Three Strikes

[bungiton]

Well, the AFL drug policy mandated by the AFL and the AFLPA has shown to be a toothless tiger of a policy that in effect has failed in the foremost duty it was written for, to protect the player.

No ordinary player either, Ben Cousins, club captain, premiership player and brownlow medallist.

In this case the three strikes are as follows

strike one: West coast Eagles. Knew of the players problems well in advance of the public, although a fair amount of rumour and innuendo to the fact. Instead of dragging the player away from the club, it concerned itself with winning a premiership, although the club knew too well the issues it faced, decided that winning games of football was more important, and seeing as it wasn't affecting his match performance, allowed the situation to get worse. It wasn't untill his problem became so severe that it took an effect on his performance, much later that the eagles took the step of suspending him to seek help.

strike two: AFLPA The concerns of the players association was for the welfare of the player. The very body responsible ultimately for the players hae let him down in it's steadfast refusal to waver from it's enforced policy of sticking to the guidelines regarding the wording and policing of the three strikes policy. The association stands by the fact that Cousins has never returned a positive test to an illicit substance. Once again, this little trigger point meant that Cousins having not tested positive was not a drug user.
Where was his representative group throughout his drawn out saga, why haven't they been at the forefront helping him confront and overcome his problems instead of quoting verbatim the rules that determine whether or not a player has a problem.

Stike three: The AFL Once again, in taking the stance that the player has a problem but is outside the system after never having returned a positive test, the AFL sat back pointing that it's policy was working as the players life went from gold to mould. The fact that this situation was outside of and therefore isolated from the AFL's drug mandate, it was left to the player and the club to work out the issues, taking note that the club after all was the very first to fail him.

These three esteemed bodies, have throughout the entire saga been worried more about their own appearance than the one thing they all have a responsibility to, the welfare of the player. The eagles should have in the very first instance been able to approach the AFL, saying look we're getting a few big red flags here, the AFL and the AFLPA should then have both intervened to try and counsel and rehabilitate the player. This hasn't happened, the player having not triggered any action through this toothless policy went from perhaps infrequent user to dependant addict under the noses of all these parties, thumbing his nose at them all the way.

Intervention, counselling and rehabilitation should be the forefront of weaponry these bodies have in their arsenal at the ready to try to prevent a group of well payed, privilleged and feted men with too much time on their hands from falling into the same trap. Society deems these people to be basically above the norm, allowing them freedom and levity not afforded to most, a lot of the substance they may be comsuming are supplied readily and freely by people just wanting to associate with them.

The three strikes policy is probably a nicely worded piece of paper, for all the good it did for Ben Cousins, and any player in a similar position likely to fall into the same trap, it was so innefectual it may as well have been rolled into a nice pipe to snort a few lines through.

[Ghost Like]

Well said.

[1eyedNever]

Why isnt this thread LOCKED

Already HEAPS RE DRUGS and WC

OR are some people a protected species

[bungiton]

Why isnt this thread LOCKED

Already HEAPS RE DRUGS and WC

OR are some people a protected species

Well sorry, a least you got to have a nice whinge, feel better now???

[1eyedNever]

Bungiton

Wasnt whinging at you just the mods who target threads as i was last night ,
I liked you thread and it was different as mine was but it looks like we have to have threads with 20 pages of crap

[BelfastSaint]

You just lovesyahfooty Bungi ........

[Red]

I don't believe this is just happening at West Coast and Hawthorn.

I'm sure that if we looked in our backyard we would find somebody using.

[bungiton]

You just lovesyahfooty Bungi ........

meh I usually post over there just to troll and sh!tstir, but as much as I hate the eagles, this problem has come to fruition through the piss poor performance of the parties as outlined above.

[joffaboy]

I don't believe this is just happening at West Coast and Hawthorn.

I'm sure that if we looked in our backyard we would find somebody using.

The only thing in my backyard is a couple of trees and a dog.

I am sure the dog is not using.

yes it is a silly response, but just as silly as painting all footballers with the same brush. Until a St.Kilda player tested positive to drugs they have the same presumption of innocence as anybody else in society.

[Dan Warna]

there may well be st kilda or players from other clubs

as it is, it is a complete indictment on the failure of the AFL testing policy.

3 strikes? heck cousins was/is an addict and the AFL said they didn't catch him once ><

as for the other team, nothing happened there we can discuss as an effect of an injunction, a similar one affects players at another team so be careful what you say.

frankly demetriou couldn't find a prostitute in a brothel.

IMO he could stand in crown casino and categorically declare the AFL could find NO evidence of gambling within 500m of his location.

[carn_sainter]

Well, the AFL drug policy mandated by the AFL and the AFLPA has shown to be a toothless tiger of a policy that in effect has failed in the foremost duty it was written for, to protect the player.

No ordinary player either, Ben Cousins, club captain, premiership player and brownlow medallist.

In this case the three strikes are as follows

strike one: West coast Eagles. Knew of the players problems well in advance of the public, although a fair amount of rumour and innuendo to the fact. Instead of dragging the player away from the club, it concerned itself with winning a premiership, although the club knew too well the issues it faced, decided that winning games of football was more important, and seeing as it wasn't affecting his match performance, allowed the situation to get worse. It wasn't untill his problem became so severe that it took an effect on his performance, much later that the eagles took the step of suspending him to seek help.

strike two: AFLPA The concerns of the players association was for the welfare of the player. The very body responsible ultimately for the players hae let him down in it's steadfast refusal to waver from it's enforced policy of sticking to the guidelines regarding the wording and policing of the three strikes policy. The association stands by the fact that Cousins has never returned a positive test to an illicit substance. Once again, this little trigger point meant that Cousins having not tested positive was not a drug user.
Where was his representative group throughout his drawn out saga, why haven't they been at the forefront helping him confront and overcome his problems instead of quoting verbatim the rules that determine whether or not a player has a problem.

Stike three: The AFL Once again, in taking the stance that the player has a problem but is outside the system after never having returned a positive test, the AFL sat back pointing that it's policy was working as the players life went from gold to mould. The fact that this situation was outside of and therefore isolated from the AFL's drug mandate, it was left to the player and the club to work out the issues, taking note that the club after all was the very first to fail him.

These three esteemed bodies, have throughout the entire saga been worried more about their own appearance than the one thing they all have a responsibility to, the welfare of the player. The eagles should have in the very first instance been able to approach the AFL, saying look we're getting a few big red flags here, the AFL and the AFLPA should then have both intervened to try and counsel and rehabilitate the player. This hasn't happened, the player having not triggered any action through this toothless policy went from perhaps infrequent user to dependant addict under the noses of all these parties, thumbing his nose at them all the way.

Intervention, counselling and rehabilitation should be the forefront of weaponry these bodies have in their arsenal at the ready to try to prevent a group of well payed, privilleged and feted men with too much time on their hands from falling into the same trap. Society deems these people to be basically above the norm, allowing them freedom and levity not afforded to most, a lot of the substance they may be comsuming are supplied readily and freely by people just wanting to associate with them.

The three strikes policy is probably a nicely worded piece of paper, for all the good it did for Ben Cousins, and any player in a similar position likely to fall into the same trap, it was so innefectual it may as well have been rolled into a nice pipe to snort a few lines through.

how about cousins himself?

short of the eagles, aflpa, and/or afl locking him up and under 24hr supervision only releasing him to play games, there is only so much that can be done

he's a grown up...they tried intervention, counselling and rehab...they didn't just go "hey, cuz has a problem...anyway, lunch?"

there is intervention after 1 positive test, it's just not public naming...nor should it be

people will want to blame demetriou for this, which is just insane...all the drug rehab experts out there who ring up SEN or write a column for the age, a la rob walls and tony shaw, will wanna blame demetriou but the fact of the matter is a grown man was presented with choices, informed of their consequences and acted poorly

the scrutiny the afl gets is outrageous...people have to stop putting it and its players on a pedestal because thats where the scrutiny comes from...we expect too much of them...they should not be role models, they should not be subject to greater scrutiny than the next man, they should be presented - to kids - as athletes and nothing more...

but what do you expect with such a pretentious media...ch. 10 paint players like gods and heroes, give wild adulation like they surpass the feats of the 39th bataillion with every match winning goal...then the Sun will write a 4 page review about the magic and wonder of how gary ablett jnr. saved us all from a life of woe and misery by amassing 29 possessions in a nice win for the cats...

and so they get placed higher, and the higher they are the more we wanna see em fall...it's pathetic

cousins messed up...the afl should not be blamed, but it will be

[bungiton]

I agree, Cousins at the end of the day is at fault. The biggest problem though is, most drug users don't see it as a problem. from cigarettes to alcohol onto harder substances, the user is the last to accept his addiction as a problem.

I employed a team of six young guys for twelvve months, two started smoking crack, were unreliable, agressive and regularly absent.

Of the six two others started using, one was too smart and started selling to the rest. None of these people saw it as a problem, the only problem was the lack of money to buy more. The guy that was selling was approached at a set of traffic lights, had a gun poked in his face and was told it was probably a good decision to give up his little side business, the four that were using three ended up in gaol for B & E and the last one free of his friends decided it was time to give up and make something of his life. He was the only one that actually admitted to himself he had a problem, though he didn't use as much as the others, nowadays he doesn't drink, smoke or even go out much, he's working for me again, is a great worker, but admits, the reason he doesn't touch anything these days is because the temptation is too strong to just get back on. The first inkling I had was when I went to pick two of the guys up for work and spent tthe next four hours being questioned by police.

Cousins had people who ultimately responsible for his welfare, the club especially being aware of his problems let it ride because he was playing good footy.

[aussiejones]

club especially being aware of his problems let it ride because he was playing good footy.

Same reason AFL is ineffectual .

The AFL brand + name players + interstate protected clubs = Dimitriou a total wanker

NOW will the AFL actually do something ??????????

[riccardo]

The three strikes is a mockery, I honestly feel that it condones drug use and abuse. The AFL, by knowing a person is using illicit drugs and not punishing them until they are caught a third time (and the actual use is likley alot higher) then the AFL is being negligent in allowing substance use and abuse to continue.

WADA has tried to convince them, as has the federal governement, but Andy D stands firm.

[The Peanut]

Drugs in our modern society is a huge and complex issue, as is Terrorism.

I personally don’t see that the AFL’s current ‘three strikes’ policy has any major problems as a document when you put it into the context of what is considered to be current best practice. Of course ‘best practice’ is only the best practice until someone comes along with a better one.

I am led to believe that the AFL ‘three strikes’ policy fits fairly neatly into what professionals working in the industry tell us is the best way to deal with an issue that is not going to disappear overnight.

Drug use is not an issue that is just going to go away if we change some law or lock everyone up. The prison system is often the very place where many people first start using.

[joffaboy]

The three strikes is a mockery, I honestly feel that it condones drug use and abuse. The AFL, by knowing a person is using illicit drugs and not punishing them until they are caught a third time (and the actual use is likley alot higher) then the AFL is being negligent in allowing substance use and abuse to continue.

WADA has tried to convince them, as has the federal governement, but Andy D stands firm.

Oh for gods sake, how many times does it have to be said. The three strikes policy is over and above the WADA policy.

The AFL was the only sport in the land to test out of competition.

It was a landmark agreement that was light years ahead of anything any other sport did.

has it had its day? Yes probably. Should it be revised? yes probably.

But to outright condemn the policy when it was ahead of every other sport in Australia in out of competition testing is really harsh, and dare I say it a tad unfair.

The policy itself was done with excellent intentions. It was designed to rehabilitate and help the addicted or casual drug user.

To just scrap it and sack every footballer who has a joint or an eccky is boardering on totalitarian and would not work.

And if this is the case every single one of us should be random drug tested, while on holidays, while at home, anytime, and be automatically sacked from their jobs if they test positive.

Footballer are young men who sometimes take risks and make big mistakes. What type of society is so intolerant that it allows nobody to make at least one mistake and then make amends?

We need to help and nurture, not just punish.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

The policy itself was done with excellent intentions. It was designed to rehabilitate and help the addicted or casual drug user.

To just scrap it and sack every footballer who has a joint or an eccky is boardering on totalitarian and would not work.

And if this is the case every single one of us should be random drug tested, while on holidays, while at home, anytime, and be automatically sacked from their jobs if they test positive.

Footballer are young men who sometimes take risks and make big mistakes. What type of society is so intolerant that it allows nobody to make at least one mistake and then make amends?

We need to help and nurture, not just punish.

Well said.

I wonder if it's worth considering as part of this, and as part of our amazement that players could be so far drawn away from their opportunity to be idols, the legacy of Daniel Chick.

Beside the fallen idol that is Cousins, the end of his career is almost an afterthought, but given that it appears to have also been a drug related decision, let us not underestimate the lure... Chick was a guy who cut off his finger in order to play AFL football, an act of incredible dedication in a profession with no guarentees. His career is ended because in spite of the clear scrutiny on his club and a line in the sand saying the public says this is unnacceptable (and it's been a very dramatic year for illicit drugs in sport), he's allowed himself to become apparently central to the drug culture of WCE.

Such an incredible turnaround speaks volumes of the effect these substances have on mind, outlook, and eventually, life.

[plugger66]

The three strikes is a mockery, I honestly feel that it condones drug use and abuse. The AFL, by knowing a person is using illicit drugs and not punishing them until they are caught a third time (and the actual use is likley alot higher) then the AFL is being negligent in allowing substance use and abuse to continue.

WADA has tried to convince them, as has the federal governement, but Andy D stands firm.

That is incorrect about WADA. All that wanted the AFL to do is agree to their policy on testing which they have done. WADA do not even have a policy on recreational drugs out of competition. They do not test for them at all unless on game day and if caught they get 2 years. the same as the AFL.

[jill]

Well said Joffa! There will always be the exceptions [BC], but the AFL'S plan is regarded as "best practice" by the professionals & provides guidance & support. If the players caught under the 3 strikes rule continue, the choice is theirs & they have to live with the consequences - just as BC will now he's broken his contract. He's been given support but has gone his own way. A sad result but it's still BC'S decision.
"LIFE IS ALL ABOUT CHOICES, MAKE SURE YOU CHOOSE WISELY"

[GrumpyOne]

Perhaps the AFL should do something about the grapevine that alerts West Coast & Freo players the moment the drug-testers touch down at Perth Airport.

[saintspremiers]

club especially being aware of his problems let it ride because he was playing good footy.

Same reason AFL is ineffectual .

The AFL brand + name players + interstate protected clubs = Dimitriou a total wanker

NOW will the AFL actually do something ??????????

Dimwit should stand down immediately.

He has had his three hundred strikes and constantly fails.

He is finished now IMO.

Why hasn't Cousins been deregistered by now?

After the emergency comission meeting, I hope the AFL are true to their word and remove Eagles draft picks.

Selections 3 and 20 - GONE!!!

Also, they should strip Cousins of his premiership medallion, the junkie doesn't deserve it.

[plugger66]

club especially being aware of his problems let it ride because he was playing good footy.

Same reason AFL is ineffectual .

The AFL brand + name players + interstate protected clubs = Dimitriou a total wanker

NOW will the AFL actually do something ??????????

Dimwit should stand down immediately.

He has had his three hundred strikes and constantly fails.

He is finished now IMO.

Why hasn't Cousins been deregistered by now?

After the emergency comission meeting, I hope the AFL are true to their word and remove Eagles draft picks.

Selections 3 and 20 - GONE!!!

Also, they should strip Cousins of his premiership medallion, the junkie doesn't deserve it.

They will take away those picks as they traded for them but they may take away pick 13 ot whatever they have around then.