Punt on Cousins

[Jarka 767]

i think ull find ur wrong... their...

deffinatley somthin that went on if not an intervention order... his point stands non the less

I know exactly what happened, there was no intervention order, do a google search on it, it's pretty easy to find, I just can't be bothered posting a link atm. His point doesn't stand because he is factually wrong on many counts, that's just one obvious example.

[Kit Walker 225]

I definitely wouldn't want him influencing the likes of McLean, Jones, Bell, Petterd, Bate, Dunn and the list goes on...

There is more to it than just being a good footballer.

I agree with this and for reasons I posted earlier wouldn't be after Cousins but Melbourne needs to have the type of leadership structure within the playing group so as to be able to take a player tagged as a trouble maker at another club and make them a valuable part of ours.

It is worrying that at our club the automatic assumption is that Cousins could/would wreck the good kids. At Sydney or Brisbane they would deal with a problem player and make them a valuable part of the team - ie. Martin Pike and Barry Hall. I don't think we should take a risk like this at the moment because we don't have that level of leadership.

[mauriesy 7,410]

Sylvia didn't have an intervention order taken out against him, just one example of why your post is a crock.

No, you're technically right. Police withdrew a formal intervention order application when the two notified they had "reconciled". A witness to the incident (who had allegedly been 'threatened with death' if he went to the police) also decided not to apply for an order. But the magistrate, Ms Maughan, put Sylvia (quote: The Age) "on a 12-month order with conditions that he not assault, harass, threaten or intimidate (his girlfriend)". It's all here.

Besides it's not really the point anyway. The point is that we have tolerated certain levels of player behaviour (on this continuum from level 4 down). We didn't tolerate Pike crossing line 5, and there's no way we ought to cross line 6 to get Cousins.

By the way, tell me what is factually wrong about the rest?

[tooly 0]

Whhat would we give for him?

[deanox 10,045]

is that the only problem we had with pike?

[tooly 0]

is that the only problem we had with pike?

Yer I think your right.

why did he get the good-buy?

[grazman 7,504]

yikes the moral high ground!!!! Often used ironically by people to attack another's stand, while justifying their own

I'm not naive enough to believe that all our players need to be choir boys to play footy, but there surely should be some hard and fast rules in relation to the sort of behaviour we expect of our players - particularly for clubs struggling to compete for sponsorship dollars.

[demon3165 2,831]

Yes I would. I wouldnt care who it was. I don't want to be paying my membership, which is partly used to pay their salary, while they play high on cocaine. It's unfair, wrong, unethical and illegal. Ben Cousins has taken full advantage of the system imo and I have no doubt in my mind that he was caught once before and on the second time decided something had to be done so as not to be caught a third time. Fancy someone in his position, leader at one of the most successful sporting clubs in the country, playing a professional sport, in the eye of the public where people admire and look up to you, while high on cocaine. If he, or any other player caught take illeciet drugs, plays against or for my team, I'll boo till my lungs are sore and my face red. No sympathy, no respect and no understanding. I don't want any drug addicts at my club.

I might be a bit slow on reading the news but where did it say that he was guilty of taking cocaine or any other drug for that matter by the AFL drug testers? and he did not admit it either, all he said it was a substance abuse, "we might think we know and might be right" but it also could be booze, painkillers etc.......but in the end show me the facts that it was cocaine please.

[grazman 7,504]

I might be a bit slow on reading the news but where did it say that he was guilty of taking cocaine or any other drug for that matter by the AFL drug testers? and he did not admit it either, all he said it was a substance abuse, "we might think we know and might be right" but it also could be booze, painkillers etc.......but in the end show me the facts that it was cocaine please.

Yes... As someone said they forked out five figures for him to be cured of his Tim Tam addiction.

[demon3165 2,831]

Yes... As someone said they forked out five figures for him to be cured of his Tim Tam addiction.

[/quote

Tim Tams are expensive over there, but again what proof is there?........none so far.

[grazman 7,504]

Other than his family stating he has a substance abuse problems and his links to high profile criminal elements and his intensive rehabilitation. No proof what- so - ever. In fact Police should only charge people with offences where they are good enough to come forward and admit their guilt.

If you want to believe he is innocent fine - but I knows what I knows - the boys guilty.

[Jonesy is the next captain 0]

Footballers are role models and they are paid accordingly. If they dont want to be role models they need to find another job cos there are plenty of young guys ready and willing to take their place. Cousins has tainted the league and he should not be allowed to play again. He apologised but only enough so he wouldnt incriminate himself and because he was forced into it to retain his spot at the Eagles.

What I cannot understand is when that Richmond player was banned for taking performance enhancing (I cannot remember who exactly) but Cousins because of who he is, is allowed to return. I would NOT want him at Melbourne and if he was to come I would have to seriously consider sticking around. Leopards dont change their spots end of story

[deanox 10,045]

What I cannot understand is when that Richmond player was banned for taking performance enhancing (I cannot remember who exactly) but Cousins because of who he is, is allowed to return.

justin charles wasnt it?

they are very different scenarios. charles was taking performance enhancing drugs, cousin was not. charles tested positive, cousins hasnt. charles was suspended for 16 matches.

at the time the afl had no drug policy in place, it does now. that policy says that players tested postive for 'recreation drugs' must do so 3 times before they are punished. this is when testing is out of competition. if it is in competition normal sanctions (as perscribed by WADA) apply.

cousins hasnt been caught. i am not defending him, but you haveto see in your mind that these are different scenarios.

you also need to see that performance enhancing is different from recreational.

regarding charles, i found this interesting link, where charles says he would do it again...

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1262938.htm

[grazman 7,504]

Footballers are role models and they are paid accordingly. If they dont want to be role models they need to find another job cos there are plenty of young guys ready and willing to take their place. Cousins has tainted the league and he should not be allowed to play again. He apologised but only enough so he wouldnt incriminate himself and because he was forced into it to retain his spot at the Eagles.

What I cannot understand is when that Richmond player was banned for taking performance enhancing (I cannot remember who exactly) but Cousins because of who he is, is allowed to return. I would NOT want him at Melbourne and if he was to come I would have to seriously consider sticking around. Leopards dont change their spots end of story

I think the Richmond player you mean was the Ex- Bulldog Justin Charles. He took steroids to help his rehabilitation, but also knew he shouldn't have he copped nearly a year from memory. The real problem for the AFL is that "apparently" they have not caught Cousin's doing anything - despite his family and club admitting their knowledge of his addiction since July 2006.

[old55 23,833]

[... but again what proof is there?........none so far.

You need proof to send him to jail, but you don't need proof to know not to recruit him.

[Jonesy is the next captain 0]

justin charles wasnt it?

they are very different scenarios. charles was taking performance enhancing drugs, cousin was not. charles tested positive, cousins hasnt. charles was suspended for 16 matches.

at the time the afl had no drug policy in place, it does now. that policy says that players tested postive for 'recreation drugs' must do so 3 times before they are punished. this is when testing is out of competition. if it is in competition normal sanctions (as perscribed by WADA) apply.

cousins hasnt been caught. i am not defending him, but you haveto see in your mind that these are different scenarios.

you also need to see that performance enhancing is different from recreational.

regarding charles, i found this interesting link, where charles says he would do it again...

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1262938.htm

From my point of view there is no difference between performance enhancing or recreational drugs, they are all drugs and it shouldnt matter. There is no proof of Cousins taking drugs hence why he isnt in jail with his dealer, but it is a well known fact he has done it and he should not be allowed morally or ethically to play AFL EVER again. It teaches kids a bad message, go to rehab and u dont get punishment, rehab is becoming a get out of jail free card.

Well Justin Charles looks like he got a rough deal to me and my mum who is a Richmond supporter hasnt forgotten that incident as many Richmond people havent and are annoyed that Cousins gets off and they were punished and I dont blame them.

[Guest redandbluethruandthru]

our playing group would take to cousins like tony mokbel to mother theresa. the interclub turmoil wouldnt be worth the trouble

[demon3165 2,831]

our playing group would take to cousins like tony mokbel to mother theresa. the interclub turmoil wouldnt be worth the trouble

Oh is that right, can you tell us which group of players said that, or is that you saying that?

[Jonesy is the next captain 0]

Oh is that right, can you tell us which group of players said that, or is that you saying that?

As if someone would go on the record with that but its obvious and a good call

[Jarka 767]

As if someone would go on the record with that but its obvious and a good call

Why? There is no evidence to support that claim at all. If he was to come to the club and clean up his act why would any player have an issue with it? Don't make stuff up.

[deanox 10,045]

From my point of view there is no difference between performance enhancing or recreational drugs, they are all drugs and it shouldnt matter.

disagree. recreational drugs are illegal yes, but they dont enhance performance. especially when taken during non-competition periods. in fact they would prob harm your body more than anything as an elite athlete. yes these drugs are illegal. and yes i disagree with their use entirely but i dont get tested for drug use when i go to work or uni. why should he get punished by his employer for drug use outside of competition. (this is simplistic i know but my point is valid).

performance enhancing drugs such as anabolic steroids (which justin charles took) are illegal. they also are cheating. they offer the user an unfair advantage over other competitiors. they give greater strength, greater speed, power etc. they improve your physical abilities to greater than you could achieve naturally. these drugs are illegal because they are used to help people cheat their way to the top, as well as because of the other disadvantages.

do you really not think there is a difference? if you competed in sport would you not feel cheated and angry if you knew an opponent was using steroids to make him better? if i knew my opponent was high on mary jane i would think he was a moron, but i wouldnt be concerned he was doing anything that would help him beat me.

[Guest redandbluethruandthru]

ben cousins cleaning his act up would be like a horse getting on its hind legs and shovelling its own crap. Aint gunna happen. The rich bugger is too tight to pay for his own rehab. he hit the afl up for ot. very poor role model. bad news for any club.

[Jonesy is the next captain 0]

disagree. recreational drugs are illegal yes, but they dont enhance performance. especially when taken during non-competition periods. in fact they would prob harm your body more than anything as an elite athlete. yes these drugs are illegal. and yes i disagree with their use entirely but i dont get tested for drug use when i go to work or uni. why should he get punished by his employer for drug use outside of competition. (this is simplistic i know but my point is valid).

performance enhancing drugs such as anabolic steroids (which justin charles took) are illegal. they also are cheating. they offer the user an unfair advantage over other competitiors. they give greater strength, greater speed, power etc. they improve your physical abilities to greater than you could achieve naturally. these drugs are illegal because they are used to help people cheat their way to the top, as well as because of the other disadvantages.

do you really not think there is a difference? if you competed in sport would you not feel cheated and angry if you knew an opponent was using steroids to make him better? if i knew my opponent was high on mary jane i would think he was a moron, but i wouldnt be concerned he was doing anything that would help him beat me.

If I was on $800 grand a year from my employer plus had the chance of endorsements, regular appearances on TV etc then I would be more than happy to be drug tested. Its a small price to pay for living the high life. No-one forced him to be a top footballer he should suffer the consequences of his choices not get off scotch free.

How do we know for a fact that Ice wasnt helping him? You cant say that it hasnt! Ice has different affects of different people. And if u were a true sportsman u would want ur opposition to be totally clean. Drugs are drugs, the AFL should have a policy for all types that is the same.

[Jonesy is the next captain 0]

Why? There is no evidence to support that claim at all. If he was to come to the club and clean up his act why would any player have an issue with it? Don't make stuff up.

Yeah I am sure our players would love to play along side the likes of a junkie and underworld figure thats not made up, who the hell would want to play with him??

[deanox 10,045]

Drugs are drugs, the AFL should have a policy for all types that is the same.

do you think that should be wadas policy too? no other sport (except rugby league) gets out of competition testing for recreational drugs.

FWIW, regarding ice helping him, i highly doubt it would. there is a reason why it is not listed as a performance enhancing drug but that caffeine is. you dont get kicked out for having levels of caffeine but they know that caffeine is performance enhancing. drugs might effect people differently, but it doesnt make one person high and out of their mind while turning the other into a supreme athlete. their ios a clear difference between recreational drugs and performance enhancing drugs which has been established by scientists and acknowledge by all relevant drug testing and sport governing bodies.