well ..."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
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.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.
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!!!!
Were they?????
I thought that would strike a nerve......protected species.
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.
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?!?!?!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?