cousins drug test results

[Enrico_Misso]

todays newspaper said they were unable to take a hair test....

Cousins would have been informed long ago that part of the process was that a hair sample was required.

His response ?

Went out and had his entire body shaved and waxed.
So no sample is available.

Why ?

Is he just a deviant ?
Or could it possibly be that he has something to hide ?
Buying more time ?

They should treat this the same way as a refusal to gived a urine sample and presume guilt.

[SainterK]

todays newspaper said they were unable to take a hair test....

Cousins would have been informed long ago that part of the process was that a hair sample was required.

His response ?

Went out and had his entire body shaved and waxed.
So no sample is available.

Why ?

Is he just a deviant ?
Or could it possibly be that he has something to hide ?
Buying more time ?

They should treat this the same way as a refusal to gived a urine sample and presume guilt.

I see were your coming from, I was thinking along similar lines. The only thing I find odd, is that the AFL neglected to tell him that the hair had to be a minimum of 3cm. Then the AFL have chosen to give him the green light before a hair test had been submitted, so they can't have felt that strongly about the issue. All seems a bit strange to me...

[Sainter_Dad]

todays newspaper said they were unable to take a hair test....

Cousins would have been informed long ago that part of the process was that a hair sample was required.

His response ?

Went out and had his entire body shaved and waxed.
So no sample is available.

Why ?

Is he just a deviant ?
Or could it possibly be that he has something to hide ?
Buying more time ?

They should treat this the same way as a refusal to gived a urine sample and presume guilt.

Or is he just being a naughty little child and saying 'F@rk y0u' to the AFL whose response obviously was - 'Ours is bigger than yours so we will do the F@rking' and imposed the strict testing regime on him.

[Solar]

todays newspaper said they were unable to take a hair test....

Cousins would have been informed long ago that part of the process was that a hair sample was required.

His response ?

Went out and had his entire body shaved and waxed.
So no sample is available.

Why ?

Is he just a deviant ?
Or could it possibly be that he has something to hide ?
Buying more time ?

They should treat this the same way as a refusal to gived a urine sample and presume guilt.

Or is he just being a naughty little child and saying 'F@rk y0u' to the AFL whose response obviously was - 'Ours is bigger than yours so we will do the F@rking' and imposed the strict testing regime on him.

it's an interesting one.. especially since they gave him the green light despite this occuring. Some are suggesting that this is why they chucked on the three urine tests a week.

of course how he had acted had not made the decision for the clubs any easier

[SainterK]

The report says "Cousins raised eyebrows earlier this month when he presented for a urine and hair test sporting a close-cropped haircut and having had other parts of his body waxed".

This meant medical officers could not examine his hair that has to be at least three centimetres to be tested for drugs.

It is understood that Cousins fronting without sufficient hair for a test was a factor in the AFL's decision to impose stringent conditions, including up to four hair tests a year, with his potential suitors needing to boast AFL-approved drug and alcohol programs."


So was he shaven, or did he have a closely cropped haircut? Was he's body waxed, or only parts of his body? It's amazing how one little descriptive word can change the context

[Solar]

The report says "Cousins raised eyebrows earlier this month when he presented for a urine and hair test sporting a close-cropped haircut and having had other parts of his body waxed".

This meant medical officers could not examine his hair that has to be at least three centimetres to be tested for drugs.

It is understood that Cousins fronting without sufficient hair for a test was a factor in the AFL's decision to impose stringent conditions, including up to four hair tests a year, with his potential suitors needing to boast AFL-approved drug and alcohol programs."


So was he shaven, or did he have a closely cropped haircut? Was he's body waxed, or only parts of his body? It's amazing how one little descriptive word can change the context

which could also explain the reaction to the cerdict by cousins.... perhap he was given the understanding that if he passed the tests he would be allowed back with just the usual tests all AFL player cop. Then he turned up with short hair, which meant that they couldn't hair test him. Thus the commission thought they needed to come down hard on him. Whether ben had anything to hide or it was just an innocent hair cut can be debated. Personally I believe the communication broke down and he was not advised very well.

[Saint Mik]

The report says "Cousins raised eyebrows earlier this month when he presented for a urine and hair test sporting a close-cropped haircut and having had other parts of his body waxed".

This meant medical officers could not examine his hair that has to be at least three centimetres to be tested for drugs.

It is understood that Cousins fronting without sufficient hair for a test was a factor in the AFL's decision to impose stringent conditions, including up to four hair tests a year, with his potential suitors needing to boast AFL-approved drug and alcohol programs."


So was he shaven, or did he have a closely cropped haircut? Was he's body waxed, or only parts of his body? It's amazing how one little descriptive word can change the context

which could also explain the reaction to the cerdict by cousins.... perhap he was given the understanding that if he passed the tests he would be allowed back with just the usual tests all AFL player cop. Then he turned up with short hair, which meant that they couldn't hair test him. Thus the commission thought they needed to come down hard on him. Whether ben had anything to hide or it was just an innocent hair cut can be debated. Personally I believe the communication broke down and he was not advised very well.

Or he was advised very well and headed straight for the closest hair dresser

Who cares anyway, its just another episode in the life of BC and the AFL yet again have not handled it very well.

He should of been told of the strict conditions months ago if they were fairdinkum about this testing, cant do a thing about it now, how many other players turn up pre-season with shaved heads does this mean they are all on the gear

AFL drug testing is a joke and always has been, if they are going to hair test BC then how about lining the players up with 2 strikes behind him

[saintm]

which could also explain the reaction to the cerdict by cousins.... perhap he was given the understanding that if he passed the tests he would be allowed back with just the usual tests all AFL player cop. Then he turned up with short hair, which meant that they couldn't hair test him. Thus the commission thought they needed to come down hard on him. Whether ben had anything to hide or it was just an innocent hair cut can be debated. Personally I believe the communication broke down and he was not advised very well.

Not advised well by Ricky Nixon or the AFL?

Playing the devil's advocate here but doesn't logic suggest that if you need to present for a hair test, to determine whether or not your are going to be given a chance to return to your chosen profession after a year long ban, that you would need to have hair on your body to be tested.

Perhaps it would have been a proactive move, if you did not already know, to find out what the requirements were before having your body hair shaved/waxed.

It was afterall Ben Cousins whose future was on the line.

[Saint Mik]

Perhaps it would have been a proactive move, if you did not already know, to find out what the requirements were before having your body hair shaved/waxed.

Give the bloke a break, perhaps he should ring the AFL next time he wants to have a shyte.

How about the AFL being proactive and getting the so called drug policy in place so we can no longer have players slipping through the system

[saintm]

Perhaps it would have been a proactive move, if you did not already know, to find out what the requirements were before having your body hair shaved/waxed.

Give the bloke a break, perhaps he should ring the AFL next time he wants to have a shyte.

How about the AFL being proactive and getting the so called drug policy in place so we can no longer have players slipping through the system

If he wanted to come back and play with a clean slate then I would suggest that he needed to pass the hair test as well as the urine test - now he is the subject of more gossip and innuendo - which I don't think would really worry him but would make a decision re drafting him or not a lot easier.

I don't think the AFL drug policy is fair or reasonable but if I was in Ben Cousins' position I would have made sure that my "due diligence" to return included "ticking all the boxes" and in this case that included the hair test.

[Solar]

which could also explain the reaction to the cerdict by cousins.... perhap he was given the understanding that if he passed the tests he would be allowed back with just the usual tests all AFL player cop. Then he turned up with short hair, which meant that they couldn't hair test him. Thus the commission thought they needed to come down hard on him. Whether ben had anything to hide or it was just an innocent hair cut can be debated. Personally I believe the communication broke down and he was not advised very well.

Not advised well by Ricky Nixon or the AFL?

Playing the devil's advocate here but doesn't logic suggest that if you need to present for a hair test, to determine whether or not your are going to be given a chance to return to your chosen profession after a year long ban, that you would need to have hair on your body to be tested.

Perhaps it would have been a proactive move, if you did not already know, to find out what the requirements were before having your body hair shaved/waxed.

It was afterall Ben Cousins whose future was on the line.

it's a good question ... how many of us knew a few months ago that they needed 3 cm's of hair for the hair testing?

he still had hair on his body, just not long enough to be tested... doesn't do his case very good...

oh and btw, was suggesting that nixon did not advise him very well, footballers are not the brightest.

[Saint Mik]

Perhaps it would have been a proactive move, if you did not already know, to find out what the requirements were before having your body hair shaved/waxed.

Give the bloke a break, perhaps he should ring the AFL next time he wants to have a shyte.

How about the AFL being proactive and getting the so called drug policy in place so we can no longer have players slipping through the system

If he wanted to come back and play with a clean slate then I would suggest that he needed to pass the hair test as well as the urine test - now he is the subject of more gossip and innuendo - which I don't think would really worry him but would make a decision re drafting him or not a lot easier.

I don't think the AFL drug policy is fair or reasonable but if I was in Ben Cousins' position I would have made sure that my "due diligence" to return included "ticking all the boxes" and in this case that included the hair test.

I think IF the AFL told him he was to have a hair test he would not of shaved his head/body ect.

I think he has either found a grey area or the AFL have just stuffed up another drug test and Ben was none the wiser because he was not informed about the needs of his testing, who knows.

I really dont care either way because we will never know the answer, a bit like how BC got to the point of addiction without being picked up by the brilliant drug policy or should we call it the blind eye policy

He is back in the system so that means he is clean end of story shaved head and all parts waxed and good on him, as for the AFL well they get what they deserve

[SainterK]

which could also explain the reaction to the cerdict by cousins.... perhap he was given the understanding that if he passed the tests he would be allowed back with just the usual tests all AFL player cop. Then he turned up with short hair, which meant that they couldn't hair test him. Thus the commission thought they needed to come down hard on him. Whether ben had anything to hide or it was just an innocent hair cut can be debated. Personally I believe the communication broke down and he was not advised very well.

Not advised well by Ricky Nixon or the AFL?

Playing the devil's advocate here but doesn't logic suggest that if you need to present for a hair test, to determine whether or not your are going to be given a chance to return to your chosen profession after a year long ban, that you would need to have hair on your body to be tested.

Perhaps it would have been a proactive move, if you did not already know, to find out what the requirements were before having your body hair shaved/waxed.

It was afterall Ben Cousins whose future was on the line.

it's a good question ... how many of us knew a few months ago that they needed 3 cm's of hair for the hair testing?

he still had hair on his body, just not long enough to be tested... doesn't do his case very good...

oh and btw, was suggesting that nixon did not advise him very well, footballers are not the brightest.

Look at the ruler, 3cm is quite long IMO...

If he came to the meeting thinking that something like an arm hair would be sufficient, wouldn't we all have thought that was sufficent at the time?

[iwantmeseats]

I dont care !! Lets draft him already!!!

[saintly_safes]

This is really gunna be a big issue for the afl .You cant have one rule for one person & one for another . As much as I think Ben knew exactly what he was doing he was still within the rules . As much as I would love Ben at the saints it doesent give me alot of confidence in his ability to tow the line when there is so much at stake , not just for us but Ben as well.If he was clean you would think that he would of gladly given them a hair sample or is it just another chapter in the circus that keeps Ben in the headlines that keeps paying his bills. I live in Perth & it is the headline everytime he farts.I reallly wonder if the comeback is more about selling the documentary & creating more publicity to ensure its ulimate success than about the footy in general. Thats "imo" "go sainters"

[Eastern]

So was he shaven, or did he have a closely cropped haircut? Was he's body waxed, or only parts of his body? It's amazing how one little descriptive word can change the context

Only the parts where hair would normally grow. Benny boy has just taken the back, crack and sack wax to the extreme

I am also thinking of the pain involved if it was someone who could be best described as part ape.....Like my good self !!

[SainterK]

So was he shaven, or did he have a closely cropped haircut? Was he's body waxed, or only parts of his body? It's amazing how one little descriptive word can change the context

Only the parts where hair would normally grow. Benny boy has just taken the back, crack and sack wax to the extreme

I am also thinking of the pain involved if it was someone who could be best described as part ape.....Like my good self !!

The point is the herald sun reported that his head was shaven, and his whole body was waxed. The actual report states that he had a closely cropped haircut, and that parts of his body were waxed.

The haircut is no big deal if it was shorter than 3cm, he can't help if his general body hair is shorter than 3cm, and who I am I to judge if he likes to be tidy everywhere else

[Eastern]

How common is the knowledge of this 3cm requirement? Has anyone "Googled" it !!

[SainterK]

Good point, I just did

Hair testing is considered accurate and can go back as far as 90 days.[16], As hair grows out, any drugs used are encased in the hair shaft. Longer hair can reveal an individual's drug history spanning a longer period than shorter hair. Human hair grows an average of .5 inches/month, which corresponds to 30 days of possible drug testing for approximately every .5 inch. Testing laboratories generally require between 0.5 and 1.5 inches for testing. This represents approximately 30 to 90 days of drug use. The standard for hair 1.5 inches or longer is 80 strand or 120 if only .5 inches as it is by picogram weight that the hair is uniformly tested. Some people attempt to circumvent this through shaving their heads. This does not usually work. In the absence of the required amount of hair on the scalp, body hair can be used as an acceptable substitute in the order of face, chest, arm pit, and on some occasions the police use leg hair that has a shorter slower growth rate. If all hair is shaven, the follicles of the hair may be used in place of the hair. Hair follicle testing is normally not part of an employer-based drug testing program using hair.

[Eastern]

I did the same thing. INTERESTING !!

[Enrico_Misso]

Good point, I just did

Hair testing is considered accurate and can go back as far as 90 days.[16], As hair grows out, any drugs used are encased in the hair shaft. Longer hair can reveal an individual's drug history spanning a longer period than shorter hair. Human hair grows an average of .5 inches/month, which corresponds to 30 days of possible drug testing for approximately every .5 inch. Testing laboratories generally require between 0.5 and 1.5 inches for testing. This represents approximately 30 to 90 days of drug use. The standard for hair 1.5 inches or longer is 80 strand or 120 if only .5 inches as it is by picogram weight that the hair is uniformly tested. Some people attempt to circumvent this through shaving their heads. This does not usually work. In the absence of the required amount of hair on the scalp, body hair can be used as an acceptable substitute in the order of face, chest, arm pit, and on some occasions the police use leg hair that has a shorter slower growth rate. If all hair is shaven, the follicles of the hair may be used in place of the hair. Hair follicle testing is normally not part of an employer-based drug testing program using hair.

Obviously Nixon Googled it and rushed out and bought some razors.

[Enrico_Misso]

The report says "Cousins raised eyebrows earlier this month when he presented for a urine and hair test sporting a close-cropped haircut and having had other parts of his body waxed"

Except of course for his own

[St Fidelius]

Good point, I just did

Hair testing is considered accurate and can go back as far as 90 days.[16], As hair grows out, any drugs used are encased in the hair shaft. Longer hair can reveal an individual's drug history spanning a longer period than shorter hair. Human hair grows an average of .5 inches/month, which corresponds to 30 days of possible drug testing for approximately every .5 inch. Testing laboratories generally require between 0.5 and 1.5 inches for testing. This represents approximately 30 to 90 days of drug use. The standard for hair 1.5 inches or longer is 80 strand or 120 if only .5 inches as it is by picogram weight that the hair is uniformly tested. Some people attempt to circumvent this through shaving their heads. This does not usually work. In the absence of the required amount of hair on the scalp, body hair can be used as an acceptable substitute in the order of face, chest, arm pit, and on some occasions the police use leg hair that has a shorter slower growth rate. If all hair is shaven, the follicles of the hair may be used in place of the hair. Hair follicle testing is normally not part of an employer-based drug testing program using hair.

Obviously Nixon Googled it and rushed out and bought some razors.

obviously tongue in cheek, but you stance on recruiting Ben Cousins is not...

I do believe he deserves a second chance and the restrictions put on him are tough, when you consider that he has never been tested positive for drugs. It has been based on his own admissions....

And yet 6 current players have proved positive for drugs on two occasions and don't have the same scrutiny as Cousins...

I am neither for or against in drafting Cousins and I trust that the Club has and will do the correct and proper research into the possibility of drafting Cousins

[saintly_safes]

Good point, I just did

Hair testing is considered accurate and can go back as far as 90 days.[16], As hair grows out, any drugs used are encased in the hair shaft. Longer hair can reveal an individual's drug history spanning a longer period than shorter hair. Human hair grows an average of .5 inches/month, which corresponds to 30 days of possible drug testing for approximately every .5 inch. Testing laboratories generally require between 0.5 and 1.5 inches for testing. This represents approximately 30 to 90 days of drug use. The standard for hair 1.5 inches or longer is 80 strand or 120 if only .5 inches as it is by picogram weight that the hair is uniformly tested. Some people attempt to circumvent this through shaving their heads. This does not usually work. In the absence of the required amount of hair on the scalp, body hair can be used as an acceptable substitute in the order of face, chest, arm pit, and on some occasions the police use leg hair that has a shorter slower growth rate. If all hair is shaven, the follicles of the hair may be used in place of the hair. Hair follicle testing is normally not part of an employer-based drug testing program using hair.

Obviously Nixon Googled it and rushed out and bought some razors.

obviously tongue in cheek, but you stance on recruiting Ben Cousins is not...

I do believe he deserves a second chance and the restrictions put on him are tough, when you consider that he has never been tested positive for drugs. It has been based on his own admissions....

And yet 6 current players have proved positive for drugs on two occasions and don't have the same scrutiny as Cousins...

I am neither for or against in drafting Cousins and I trust that the Club has and will do the correct and proper research into the possibility of drafting Cousins

I agree .I hope we are prepared not just for Ben but the Baggage he brings with him.I know there will be contract restrictions & get out clauses but what damage will it do to the team as a whole if he caught using drugs 2 days before a final (God forbid a grand final).I was all in favour of drafting Ben & deep down probably still do ,but for him to goad the afl & push the rules to the max is disconcerting to say the least.It would have been a lot more transparent if a long haired Ben with nothing to hide went to the testing with nothing to gain but a bit of respect & put a positive vibe on his rehabilitation & the prospect of a genuine chance to reserect his tarnishsed career. I really wonder now is it worth the risk, 2 days ago I would have said yes now im not so sure .

[markp]

For all anyone knows we got our own hair test done before he shaved his head.

I love how some knuckles here pass grand judgement while viewing the facts through a keyhole with a telescope from the moon.

Tw@s...