Ben Cousins - what action should the AFL take?

[2020hindsight]

"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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.