recovery. If he so chooses. I don't think he should, or will ever play AFL again. 

I do believe he should be given the opportunity to rebuild his life but the Eagles should no longer have to foot the bill, both financially and publicly.

My 2c


----------



## The Mint Man (15 November 2007)

tronic72 said:


> Remove him from the Game and from the public eye ASAP. Whether he's meant to or not, Counsins has done, His family, The Eagles, the AFL and his fellow players a massive injustice. He's got massive amounts of support and spat in the faces of those that gave that support.
> 
> What about the hundreds of fellow players who do the right thing. The sport that they love has been tainted by the actions of one selfish person. And the thousands of supporters who stood by him only to see him go on a Coke Binge.
> 
> ...




Well said!


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 November 2007)

junkies don't deserve any respect I concede - unless they reform I guess (then again nor do smokers or drunks)
- and he admits to having had problems in his self control in regards to drugs
- just that the subsequent arrests etc appear to be have been a witch-hunt of some sort. 

- pretty hard for him to have a fair go with the "trial by media" he was put through.   

Maybe he'll end up playing "offensive kicker" for a GridIron team m8


----------



## Prospector (15 November 2007)

And he has now $2000 from the Police to help in his recovery.

It gets back to the 'Spirit of the Law' versus the 'Letter of the Law'.  

This case has broken the spirit of the law; and Lawyers win by concentrating on the latter.  Unfortunately the Police have to know everything, about everything; Lawyers can concentrate on the details of each case as it happens.  The Police and their limited resources dont stand a chance against Lawyers who have the luxury of investing time - theirs and their research fellows (and consequently lots of their clients $$$$) in trying to discredit the cases they represent.  The Police make one procedural mistake and the whole case gets dropped. Is this a victory for justice?  Well, it is a victory for process I guess.

Gets back to the old lemony - there are many things in life you can get away with, (if you are rich enough to afford a good lawyer) but in the end it is morals and values that make the difference. 

Can we forget for a minute that this person ever played football.  Imagine he is the average Joe Blow whom you know has avoided being breath tested by running away; has refused a driver assessment test for unknown reasons; and for numerous other issues that would never have made the media if he is Joe Blow.  Let's say he is your next door neighbour; you don't really like him, you just get that uncomfortable feeling when he is around, you think he is snorting coke or doing some kind of drugs; he seems out of it sometimes when you speak to him; you see him driving in the morning looking rather unsteady on his feet;  you have seen him mixing with bikie types; you wouldn't want him dating your daughter.  So he gets picked up one morning, driving badly at 10am in the morning, and you think, at last, he will stop driving down your street risking the safety of your family.  But wait, the Police Officer made a mistake when he was arrested, his sergeant wanted to do the assessment instead of the officer who arrested him, and so he gets off.  Your teenage son watches all this, thinks well, he can get away with it, why can't I.  So he tries the same thing.  Great message eh?

Of course, as HangSeng argues, everyone has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.  But when there is a litany of transgressions, and the charges are dropped merely because of what was a minor error in process, (seriously, why was this process made so complex by the legislators - after all, any Police Office can conduct a Breath test at any time) is that where we really want to go?


----------



## tronic72 (15 November 2007)

Duckman#72 said:


> What a magnificent victory for Hang Seng, Explod and most importantly for Ben himself.
> 
> Civil libertarians around Australia can charge their glasses and toast to the success of the justice system and its dogged protection of the innocent.
> 
> ...




Um yeah..... I have no Idea what you just said.


----------



## Stan 101 (15 November 2007)

Why weren't the AFL waiting for him at the airport when he landed back in oz to ask him for an off season drug test?


----------



## chops_a_must (15 November 2007)

Stan 101 said:


> Why weren't the AFL waiting for him at the airport when he landed back in oz to ask him for an off season drug test?




They aren't allowed to at this time of the year. What a joke huh?


----------



## kgee (15 November 2007)

still stand by everything I've said...if theres one concession I give to ben it's a little question of why don't we get so upset when rockstars or moviestars have transggressions concerning drugs.....it's a bit of a double standard...
but even saying that I still think he has  a lot to account for


----------



## Stan 101 (15 November 2007)

This is my take on "recreational" drugs in sport such as football. They are employed under contract to be the BEST athlete they can possibly be. Let's forget all about the moral issues here and look purely at the habit.. 
Player A has a few grams of blow over the weekend after a friday night game and turns up for training on monday, in a less than primed condition. They cannot train to their potential because they are still a little twitchy, irritable and tired. As a result, set plays could not be perfected. This affects the team as a whole.

Player does a couple of lines on wednsday night with a few mates and turns up for the game again less that perfect condition. Even if that player is at 98% of what he could have been had he not taken the drugs, they are not producing what they are being paid for..


Who of all the business owners reading this post would put up with an employee turning up for work on a regular basis not fit for work? This doesn't need to be drunk / stoned per se, but clearly suffering from the night before. Maybe even a clear lack of sleep...


Cheers,


----------



## chops_a_must (15 November 2007)

Stan 101 said:


> Player A has a few grams of blow over the weekend after a friday night game and turns up for training on monday, in a less than primed condition. They cannot train to their potential because they are still a little twitchy, irritable and tired. As a result, set plays could not be perfected. This affects the team as a whole.
> 
> Player does a couple of lines on wednsday night with a few mates and turns up for the game again less that perfect condition. Even if that player is at 98% of what he could have been had he not taken the drugs, they are not producing what they are being paid for..



The problem is, cocaine and amphetamines are performance enhancing drugs.


----------



## Prospector (15 November 2007)

kgee said:


> it's a little question of why don't we get so upset when rockstars or moviestars have transggressions concerning drugs.....it's a bit of a double standard...




It's only a double standard if we think that it is Ok for rock stars to do it.  Who thinks it is?  Not me!


----------



## kgee (15 November 2007)

Prospector said:


> It's only a double standard if we think that it is Ok for rock stars to do it.  Who thinks it is?  Not me!




We mightn't think its ok ....but we don't kick up such a fuss about it


----------



## Stan 101 (15 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> The problem is, cocaine and amphetamines are performance enhancing drugs.





Have to beg to differ there.. Short term use may give the impression of elevated stamina. A person who's just snorted a line of whizz might have a mind running in overdrive, but their clarity of thought?

How many people would be performance enhanced after coming down from an amphetamine buzz for the last 24 hours or more without sleep...?


----------



## patto190366 (15 November 2007)

As I have posted here before...I say Media AFL(VFL) leave him alone
...Ben has been cleared of all charges....Yah!!! 
Ben has been the whipping boy for W.A.!!!!!!!!!!
What annoys me is that Ben Cousins, Gardiner, Jonathan Hay, Kerr are 
the first group of boys to go through footy solely playing football - not
working....they are totally controlled by the Clubs....they are told what
to do, where to go, etc. the decisions are made for them....then when 
something does not plan they are sacked.....de-listed.....These guys are
luck most lads that go out and party their exposed to drugs, peer pressure,low self esteem....but it is their choice....not right....but
I feel that they make this decision and own it!!!  There is soooooo
much pressure on these guys....then they are dropped like sh@t.... 
Most manage drug use very well...Dr's., lawyers, professionals, average Jo Blows but a % become dependent.  Ben needs support, empathy and he is trying to resolve his personal issues.
I would say Ben and his family which I do not know personally but
have been told by other that do....are the most gentle, caring, loving
people/parents you could ever meet.
We need to help Ben and the thousands like him get back on track and do what he does best....PLAYING FOOTY.... Good Luck Ben!


----------



## patto190366 (15 November 2007)

And for all you that say you have never taken drugs well.........
what a load of cr@p....
If you say you've never had Alcohol, coffee/tea, sudafed, etc. 
Well,  maybe I would believe you.....Cigarettes!!!
We mustn't judge..........


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 November 2007)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=224169&highlight=premiership#post224169

whatever
just messing around with words - and hypotheticals


----------



## hangseng (15 November 2007)

patto190366 said:


> As I have posted here before...I say Media AFL(VFL) leave him alone
> ...Ben has been cleared of all charges....Yah!!!
> Ben has been the whipping boy for W.A.!!!!!!!!!!
> What annoys me is that Ben Cousins, Gardiner, Jonathan Hay, Kerr are
> ...




Well done Patto, you have renewed my faith in human nature. Sadly lacking on this thread, unfortunately openly displaying what is wrong with society today.


----------



## UMike (15 November 2007)

Honestly. If Ben was a musician or actor he be congratulated.


----------



## kgee (15 November 2007)

UMike said:


> Honestly. If Ben was a musician or actor he be congratulated.




 With musicians drugs are synonymous with making great music
Actors, well I have little respect for them anyway
Sports greats well ...I don't know just seems wrong


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 November 2007)

kgee said:


> With musicians drugs are synonymous with making great music
> Actors, well I have little respect for them anyway
> Sports greats well ...I don't know just seems wrong




kgee
are you suggesting (  ) that Jimmy Hendrix would have been "half the man" without his "friends"?


----------



## kgee (15 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> kgee
> are you suggesting (  ) that Jimmy Hendrix would have been "half the man" without his "friends"?




Yep him the beatles and a whole host of others


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 November 2007)

Ben - With A Little Help From My Friends
 The Beatles «[L]ucy in the ky with [D]iamonds»


----------



## chops_a_must (15 November 2007)

Stan 101 said:


> Have to beg to differ there.. Short term use may give the impression of elevated stamina. A person who's just snorted a line of whizz might have a mind running in overdrive, but their clarity of thought?
> 
> How many people would be performance enhanced after coming down from an amphetamine buzz for the last 24 hours or more without sleep...?




It's the weight issue. If you can stay at your playing weight through injury or during the off season, it is a massive advantage.

In 1999... or 2000 I think, the national speedway sidecar championships were declared null and void because the top 5 pairs tested positive to amphetamines. These guys were hardly professionals... so what's the difference?


----------



## hangseng (15 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> It's the weight issue. If you can stay at your playing weight through injury or during the off season, it is a massive advantage.
> 
> In 1999... or 2000 I think, the national speedway sidecar championships were declared null and void because the top 5 pairs tested positive to amphetamines. These guys were hardly professionals... so what's the difference?




Give it up chops, you are outside your weight range at present and are talking complete nonsense based on ignorance.

Must be burning you that you have been proven completely wrong following your unfounded outbursts on this thread without any regard for sensitivities or justice.


----------



## chops_a_must (15 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> Give it up chops, you are outside your weight range at present and are talking complete nonsense based on ignorance.
> 
> Must be burning you that you have been proven completely wrong following your unfounded outbursts on this thread without any regard for sensitivities or justice.




Ok Hangseng. Please tell me on the ASADA list of banned substances, where cocaine and amphetamines are allowed.

Admission of taking substances is as good as a positive test. Ask Marion Jones or Ben Johnson.


----------



## kgee (16 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> It's the weight issue. If you can stay at your playing weight through injury or during the off season, it is a massive advantage.




In that case maybe Ben could use Shane Warnes excuse and tell everyone his mum gave him the drugs cause he was looking a little fat


----------



## patto190366 (16 November 2007)

Hee-hee....lovin' it!!!  Thanks Hang-seng....I'm not as articulate as you 
and the others but try to get the message across....
We are all human...except for Chops and his mates ...some of 
us have genuine feelings, compassion and a would like to help a fellow human!!!
Chops...duromine is supposed to help with weight loss - might keep 
you up all night ask you Doc!!!


----------



## chops_a_must (16 November 2007)

patto190366 said:


> We are all human...except for Chops and his mates ...some of
> us have genuine feelings, compassion and a would like to help a fellow human!!!
> Chops...duromine is supposed to help with weight loss - might keep
> you up all night ask you Doc!!!




No, I just object to someone... I don't know... someone like a client of mine, who runs A qualifying times, who has to work part-time and supplement their career with centrelink, having to tell drug officials 3 months in advance where they will be for every minute of every day; when someone like Bender (who doesn't have to do this), flouts the rules, laughs and gets away scott free.

In just about any other sport, he would be convicted as a drug cheat. It's as simple as that.

Duromine is an amphetamine.


----------



## patto190366 (16 November 2007)

Just trying to help...I know what it is!
Other amphetamines....ritalin, dexies....can help with ADHD
chronic fatigue...and of course they are prescribed also
as a diet suppressant....All are drugs and taken by thousands
of people every day....
These people manage themselves very well most of the time,
there are others that are manic, depressed, schitzo that are 
prescribed "drugs" also....maybe you and I will need them one day!!!!
Have a nice day...Reductil....another weight loss tool


----------



## Julia (16 November 2007)

patto190366 said:


> Just trying to help...I know what it is!
> Other amphetamines....ritalin, dexies....can help with ADHD
> chronic fatigue...and of course they are prescribed also
> as a diet suppressant....All are drugs and taken by thousands
> ...




It is entirely inappropriate to compare a schizophrenic who is taking prescribed anti-psychotic medication with someone using amphetamines, whether for fun (?) or to reduce appetite.  

I doubt whether too many doctors are prescribing amphetamines for weight loss these days.


----------



## kgee (16 November 2007)

Julia said:


> It is entirely inappropriate to compare a schizophrenic who is taking prescribed anti-psychotic medication with someone using amphetamines, whether for fun (?) or to reduce appetite.
> 
> I doubt whether too many doctors are prescribing amphetamines for weight loss these days.




I'm ignorant; what do doctors prescibe for weight loss....just curious because I referred to Shane Warnes incident with weight loss drugs...so do doctors prescribe drugs for weight loss that aren't used as recreational drugs or banned by sporting agencies?
I only say that because like yourself(???) I see dieting drugs as a rule are also used as recreational drugs


----------



## patto190366 (17 November 2007)

Many doctors prescribe duromine for weight loss or just to stay slim....Fact!
Duromine is also used by many for work - eg truckies, uni students, night-clubers etc. etc. to stay awake and the "doof" "doof" party goers
Any stimulant will help with wieght loss as it "keeps you going"...can't start the day with out a cup of coffee...ooooohhhh yes I'm very dependent!!! And chocolate....another addictive thing that tells my brain that it feel good!!
There are many varying degrees of schizophrenia...why is it inappropriate Julia
- you don't know Ben -or his medical history - he may be suffering from a mental illness that is something I don't know but I do not judge him!!! I
applaud him for his honesty....I wish him well and I wish him the best


----------



## hangseng (17 November 2007)

patto190366 said:


> Many doctors prescribe duromine for weight loss or just to stay slim....Fact!
> Duromine is also used by many for work - eg truckies, uni students, night-clubers etc. etc. to stay awake and the "doof" "doof" party goers
> Any stimulant will help with wieght loss as it "keeps you going"...can't start the day with out a cup of coffee...ooooohhhh yes I'm very dependent!!! And chocolate....another addictive thing that tells my brain that it feel good!!
> There are many varying degrees of schizophrenia...why is it inappropriate Julia
> ...




Patto, you don't know how very close you are to the real truth of this. So very close in every point 

One day the facts will come out and put to rest the outright lies and innuendo.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 November 2007)

just to clarify something
I have no problem with speculation, (along the lines of "where there's smoke there's possibly fire" etc)  - just as long as it is labelled as such.
But I find the "poll" aspect a bit premature (that's all).

on such matters - If a policeman told me Cousins did something today , and it is Saturday, I'd go buy a newspaper to doublecheck the date for starters.


----------



## hangseng (17 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> just to clarify something
> I have no problem with speculation, (along the lines of "where there's smoke there's possibly fire" etc)  - just as long as it is labelled as such.
> But I find the "poll" aspect a bit premature (that's all).
> 
> on such matters - If a policeman told me Cousins did something today , and it is Saturday, I'd go buy a newspaper to doublecheck the date for starters.





Not only "premature" but completely biassed and void of fact to support the bias. Pure speculative rubbish, based on subjective views and journalistic hype completely void of factual evidence. As the saying goes journo's never let the truth get in the way of a good story (to sell papers).

As Tom Percy has recently stated "if I was Ben I would be looking at my (legal) options with the WCE"


----------



## Julia (17 November 2007)

kgee said:


> I'm ignorant; what do doctors prescibe for weight loss....just curious because I referred to Shane Warnes incident with weight loss drugs...so do doctors prescribe drugs for weight loss that aren't used as recreational drugs or banned by sporting agencies?
> I only say that because like yourself(???) I see dieting drugs as a rule are also used as recreational drugs




Kgee, in Shane Warne's case, he used a diuretic which is simply a drug which excretes fluid from the body.  Pretty silly in his case as with level of exercise he could quickly dehydrate.

No connection with Duramine which in addition to being a stimulant and presumably therefore encouraging physical activity is an appetite suppressant so people simply have less inclination to eat and therefore lose weight.

Again, absolutely no connection with a clinically prescribed anti-psychotic agent for someone who is schizophrenic.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> Not only "premature" but completely biassed and void of fact to support the bias. Pure speculative rubbish, based on subjective views ....completely void of factual evidence.




well the police said a lot of speculative rubbish as well


----------



## chops_a_must (17 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> Not only "premature" but completely biassed and void of fact to support the bias. Pure speculative rubbish, based on subjective views and journalistic hype completely void of factual evidence. As the saying goes journo's never let the truth get in the way of a good story (to sell papers).
> 
> As Tom Percy has recently stated "if I was Ben I would be looking at my (legal) options with the WCE"




So... he hasn't been in drug rehab?


----------



## Prospector (17 November 2007)

If Ben Cousins is suffering from a mental illness, then given his public behaviours it does mean that his illness is not being well managed.  So, this may mean his medical people are not able to medicate him appropriately, or Ben himself is non compliant with his medication.  Whatever the cause (if that is what his problem is) he still presents a risk to his own health, and those of the people around him, and the general public - by driving a car in a manner of concern and possibly either over/under medicated, and perhaps having ingested other detrimental substances.  By refusing the assessment no-one will ever know, but nor can he rightfully say he is innocent, either.

I cant exactly see where you come to the conclusion that he has demonstrated honesty patto.  Even his 'confession' was deliberately worded to avoid using outright statements of what he had done; he ran away from a previous RBt and refused this assessment.  Crikeys, honest?

Which begs the question, at what stage do people who present with a mental illness which isnt/cant be managed, need some other forms of treatment, and how much can their condition excuse their behaviour.

Does a woman who is suffering from PND have a rightful excuse to harm her child?  Does a person with a mental illness (eg manic depressive) have a right to drive a car when their manic episodes are not controlled?  Probably another thread, but given the increase in the number of 'confessions' of depression etc, (or maybe this is just reported more often now) I am wondering where this all ends with regard to social and criminal accountability.  One way of clearing the gaols I guess - (I am not saying that people with a mental illness should end up in gaol, but that criminals can use the depression/manic syndrome as an excuse for committing crime.)

With regard to the WCE contract, we do not know what stipulations there were in place in his contract.  It would appear that, given his recent break with club, he has broken some of the conditions of his contract with the WCE so they would have no concerns for legal action.  Whether or not he been convicted of any offence is entirely irrelevant.  One of our cricketers in SA was suspended for being overweight!  Last time I looked, that wasn't a crime!


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> Not only "premature" but completely biassed and void of fact to support the bias. Pure speculative rubbish, based on subjective views and journalistic hype completely void of factual evidence. As the saying goes journo's never let the truth get in the way of a good story (to sell papers).



I guess others might argue that he's "got form", and there's a difference between "unfounded" speculation, and speculation "on form".  - that difference also affects severity of sentence if he's guilty of course. 

I mean if you heard that some blonde or brunette for that matter claimed to have had a string of suggestive text messages from Shane Warne ... would you dismiss it


----------



## Julia (17 November 2007)

Prospector has made some very relevant points.

I heard a radio interview a couple of days ago with Andrew Johns who has now written a book about his mental illness which he says was the cause of his drug taking.  You didn't consider getting appropriate medical help for the illness, Andrew???     So now he will add to his existing wealth with the profits of a book which he says "tells the full story of his battle with mental illness".

If the mental illness does exist, then his illegal drug use hardly constitutes appropriate medication.

Given the undiscerning admiration which is so apparent for these football stars, I don't doubt the book will sell like the proverbial hot cakes and the fans will continue saying "poor Joey", just as they are saying "Poor Ben".
Now when will Ben's book be coming out?


----------



## hangseng (17 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> I guess others might argue that he's "got form", and there's a difference between "unfounded" speculation, and speculation "on form".  - that difference also affects severity of sentence if he's guilty of course.
> 
> I mean if you heard that some blonde or brunette for that matter claimed to have had a string of suggestive text messages from Shane Warne ... would you dismiss it




The fact remains his has not been charged with anything and has not been found guilty of anything. Severity of sentence is not even a moot point as there is no charge and therefore there is no sentence.

This is simply a kangaroo court and kicking someone while they are down. How very Australian, our forefathers who fought for this country would be so proud (NOT).


----------



## nomore4s (17 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> The fact remains his has not been charged with anything and has not been found guilty of anything. Severity of sentence is not even a moot point as there is no charge and therefore there is no sentence.
> 
> This is simply a kangaroo court and kicking someone while they are down. How very Australian, our forefathers who fought for this country would be so proud (NOT).




Yeah your right hangseng, he hasn't done anythiing wrong so we should all just keep turning a blind eye like the eagles have done for years. He deserves our understanding and respect (NOT).

He has only got himself to blame.


----------



## Prospector (17 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> THow very Australian, our forefathers who fought for this country would be so proud (NOT).




Why do you assume they would be proud of a person who is doing himself harm; when our forefathers (assuming of course that most here are WASP) did everything they could to stay alive and valued their lives and those around them?

My grandfather (my forefather) fought in WWI and he valued LIFE so much that he wouldnt even kill a mouse when he got back.  But the war damaged his heart so much that he was sick for the rest of his life and died in his forties.  Now he and countless other veterans had every reason to be depressed, suicidal or whatever, but, it just didnt happen.

Kicking him when he is down?  Well, there are so many others who are truly down because life has dealt them some pretty filthy stuff, who are more deserving of our concern, than someone who has been raised as a gifted sportperson, paid mega dollars for the privilege and then, well, whatever it is that he is doing to himself.  If he really valued his life he would be getting specialist psychiatric help; not flitting across to the US to be doing goodness knows what, but enough to get him to ER for a few days and have a 'blonde' calling 911 telling them that 'a 29 year old' had been doing cocaine for 5 days and was basically unconscious.


----------



## Duckman#72 (17 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> How very Australian, our forefathers who fought for this country would be so proud (NOT).




That's an interesting viewpoint Hang Sang. Thankyou for that.

I always thought our forefathers stood for those people who represented spirit, cooperation under adversity, unity, fellowship, courage and hardwork.

But all this time our forefathers ACTUALLY stood for people who are arrogant, cocky, insolent, swollen-headed, egotistical, supercilious, self-indulgent fraudsters who refuse to be team players or take responsibility for their actions.   

At ASF I am always learning something new. Keep up your posts everyone.

Duckman


----------



## hangseng (17 November 2007)

Duckman#72 said:


> That's an interesting viewpoint Hang Sang. Thankyou for that.
> 
> I always thought our forefathers stood for those people who represented spirit, cooperation under adversity, unity, fellowship, courage and hardwork.
> 
> ...




Obviously reading and comprehension remains an inherent problem.

The point being made is nothing to do with Ben' condition, it is the people kicking someone while they are down and a denial of natural justice.

What was fought for is to uphold our basic rights of justice and freedom (yes and everything in Duckman' 2nd paragraph). Our forefathers also completely frowned on the likes of people kicking someone when they were down, as I do. This is something seemingly accepted in todays society.

Duckman your twist on things is your view of what I stated, not what I stated nor implied.

Yes by all means keep putting the boots in people, you are doing it so well.


----------



## kgee (17 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> Obviously reading and comprehension remains an inherent problem.
> 
> The point being made is nothing to do with Ben' condition, it is the people kicking someone while they are down and a denial of natural justice.
> 
> ...



I;m not kicking him when he's down I'm kicking him when he's going on a 5 day bender in LA


----------



## hangseng (17 November 2007)

kgee said:


> I;m not kicking him when he's down I'm kicking him when he's going on a 5 day bender in LA




You obviously have some factual evidence of that, perhaps you would like to share this information. Please don't give me the 'I read it in the paper' or 'saw it on the news'.

If you actually really knew what was going on you wouldn't be making such a statement.

Oh and while we are at it why is it that the AFL never brought Geelong, Hawthorn or Carlton to account as they are doing with the WCE? Seems the big V is quite selective in dishing out the hard line.


----------



## chops_a_must (17 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> If you actually really knew what was going on you wouldn't be making such a statement.




Then what is actually going on?


----------



## Julia (17 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Then what is actually going on?




Is it actually possible that someone really cares?

Hang Seng, do you spend as much time and energy worrying about and defending all the addicts who are not football stars, who haven't received any help already, who don't earn huge salaries?  You know the ones I mean.  They probably had a background of abuse, minimal education, no social standing and are currently homeless.


----------



## Duckman#72 (17 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> Obviously reading and comprehension remains an inherent problem.




No - it is not me that has the reading and comprehension problem Hang Seng. 

There are none so blind than those that will not see. 

You still don't get it do you??!!!

Our forefathers never fought for a legal system that protected the rich. A legal system that protected those that could afford a QC. A legal system that protected those that were fortunate enough to escape reprimand through legal loopholes. Indeed it could be argued that it was this type of person our forefathers despised. 

For you to stand up with your hand on your heart and argue that Ben Cousins has been a victim of the legal system and trial by media is to dishonour all those people who have been truly aggrieved and have not experienced natural justice. Why don't you concentrate your passion to those whom really need it - not a spoilt drug addict that refuses to be helped.

If  Ben (and his rights) are in the Blue corner - I'm damn sure our forefathers would be in the Red Corner.


----------



## hangseng (18 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Is it actually possible that someone really cares?
> 
> Hang Seng, do you spend as much time and energy worrying about and defending all the addicts who are not football stars, who haven't received any help already, who don't earn huge salaries?  You know the ones I mean.  They probably had a background of abuse, minimal education, no social standing and are currently homeless.





Yes, and someone very close. Unfortunately also suffering severe depression, but that isn't sexy enough for public discussion. I have also never taken drugs but I unfortunately have a few close to me that have. 

Julia I regard myself as now being one of the 'lucky' in life, I don't worry about much at all anymore. I have suffered in my own way physically, mentally and financially through my life and have been  'lucky' enough to have come out the other side a much stronger and a better person. I believe everyone in life deserves the compassion and support we are all capable of giving, except where they choose to go out of their way to harm others.

Ben is clearly a young man sorting out a lot in his life at present and he has harmed nobody but himself (something I know only too well). He has the most wonderful parents, mates and support group. He will get through this despite the media rubbish, journalists and public carrying on like a pack of wild dogs.

People here have displayed they have no idea at all what is happening with Ben, or others in this country, suffering one of societies most hurtful and soul destroying illnesses that has no boundaries of age, education, intelligence, sex or social standing. 

This whole subject is far more complex than any of the simple, subjective and at times ignorant views and comments put forward here.


----------



## hangseng (18 November 2007)

Duckman#72 said:


> No - it is not me that has the reading and comprehension problem Hang Seng.
> 
> There are none so blind than those that will not see.
> 
> ...




I see very clearly and have done for some time.

You have distorted this considerably and have not even touched on my point at all. I have never stated "Cousins has been a victim of the legal system".

As for this, "spoilt drug addict", you really have no idea what is going on.


----------



## Duckman#72 (18 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> I see very clearly and have done for some time.
> 
> You have distorted this considerably and have not even touched on my point at all. I have never stated "Cousins has been a victim of the legal system".
> 
> As for this, "spoilt drug addict", you really have no idea what is going on.




Look "Hang Seng" - stop spending your time on ASF and go and attend to your son. 

He clearly needs help.


----------



## Hood (18 November 2007)

I agree with duckman, Cousins is a total loser. I live in Melbourne and I have seen what these AFL player get up to. Get real, if you do the crime pay the fine.

"Grow up and start being a man" is something these "sporting" heros should do.

All of us mere mortals have had to..


----------



## kgee (18 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> You obviously have some factual evidence of that, perhaps you would like to share this information. Please don't give me the 'I read it in the paper' or 'saw it on the news'.
> 
> If you actually really knew what was going on you wouldn't be making such a statement.
> 
> .




Well when evidence comes to the contrary I will glady retract my statements and   revise my opinions . Yes I am ignorant...yet you seem to imply that you know whats going on, so why not enlighten me?

"Ben, or others in this country, suffering one of societies most hurtful and soul destroying illnesses that has no boundaries of age, education, intelligence, sex or social standing."

We're talking about drug addiction right? or are you alluding to somthing else?


----------



## hangseng (18 November 2007)

Duckman#72 said:


> Look "Hang Seng" - stop spending your time on ASF and go and attend to your son.
> 
> He clearly needs help.




My son is fine, in fact outstanding as is my daughter. Both are non drug takers, high achievers and have never been cause for serious concern. You still clearly have no idea whatsoever Duckman, but keep guessing.

So Hood you live in Melbourne. *"I live in Melbourne and I have seen what these AFL player get up to.*_ Get real, if you do the crime pay the fine." _Why then aren't these _"AFL player"_ held accountable? Surely the AFL and the Victorian people are aware of this (as you are) and wouldn't be turning a blind eye if a crime is being committed now would they? 

The truth will come out in time, it is not for me to say. Though I am sure some will just keep guessing and placing subjective false statements here. Can't let a good story get in the way now can we? 

So back to Hood, who are the _"AFL player"_ in Melbourne you refer to?


----------



## greenfs (18 November 2007)

I noticed in today's Melbourne papers a picture of the smirking pratt shopping in Richmond. Maybe he reckons the Tiges might take him on. Not even they would be that desparate.


----------



## Prospector (18 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> [/I]Why then aren't these _"AFL player"_ held accountable? Surely the AFL and the Victorian people are aware of this (as you are) and wouldn't be turning a blind eye if a crime is being committed now would they?




HangSeng, I reckon that everyone who has posted in this thread would absolutely agree with you that the AFL policy on drug use is badly designed, corruptible, and well, just a joke.  We would love to see drugs eliminated in sport and elsewhere, and EVERYONE who has tested positive to drug use, or ADMITTED to drug abuse should be outed and dealt with (which probably means suspension and then treatment in a good rehab centre)

Of course this means that Cousins would be included by his, well, rambling round about admission.

We have no control over the AFL much as we would like to.  You simply cannot use this as an excuse for what is happening in Perth.  My neighbour breaks the water restrictions, he doesn't get caught (or a blind eye is turned by SA Water) - does that make it right for me to do it?  If that is your rationale then it is flawed.

Whatever the AFL does, or doesn't do, in no way excuses what Ben has been up to in Perth, and the USA recently, and the whole team is suspect after what happened in the US on a footy trip maybe 12 months ago?

By the way, you should be in Adelaide when a Crows player does something wrong!


----------



## hangseng (18 November 2007)

Prospector said:


> HangSeng, I reckon that everyone who has posted in this thread would absolutely agree with you that the AFL policy on drug use is badly designed, corruptible, and well, just a joke.  We would love to see drugs eliminated in sport and elsewhere, and EVERYONE who has tested positive to drug use, or ADMITTED to drug abuse should be outed and dealt with (which probably means suspension and then treatment in a good rehab centre)
> 
> Of course this means that Cousins would be included by his, well, rambling round about admission.
> 
> ...




Good morning Prospector.

No that is not my rationale, nor intended to be. 

An open statement to you all. If Ben is found guilty of a crime then he should be punished accordingly, I not suggesting otherwise. At this point there is no charge let alone a crime.

It is the pack dog mentality and double standards being applied that has my attention.


----------



## patto190366 (18 November 2007)

Hello all - I have never posted anything on a thread until this
"unjust" poll caught my eye!!!  And felt the need to speak out
in Ben's defence!!!
Ben has been cleared of all charges!! FACT
Ben has never tested positive to any AFL drug tests & he has
had many!! FACT
Sometimes it can take years to get the medication (the right dose)
correct for depression, Schizophenia and other mental illness.  Some
can be managed without medication (seeing counsellors/case workers).
Have any of you read Ben's Medical Records????
Were you with him in LA & speaking to his counsellors????
NO....didn't think so.....do not believe all you read...I am so with Hang-seng
on all the @rse-wipes here making a judgement on someone that
they do not know only what they have read!!!!
Trial by media....YES!!!....poor Ben...poor Ben...I would not want blood on
my hands!!!
Julia: My answer is also Yes...I am defending an addict at the moment
that is in rehab for 6 months, homeless and desperate for help.  Her 2 boys
spend the weekends with me....to give their Gran (who is recovering from
chemo) a rest!!  It makes me sick that non-one else has reached their
hand out to these people that are in need.
I am also very lucky that I work in an eviroment that deals with the less
fortunate on a daily basis....these people deserve empathy and compassion!!
Mental illness does not discriminate.....and it can grab you when you
least expect it!!!  
Ben, if you read this take Hangs advice and Tom Percy's - look into
your legal options - the way the WCE have treated you is a disgrace!!
Good luck to Ben and his family....they have my Best Wishes.


----------



## chops_a_must (18 November 2007)

patto190366 said:


> Ben has been cleared of all charges!! FACT
> Ben has never tested positive to any AFL drug tests & he has
> had many!! FACT



Refusing test = drug cheat.

And he has been convicted on a previous occasion...


----------



## patto190366 (18 November 2007)

Refusing test = drug cheat.

And he has been convicted on a previous occasion...

The above quoted by "Chops".....Rubbish!!!
Did anyone else see him or Chickie driving erratically....How convenient 
that 4 "Detectives" and a camera crew just happen to be there to frame oooooh I mean book them!!!!  I wouldn't have taken a test either....!!!


----------



## chops_a_must (18 November 2007)

patto190366 said:


> Refusing test = drug cheat.
> 
> And he has been convicted on a previous occasion...
> 
> ...




Doesn't matter. Professional athletes should be prepared to be tested at any time. It's a part of the job description.


----------



## kgee (18 November 2007)

It seems to me a few are suggesting Ben has a mental illness...can someone back this up with proof?
or is it just wishfull thinking...somthing that gives a way out...surely he can't be responsible for his own demise ??
it's gotta be
a media beat up 
an AFL thing
a police conspiracy

I'm guessing bi-polar?


----------



## hangseng (18 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Doesn't matter. Professional athletes should be prepared to be tested at any time. It's a part of the job description.





Very limited view Chops.

Broaden your thinking and look inside for a person and empathy.


----------



## Prospector (18 November 2007)

Refusing an alcohol/drugs test (in SA anyway) is treated by the Courts the same as a positive test.  Same penalty.  And this is the second time he has avoided a RBT/driver assessment. (Fact) And you don't even have to be driving erratically to be asked to do a breath test because driving a vehicle is a privilege and a responsibility and is treated as such by law. (Fact)

No doubt as a result/cause of drugs - difficult to separate the cause/effect of drugs - the issue of a mental illness will most likely be raised.

As a young athlete the issue of drug testing is drummed into high performing athletes at a very early stage.  They do know the risks, and the consequences, so in this point Chops is right. As a professional athlete that is exactly the case. (Fact)

Ben Cousins hasnt been cleared of drug use.  The charges have been dropped.  Big difference. When the charges are dropped, if new evidence arises people can just as easily be charged again for the same incident.  People are only cleared of an offence when the charge has been heard in a court and a Magistrate/Judge/Jury finds them not guilty.(Fact)

HangSeng, I think that people are struggling with empathy when they see, for a number of years, an incredibly talented person whittle away their potential by behaviours that most would abhor.  He has deliberately avoided detection, he has had a lot of support (until now) from his club; his parents have stuck by him (and they must be suffering, badly); has been paid money that most of us could only dream of, yet none of the consequences seem to have impacted in any way on moderating his behavior, so it is like he is saying he just doesn't give a toss. OK, it doesnt really impact on us, but surely, as a 29 year old, he has some thoughts as to what his parents and his (ex) girlfriend must be going through.


----------



## chops_a_must (18 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> Very limited view Chops.
> 
> Broaden your thinking and look inside for a person and empathy.




Why? When you are dealing with drugs in sport, it simply does not work like that.


I don't buy an argument of him being bi-polar. Certainly, on a sub-clinical level, yeah sure. But it just is not possible to be performing at a consistently high level if you have actually got it. Especially as there was no evidence of this in the years where symptoms need to be noticed in order for a diagnosis to be made.

But with someone with a long term drug problem, it is difficult to tell where the existing pathology is, or was, and where the resulting pathology of the drug abuse begins. Especially with stimulant abuse, because it mimics the elevation-crash cycle of someone with bi-polar. Given enough time this becomes a pattern, with or without drugs. But it isn't bi-polar, it is a drug induced psychotic condition. And that's where Ben has got himself now it appears - a self induced drug psychosis. Or some variant of.


----------



## hangseng (18 November 2007)

Prospector said:


> People are only cleared of an offence when the charge has been heard in a court and a Magistrate/Judge/Jury finds them not guilty.(Fact)




I Agree.

They are also only guilty of an offence when the charge has been heard in a court and a Magistrate/Judge/Jury *finds them guilty*.

When this takes place I will be silenced on this point. I don't see the media or the ASF as Magistrate, Judge or Jury. This is a mere Kangaroo court.


----------



## Prospector (18 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> I Agree.
> 
> They are also only guilty of an offence when the charge has been heard in a court and a Magistrate/Judge/Jury *finds them guilty*.
> 
> When this takes place I will be silenced on this point. I don't see the media or the ASF as Magistrate, Judge or Jury. This is a mere Kangaroo court.




Yup, but it was also a reasonable premise to conclude that the police had got the (very complex) process of apprehension right.  Coz that error was the only thing that saved him, this time.

This is a public forum and no offence to ASF but in the overall scheme of things, we really don't count.  Actually, we all might learn something!


----------



## hangseng (18 November 2007)

Prospector said:


> Yup, but it was also a reasonable premise to conclude that the police had got the (very complex) process of apprehension right.  Coz that error was the only thing that saved him, this time.
> 
> This is a public forum and no offence to ASF but in the overall scheme of things, we really don't count.  Actually, we all might learn something!




Prospector I find your views quite balanced.


----------



## Julia (19 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> I don't buy an argument of him being bi-polar. Certainly, on a sub-clinical level, yeah sure. But it just is not possible to be performing at a consistently high level if you have actually got it. Especially as there was no evidence of this in the years where symptoms need to be noticed in order for a diagnosis to be made.
> 
> But with someone with a long term drug problem, it is difficult to tell where the existing pathology is, or was, and where the resulting pathology of the drug abuse begins. Especially with stimulant abuse, because it mimics the elevation-crash cycle of someone with bi-polar. Given enough time this becomes a pattern, with or without drugs. But it isn't bi-polar, it is a drug induced psychotic condition. And that's where Ben has got himself now it appears - a self induced drug psychosis. Or some variant of.




Completely support this contention, Chops.
Bi-polar is flavour of the month at present.  Everybody and their dog has it.
Normal mood swings, anyone?  It's bipolar.


----------



## numbercruncher (19 November 2007)

lol funny you should mention, I too have noticed that bipolar is flavor of the month.

Wonder how often its being used now a days as a defence in court ?


----------



## Barrw (19 November 2007)

bennys been banned for a  year from the afl
fair punishment i reckon??
now he can go back to LA and go on a year long coke binge
party on


----------



## chops_a_must (19 November 2007)

Barrw said:


> bennys been banned for a  year from the afl
> fair punishment i reckon??
> now he can go back to LA and go on a year long coke binge
> party on



Probably fair enough. But that was going to be the result anyway, because he couldn't nominate for the draft.

Would like to have seen the standard 2 year ban applied for drug cheats, but this 12 month suspension seems to be the norm for team sports.

Hopefully now the AFL will force the AFLPA to suck it up and agree to a proper drug code, so that the players can't abuse drugs. And the distinction between illicit drug use and performance enhancing use is brought up to the international standard.

Would also like to see a more specific statement from the AFL, and a press conference without Bender smirking.

But did anyone notice the number plates of the car he left in? USE-909. Cracked me up.


----------



## hangseng (19 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Probably fair enough. But that was going to be the result anyway, because he couldn't nominate for the draft.
> 
> Would like to have seen the standard 2 year ban applied for drug cheats, but this 12 month suspension seems to be the norm for team sports.
> 
> ...




I see the dog pack is out in force, drooling over the last of the pickings. 

Never satisfied are you, just keep on kicking. The only smirking I am noticing is in the weak snide comments. Displays a very poor side of your personality.


----------



## chops_a_must (19 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> I see the dog pack is out in force, drooling over the last of the pickings.
> 
> Never satisfied are you, just keep on kicking. The only smirking I am noticing is in the weak snide comments. Displays a very poor side of your personality.




You don't know me from a bar of soap, so STFU.


----------



## doctorj (19 November 2007)

Play the ball, not the man please folks.


----------



## hangseng (19 November 2007)

doctorj said:


> Play the ball, not the man please folks.




No problem, last of my posts here.


----------



## wayneL (19 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> I see the dog pack is out in force, drooling over the last of the pickings.
> 
> Never satisfied are you, just keep on kicking. The only smirking I am noticing is in the weak snide comments. Displays a very poor side of your personality.



You're very defensive of Benny... more emotive about it than what would be a normal sense of fair play. Why?

NB. By your above comments you actually cancel your moral right to criticize those criticizing Ben... and treading very close (probably breaking) the ASF code of conduct.

Support Ben if you feel you must, but play the ball, not the man.

Wayne
(mod)


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Hopefully now the AFL will force the AFLPA to suck it up and agree to a proper drug code, so that the players can't abuse drugs. And the distinction between illicit drug use and performance enhancing use is brought up to the international standard.
> 
> Would also like to see a more specific statement from the AFL, and a press conference without Bender smirking.



makes sense to me chops 

hang - think of it this way ...
when you keep quoting forefathers, 
think of it as drugs advice to the next generation, "for fathers"


----------



## kgee (19 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Especially as there was no evidence of this in the years where symptoms need to be noticed in order for a diagnosis to be made.




Chops can you clarrify that?? 
At a Guess I'd think 99% of people with Bi-Polar wouldn't get diagnosed untill they've had a manic episode?


----------



## hangseng (19 November 2007)

wayneL said:


> You're very defensive of Benny... more emotive about it than what would be a normal sense of fair play. Why?
> 
> NB. By your above comments you actually cancel your moral right to criticize those criticizing Ben... and treading very close (probably breaking) the ASF code of conduct.
> 
> ...




Wayne 
There is no sense of fair play on this thread, the opening poll displayed what this was about from the beginning. As to why? There is more to this than the simple views being portrayed by some on this thread.

The lad has admitted a drug problem, been punished and completely humiliated publicly and yet not found guilty of a crime. The last few posts displayed to me the worst of our society, as I keep saying *putting the boots in.*

Seeing you only directed this to me I take it the "STFU" publicly just then to me is permitted on ASF? I have taken downright rudeness in this thread and chosen on occasions to respond accordingly. If ASF actually find the comments of the last few posts acceptable toward Ben then it says a lot to me. 

Please do as you see fit.

2020hindsight I don't support drugs in any way, I feel for those that fall prey to it when young. Dealers I have no time for at all. I have never used our forefathers in any other context other than the way people are treated (kicked) when they are down.


----------



## wayneL (19 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> Wayne
> There is no sense of fair play on this thread, the opening poll displayed what this was about from the beginning. As to why? There is more to this than the simple views being portrayed by some on this thread.
> 
> The lad has admitted a drug problem, been punished and completely humiliated publicly and yet not found guilty of a crime. The last few posts displayed to me the worst of our society, as I keep saying *putting the boots in.*
> ...



Well anagrams could mean anything, but point taken.

But I wanted to point out that you are attacking character in the same way as others, but doing so directly... a tad hypocritical don't you think?


----------



## IFocus (19 November 2007)

> You're very defensive of Benny... more emotive about it than what would be a normal sense of fair play. Why?




I think Hangseng has high lighted the lack of due process both by the WA police force (no surprise there) media and by many on this thread.

Many of the posters here would not have looked out of place when trying witches at Salem in 1692.

Emotive, absolutely right some ones reputation is getting trashed by one off uniformed comments......


Focus


----------



## hangseng (19 November 2007)

IFocus said:


> I think Hangseng has high lighted the lack of due process both by the WA police force (no surprise there) media and by many on this thread.
> 
> Many of the posters here would not have looked out of place when trying witches at Salem in 1692.
> 
> ...




IFocus, I commend you. You are perceptive to state the least. I wait next for the stake to be placed and bonfire to be lit.

Wayne point taken as well, but I think you know as well as I do what was meant by that crude acronym.


----------



## Kauri (19 November 2007)

Just curious... does anyone who has posted on this, in the main, slanderous thread, actually know anything about the circumstances of Bens recent _or_ past _troubles_... of course other than what they have imagined or what they have read, heard, or seen in that most reliable of Australian institutions, the Press???
Chop chop
.............Kauri


----------



## chops_a_must (19 November 2007)

kgee said:


> Chops can you clarrify that??
> At a Guess I'd think 99% of people with Bi-Polar wouldn't get diagnosed untill they've had a manic episode?




You generally need to have had clear symptoms by the age of 23 in males. But this doesn't necessarily mean a full blown episode. It can be an extended period of hypomania.


----------



## Prospector (20 November 2007)

Kauri, one of the issues in getting 'to the truth' is that while a lot of what is written in the media is nothing short of absolute rubbish, if you take away even 90% of what has been written about, not just Cousins, but the WCE in the last five years, then factor in the 'secret men's business' that all footy codes seem to adhere to, then there is still A LOT of stuff happening here.  
There is a very long history that relates to footy trips os where one player seems to have died and been resuscitated in the US, the drugs, the alcohol etc etc.

Have you never wondered why people such as Pat Rafter, Shane Gould, Laine Bleachley, Kieran Perkins,  James Hird, Robert Harvey, Mark Taylor (trying to get a good spread of sports here) and the like, never ever have any bad press?  Because they never, ever give the media any inkling that something is sus.  Because there simply isn't anything for the media to grab on to.

I do agree with HangSeng that Cousins has been unmercilessly targetted by the media but geez, he makes it easy for them to do so!

Having said all that, I thought last night he looked closer than he ever has to fully realising exactly what situation he is in.  I wonder if, at last, he has had to deal with consequences.  Either that, or maybe he brushed up on his acting skills while in the US.  Time will tell - if he is fully committed to beating his addiction then hopefully we wont see too  much of him for the next few months.  But the media will find it hard to let him go now.


----------



## kgee (20 November 2007)

Kauri said:


> Just curious... does anyone who has posted on this, in the main, slanderous thread, actually know anything about the circumstances of Bens recent _or_ past _troubles_... of course other than what they have imagined or what they have read, heard, or seen in that most reliable of Australian institutions, the Press???
> Chop chop
> .............Kauri




Slander or Libel? either way I'm sure if the media (or us here on ASF) have overstepped any boundaries in defaming Ben's character (by law) he  would have a whole lot of lawsuits going on....? 
I don't see any
Now moralistically what's going on "might"(????) be wrong but in that case I'll take other posters arguements and say since I haven't broken any laws (and being caught) ... I must be innocent...so as an innocent one please go lightly on me


----------

