conditions "too harsh" for cousins (herald sun)

[SAINT JUMP]

didnt they say up to 3 times a week. could be 1, one week 2 the next ect ect. if bens got no worries about the results. and wants to play again, just do it. sick of the whole thing.

[Beekay]

At least Ben realises his? What the hell sort of comment is that. hahaha

a lot of people with substance abuse problems, including alcoholics, are in denial that they have a problem.

admitting that they do is often the first step to recovery.

it's a sane and logical comment.

How would you know if players realise if they have a problem or not?

How do you know that other players have problems similiar to Ben's? That is what you meant by "at least Ben realises his", right?

[st_Trav_ofWA]

i gotta agree with Ben the conditions are a bit harsh ... i mean he was kicke out of the comp for bringing the game into disrupute, not for testing possitive to drugs ... its fairly common knowllege drags was the main issue he brought the game into disrepute but to impose testing like that is a bit over the top espescially given the guidlines for every other player in the comp , Didak was very close to bringing the game into disreput does that mean he will under go daily breath teasting to see if hes a drunken dick ??

[GrumpyOne]

Relax guys.... its just tricky ricky trying to get the compliance requirements watered down.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

the question i have does the AFL really think that all this testing will actually Help Ban in his recovery ?? from my experiances with drug addicts onc you start forcing their hand to stop they usually go off the rails and the ones that stay clean are the ones who do so cause they choose to do so not cause they are forced to ... i understand the AFL want to make sure Bens going to stay clean but i think they should of consolted with an expert on Drug rehabillitation befor going all out testing him every day .. a big thing is trust and the rules the AFL have put forth show they have no trust in bens abillity to to the right thing

[SAINT JUMP]

i think bc needs to have trust in himself, and the rest will follow.

[ace]

Demetriou does not want Ben Cousins back in the AFL.
This is an attempt to prevent him from ever playing again.
Either all clubs will be scared off or Cousins will be too humiliated to come back.

Ricky Nixon should insist the Andrew Demetriou be present to witness the taking of every urine sample.
He can even hold the bottle.
That process should humiliate Demetriou sufficiently to force him to be more reasonable.

[ace]

Who pays for all the testing of Cousins.
If the club has to pay does it count against the salary cap.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

i think bc needs to have trust in himself, and the rest will follow.

the thing is its a bit hard to trust yourself when your not given the chance to test yourself by being tested all the time ... the question will always remain is he really clean and "cured " or is it just the testing stopping him from re offending ?? and what happens after his footy when suddenly the testing tops without the gaining of trust is he more likely to jump back to bad habbits ?? football aside is this the best thing for bens long term battle with addiction ??

[fingers]

Ridiculous conditions. Agree with Joffaboy - They obviously don't want him to play again. For me this is no longer about coming to St Kilda - the guy deserves to get a chance. And given his record within the AFL durg testing regime he shouldn't be treated any differently.

[WayneJudson42]

It is obvious the AFL dont want Cousins to play again.

Forget if he is coming to the Saints or not, that is beside the point.

The guy has never been tested positive, the guy has embarrassed Demented and his Monkey and shown their "best practice" drug policy to be a total heap of crap.

Dementriou has been given medical advice that resuming an AFl career will help Cousins the addict recover and rehabilitate.

So what does he and his fawning group of yes men do?

They completely change the rules without notifying the AFLPA and make the conditions extremely harsh.

All the while they have at least SIX current AFL who have tested positive to drugs TWICE, but do not have these harsh rules applied to them.

Some might say "oh its only a piss in a bottle", but if you know anything about drug testing and how invasive it is and how long it takes to conduct, it it tantamount to invasion of privacy and akin to a court order.

It is Demetriou at his vindictive best, and most hypocritical. He allows guilty drug offenders to run about in the AFL, some may even be premiership players, but inflicts penalties on a bloke where it could have disasterous psychological repercussions.

If Cousins doesn't play AFL again and relapses, will the small mindeness and vindictiveness of Demetriou have anything part in it?

The AFL have made it clear - steer clear of Cousins - we have spoken.

The STKFC would be well advised to heed the message. We have seen what the AFL will do if you dont.

I have to agree JB. I stated this in another thread that the AFL would like Benny to just go away, and I was howled down because a return would mean extra $$$ to the AFL etc.

BC's situation has made a mockery of AFL drug policy and they know it.

[SAINT JUMP]

i think the problem is, there is a lot of stuff, with the whole bc think, that the afl know and the public dont. so they are making it hard, to cover themselves.

[123]

Demetriou does not want Ben Cousins back in the AFL.
This is an attempt to prevent him from ever playing again.
Either all clubs will be scared off or Cousins will be too humiliated to come back.

Ricky Nixon should insist the Andrew Demetriou be present to witness the taking of every urine sample.
He can even hold the bottle.
That process should humiliate Demetriou sufficiently to force him to be more reasonable.

Maybe Demetriou needs to look at himself the fatty needs his own weekly testing! Cholesterol would be a start! After all we are the fattest nation in the world and heart diseases - angina, heart attacks, and blocked arteries are the leading cause of death in australia.

[bergsone]

Is there a time frame on this? If he plays for say another 5 years,will the testing bereduced in time or continue at that level,if he keeps testing negative,seems a waste of time,money and a real invasion on him.Interested to know how often does the average player get tested

[Richter]

These conditions are ridiculous. Do politicians recovering from drug problems have to undergo such an intrusive regime? Or lawyers..... or doctors?

No, of course not, because that would be a strike at the heart of their autonomy. Why should this bloke be singled out - all he does a kick a footy around an oval park.

There are some people who do have to do 3x per week urine testing for drugs - but they are recidivist criminals. Whatever he is, Ben does not deserve to be lumped as one of those.

Ethically unjust IMO.

[ctqs]

Seems to be 2 arguments here..

Does Benny think he cant adhere to the AFL edicts..or does he think he can but shouldnt have to because of their inconsistancy with other offenders?

If its the latter well and good and I think he has a point, but Id be hoping the former is'nt the case..cos better off without him if he thinks its too hard IMHO

Very well put. Couldn't agree more.

[SAINT JUMP]

why did he shave his head, and wax his body, knowing he had give a hair sample. i

[SainterK]

Has the fact his shaven/waxed been confirmed or proven wih a photo or his new hairdo, or is it just a herald sun reported story at this point? I'm confused, wasn't it reported yesterday that he passed the hair test?

[GrumpyOne]

why did he shave his head, and wax his body, knowing he had give a hair sample. i

Did he have a full back, sack and crack?

Must have been some hair somewhere.

[Saintschampions08]

why did he shave his head, and wax his body, knowing he had give a hair sample. i

Here..

An AFL letter to Cousins did not stipulate at least 3cm of hair was needed.

If a guys never given a hair test before, even if he has, theirs a fair chance they wouldn't know about it.

[SainterK]

I have checked all the other news sites, and cannot find anywhere about this his apparent wax and shave? You would think the at least "the west" would have reported this story, is it just the Herald Sun?

[Pilgram]

if the piss test is so accurate why the need for a hair test and if the piss test is not accurate why have a piss test?

[fingers]

if the piss test is so accurate why the need for a hair test and if the piss test is not accurate why have a piss test?

It's a timing thing. Let's say there are 2 weeks that he doesnt have the piss test. Then these 2 weeks can be picked up in a hair test as they can detect what was in the body up to 90 days earlier.

[SainterK]

Why do I have a feeling that if this shaven/wax thing is true, we are going to back pedal big time

[Pilgram]

if the piss test is so accurate why the need for a hair test and if the piss test is not accurate why have a piss test?

It's a timing thing. Let's say there are 2 weeks that he doesnt have the piss test. Then these 2 weeks can be picked up in a hair test as they can detect what was in the body up to 90 days earlier.

piss testing works.
hair is by nature open to exposure.
the problem is not a timing issue.
the problem is with hair testing as a science.
make him piss in a cup on command i dont care.
anyone can contaminate hair.