conditions "too harsh" for cousins (herald sun)

fingers · Post: # 674426Post **fingers** » Wed 19 Nov 2008 2:13pm

Pilgram wrote:
fingers wrote:
Pilgram wrote: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.

If you supposedly know the answer why waste our time with a question?

fingers · Post: # 674427Post **fingers** » Wed 19 Nov 2008 2:14pm

ohwhenthesaints! wrote: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?

Page 4 of the Hun apparently

vacuous space · Wed 19 Nov 2008 2:24pm

ohwhenthesaints! wrote:I have checked all the other news sites, and cannot find anywhere about this his apparent wax and shave?

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 62,00.html

SainterK · Post: # 674435Post **SainterK** » Wed 19 Nov 2008 2:39pm

So he turned up for the hair test with a film crew for his doco....would this point to the fact that he wasn't trying to hide anything?

Pilgram · Post: # 674443Post **Pilgram** » Wed 19 Nov 2008 3:01pm

fingers wrote:
Pilgram wrote:
fingers wrote:
Pilgram wrote: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.
If you supposedly know the answer why waste our time with a question?

i think you know that i didnt know the answer nor do i agree with your's.

undecided · Post: # 674459Post **undecided** » Wed 19 Nov 2008 3:53pm

st_Trav_ofWA wrote: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 ??

eddie would not allow that

fingers · Post: # 674460Post **fingers** » Wed 19 Nov 2008 3:57pm

Pilgram wrote:
fingers wrote:
Pilgram wrote:
fingers wrote:
Pilgram wrote: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.
If you supposedly know the answer why waste our time with a question?
i think you know that i didnt know the answer nor do i agree with your's.

You're a muppet.

sainter09 · Post: # 674462Post **sainter09** » Wed 19 Nov 2008 3:57pm

The AFL apparently sent him the letter advising of the test but mentioned nothing about hair length, so it was really the league that farked up in my opinion.

SainterK · Post: # 674470Post **SainterK** » Wed 19 Nov 2008 4:07pm

This is a beat up again in my opinion, 3cm is actually quite a length of hair if you think about it....especially if you weren't told how long the hair had to be?

jonesy · Post: # 674477Post **jonesy** » Wed 19 Nov 2008 4:15pm

I may be wrong,but I get a strong feeling Benny isn't over his habits still. If he thinks it's nearly impossible to make a comeback under these rules then he's obviously still using.

Can the STKFC club afford another basket case on the sidelines getting paid a big contract but not being able to play due to a massive suspension. I've had enough of having our players sit on the sidelines.

Hope you investigate this fully Rossco, these former Eagles are shady characters, let's hope we don't become the joke

meher baba · Post: # 674479Post **meher baba** » Wed 19 Nov 2008 4:16pm

I agree with JB that the AFL conditions have an element of vindictiveness in them. But I also believe that the whole thing is a massive back-covering exercise: if Cousins relapses, Demetriou can argue that it was Cousins's own fault and/or that of the club that took him on, and nothing to do with the AFL.

I also agree that, if true, Cousins shaving off all his hair and waxing his body is probably not a great sign: it was either an extremely stupid act (surely he or someone close to him would have thought to check with the AFL) or else an act of defiance which won't do him or anyone who gets involved with him the slightest bit of good.

I must say, watching the events of the last week or two, I have reluctantly begun to form the view that Cousins, to a considerable extent, just "doesn't get it". Which, in some ways, is fair enough: I don't really get it either. It seems to me that the AFL has been wildly inconsistent and hypocritical in coming down on Cousins like a ton of bricks while letting others with probably more to answer for walk away scot free.

I love Demetriou's line that Cousins is different to the two strike brigade because "he admits to having had an illness". Well, if that's the case, then why wasn't Rama tested three times a week to see whether or not his cancer had come back?

But, notwithstanding the fact that Cousins has been unfairly victimised to a major extent, we must remember the words of the old song "I fought the law, and the law won".

At least the likes of Wendell Sailor and Sonny Jim Bob Blind Lemon Williamson (or whatever his name is) can switch from League to Union and back, head off to play in France or Italy or the UK or whatever. But there's only one AFL. As someone put it "Believe or Burn".

Or take the AFL to court, which is most likely just a slow road to Hell. Cousins would probably win, but at what cost to himself and the game he wants to play?

As other have said, Cousins and Nixon will need to put up or shut up very quickly.

saintm · Post: # 674480Post **saintm** » Wed 19 Nov 2008 4:16pm

This is the article from today's Herald Sun re the hair test - Ben Cousins' close shave.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 62,00.html

There is also the record of a live blog from Damian Barrett on the Herald Sun website which also covers, amongst other things, the Cousins' non-hair test.

Pilgram · Post: # 674484Post **Pilgram** » Wed 19 Nov 2008 4:28pm

fingers wrote:
Pilgram wrote:
fingers wrote:
Pilgram wrote:
fingers wrote:
Pilgram wrote: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.
If you supposedly know the answer why waste our time with a question?
i think you know that i didnt know the answer nor do i agree with your's.
You're a muppet.

it takes one too know one