The Death of Innocence & The Death of an AFL Legend

[Saints Premiers 2008]

i dont respect what he achieved because he is a cheat.

Not sure on your vintage Dan, so I'm taing a punt.
Do you also hate music from the Beatles and Rolling Stones, because they used drugs while creating their music?

great point

open your mind dan

[snippa]

He did open his mind once....and a puff of breeze blew his feeble brain away...

[Beej]

i dont respect what he achieved because he is a cheat.

Not sure on your vintage Dan, so I'm taing a punt.
Do you also hate music from the Beatles and Rolling Stones, because they used drugs while creating their music?

It's a great point.

Very unfair for honest, clean bands who toil away writing their lyrics without any assistance while shysters such as The Doors, Beatles, Stones and Bob Marley just con their way through their careers.

And to think that children still listen to their music and look up to these cheats...

Disgrace!

[Dan Warna]

i dont respect what he achieved because he is a cheat.

Not sure on your vintage Dan, so I'm taing a punt.
Do you also hate music from the Beatles and Rolling Stones, because they used drugs while creating their music?

WADA dont' enforce an out of competition drug testing regime on musicians for methamphetamine use.

i'm sure if cousins is an AFL legend, its only a matter of time for the elevation of ben johnson and marion jones to legend status.

perhaps the IOC should 'open their minds' too

We should tell all our kids shoot up and do drugs in the off season because if you get caught, we'll fish out a QC to make sure you get off. Its not your fault your a junky, its all them out there who are closed minded

t

[Ghost Like]

Until drug users/addicts actually break a law then we have no control over their respective lifestyles, and it would seem to me, a non-lawyer, that the taking of recrestional drugs is not against the law, only the possession and distribution of those said drugs is.

Maybe one of the posters with legal expertise can advise on whether the 'ingestion of drugs' is tantamount to 'possession?

Mr Magic, by 'recreational' drugs I assume you mean illegal / illicit, non prescription / pharmaceutical drugs. Drugs such as Cocaine, Heroin, LSD, Cannabis, Methamphetamines etc. The taking of any of these drugs is against the law and each have their own charge for 'USE', as each has its own charge for 'POSSESS' and 'TRAFFICK'. This may explain why Ben when he does speak in public only mentions a substance abuse problem, otherwise he would be making admissions that he is in fact breaking the law.

In regards to whether 'ingestion of drugs' is tantamount to 'possession', no it's not. A person who 'ingests' would only be charged with 'Use'.

[Gabba]

i dont respect what he achieved because he is a cheat.

Not sure on your vintage Dan, so I'm taing a punt.
Do you also hate music from the Beatles and Rolling Stones, because they used drugs while creating their music?

It's a great point.

Very unfair for honest, clean bands who toil away writing their lyrics without any assistance while shysters such as The Doors, Beatles, Stones and Bob Marley just con their way through their careers.

And to think that children still listen to their music and look up to these cheats...

Disgrace!

You've got to be kidding me...

The majority of the songs written by those bands were not written about drug use or experiences. Some were but there were many others that had absolutely nothing to do with drugs. People also link drugs with creativity, this, however, is not always the case.

Being clean should also entail not being under the influence of alcohol, most of us seem to forget that it is a drug a lot of the time.

I enjoy both the drug related music/stuff written on drugs by those artists but i also the other songs as well. Also, a lot of songs are presumed to be written on or about drugs when they are infact not; some are rightfully accused, however.

Anyway, Cousins was a prick before we all found out about his drug problem. Remember the breathaliser incident with his girlfriend and the cops? Hanging out with gangland figures and junkies was his choice and he has only himself to blame. IF he had not been aware of the problems that abuse could cause then it was still his fault for being ignorant towards issues he should've known about. Surely the clubs provide anti-drug info for the players.

I have a little sympathy for him, nobody deserves to have such a crippling addiction but he is still a moron in my mind.

Also, why hasn't he been prosecuted as yet when thousands of other have in less obvious circumstances? Could somebody please outline how all that crap works.

[Mr Magic]

Until drug users/addicts actually break a law then we have no control over their respective lifestyles, and it would seem to me, a non-lawyer, that the taking of recrestional drugs is not against the law, only the possession and distribution of those said drugs is.

Maybe one of the posters with legal expertise can advise on whether the 'ingestion of drugs' is tantamount to 'possession?

Mr Magic, by 'recreational' drugs I assume you mean illegal / illicit, non prescription / pharmaceutical drugs. Drugs such as Cocaine, Heroin, LSD, Cannabis, Methamphetamines etc. The taking of any of these drugs is against the law and each have their own charge for 'USE', as each has its own charge for 'POSSESS' and 'TRAFFICK'. This may explain why Ben when he does speak in public only mentions a substance abuse problem, otherwise he would be making admissions that he is in fact breaking the law.

In regards to whether 'ingestion of drugs' is tantamount to 'possession', no it's not. A person who 'ingests' would only be charged with 'Use'.

Thanks Ghost Like for clearing that up for me.
IIRC Cousins doesn't even admit to abuse - he uses the term 'substance use', possibly and quite probably for the reason you have posted.

I have a much bigger issue with the way the WCE and the AFL have handled this issue. As the revelations start to creep out from the 'bunker' that is the WCE headquarters it would seem that there were plenty of people telling them stories about the activities of their players but they deliberately decided not to ask any questions that they didn't want to get a direct answer to.
If the reports from yesterday are true that nobady at WCE asked Fletcher about his 'fainting spell' in Las Vegas then that just about sums up their disgraceful behaviour. Even more so when apparently an employee of the Club, Tim Gepp, was one of those credited in saving Fletcher's life by his quick thinking.

As for the AFL, do you really believe that the stories that apparently every club in the competition had heard by late last year about the problems at WCE, did not find their way to the ears of the all-knowing administrators of our game? What did they do about it? Apparently not much, if anything.
Like a true ostrich, they buried their collective heads in the sand and hoped that it would all go away so their precious 'world's most stringent drug testing policy' wouldn't be seen for what it has become in implementation - a huge joke.
IMHO Cousins has been charged for 'bringing the game into disrepute' because he has focused the community's gaze on what a farce the AFL/AFLPA Drugs Policy really is. How can the 'world's most stringent drug testing policy' not detect a player who is so severely addicted to 'substances' that he requires 'incarceration' in a rehab facility?.
If the policy is fair dinkum then they should just dump it now because it is an absolutely gigantic waste of money. If the truth is that they cannot detect the use of 'recreational drugs' then stop bothering to test for them and put the money spent on it to better use.

[Dan Warna]

mr Magic I concur with you.

I've been highly critical of the AFL with its head in the sand attitude as well.

in part by its nudge nudge wink wink attitude its telling the less capable players its ok as long as you don't get caught.

the massage was supposed to be you get 3 chances, and we'll educate you.

the actual message going out was, do what you like, just don't embarrass us.

Cousins has badly embarrassed the AFL and thats part of the reason he has been hung out to dry.

Didak had his and collingwoods squad of lawyers to protect him, and others have had their relationships protected by fast lawyers too.

its not about doing right or wrong its about hurting the brand.

the AFL don't give a rats about screwing the life of a 17 year old, stories of depression, bullying are swept under the carpet.

Meanwhile cousins is covered up for as long as possble because cousins potentially could damage the prestige of the AFL. If cousins ever came out and said he was under the influence of drugs in season 06 or even 05, that would massively damage the brand.

you can see the AFL is quicker at cover ups and injunctions than actually helping these players.

[Iceman234]

Until drug users/addicts actually break a law then we have no control over their respective lifestyles, and it would seem to me, a non-lawyer, that the taking of recrestional drugs is not against the law, only the possession and distribution of those said drugs is.

Maybe one of the posters with legal expertise can advise on whether the 'ingestion of drugs' is tantamount to 'possession?

Mr Magic, by 'recreational' drugs I assume you mean illegal / illicit, non prescription / pharmaceutical drugs. Drugs such as Cocaine, Heroin, LSD, Cannabis, Methamphetamines etc. The taking of any of these drugs is against the law and each have their own charge for 'USE', as each has its own charge for 'POSSESS' and 'TRAFFICK'. This may explain why Ben when he does speak in public only mentions a substance abuse problem, otherwise he would be making admissions that he is in fact breaking the law.

In regards to whether 'ingestion of drugs' is tantamount to 'possession', no it's not. A person who 'ingests' would only be charged with 'Use'.

GL, is that a recent prosecutorial stance or a legislative change?

Used to be quite accepted in courts that you obviously possessed in order to use, thus two charges were laid and proven.

Must say, with the Use charge being summary and the Possession charge being IOTS, made it easier for the whole system....

[Beej]

i dont respect what he achieved because he is a cheat.

Not sure on your vintage Dan, so I'm taing a punt.
Do you also hate music from the Beatles and Rolling Stones, because they used drugs while creating their music?

It's a great point.

Very unfair for honest, clean bands who toil away writing their lyrics without any assistance while shysters such as The Doors, Beatles, Stones and Bob Marley just con their way through their careers.

And to think that children still listen to their music and look up to these cheats...

Disgrace!

You've got to be kidding me...

The majority of the songs written by those bands were not written about drug use or experiences. Some were but there were many others that had absolutely nothing to do with drugs. People also link drugs with creativity, this, however, is not always the case.

Being clean should also entail not being under the influence of alcohol, most of us seem to forget that it is a drug a lot of the time.

I enjoy both the drug related music/stuff written on drugs by those artists but i also the other songs as well. Also, a lot of songs are presumed to be written on or about drugs when they are infact not; some are rightfully accused, however.

Anyway, Cousins was a prick before we all found out about his drug problem. Remember the breathaliser incident with his girlfriend and the cops? Hanging out with gangland figures and junkies was his choice and he has only himself to blame. IF he had not been aware of the problems that abuse could cause then it was still his fault for being ignorant towards issues he should've known about. Surely the clubs provide anti-drug info for the players.

I have a little sympathy for him, nobody deserves to have such a crippling addiction but he is still a moron in my mind.

Also, why hasn't he been prosecuted as yet when thousands of other have in less obvious circumstances? Could somebody please outline how all that crap works.

My post was an attempt at sarcasm. A really bad attempt obviously.

Either way, their songs may not be filled with drug references as you say, but I'm pretty sure they've all rolled the odd spliff while writing a song.

[Apu]

i dont respect what he achieved because he is a cheat.

Not sure on your vintage Dan, so I'm taing a punt.
Do you also hate music from the Beatles and Rolling Stones, because they used drugs while creating their music?

It's a great point.

Very unfair for honest, clean bands who toil away writing their lyrics without any assistance while shysters such as The Doors, Beatles, Stones and Bob Marley just con their way through their careers.

And to think that children still listen to their music and look up to these cheats...

Disgrace!

I am the Walrus

[Ghost Like]

GL, is that a recent prosecutorial stance or a legislative change?

Used to be quite accepted in courts that you obviously possessed in order to use, thus two charges were laid and proven.

Must say, with the Use charge being summary and the Possession charge being IOTS, made it easier for the whole system....

I'll stand corrected Iceman but I was more of the belief that possession only related to what was found on the person but what you say makes perfect sense in terms of the logical order of drug taking but to me it appears like a double dip (personal opinion).

On second thoughts maybe that feeling of euphoria was a natural high! afterall

[karnak]

Lucy in the Sky of Diamonds.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

i dont respect what he achieved because he is a cheat.

Not sure on your vintage Dan, so I'm taing a punt.
Do you also hate music from the Beatles and Rolling Stones, because they used drugs while creating their music?

It's a great point.

Very unfair for honest, clean bands who toil away writing their lyrics without any assistance while shysters such as The Doors, Beatles, Stones and Bob Marley just con their way through their careers.

And to think that children still listen to their music and look up to these cheats...

Disgrace!

In the words of Bill Hicks:

"If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, then go home and burn all your records, all your tapes, and all your CDs because every one of those artists who have made brilliant music and enhanced your lives? RrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrEAL f****** high on drugs. The Beatles were so f****** high they let Ringo sing a few songs."

[Dan Warna]

i dont respect what he achieved because he is a cheat.

Not sure on your vintage Dan, so I'm taing a punt.
Do you also hate music from the Beatles and Rolling Stones, because they used drugs while creating their music?

It's a great point.

Very unfair for honest, clean bands who toil away writing their lyrics without any assistance while shysters such as The Doors, Beatles, Stones and Bob Marley just con their way through their careers.

And to think that children still listen to their music and look up to these cheats...

Disgrace!

In the words of Bill Hicks:

"If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, then go home and burn all your records, all your tapes, and all your CDs because every one of those artists who have made brilliant music and enhanced your lives? RrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrEAL f****** high on drugs. The Beatles were so f****** high they let Ringo sing a few songs."

the difference is WADA don't give a rats about musicians, its interested in providing and enforcing a drug free sporting environment.