Brett Delidio Quote

[BigMart]

Are we seriously saying the board were over ruling football dept decisions..... Only at StK... But I don't believe that would have occurred. Exactly how much footy experience does Greg Westaway have?? There are members on the board who have never even played footy! Sure they leave it to the experts.... Coaches, recruiting depts.... They form a sub committee to appoint them to do a job, and then take away their power to do so.... I dont think so, not distributive leadership is it??

Another Question

Why was it not a mistake to take Gardiner, who had similar problems??
Or was that a mistake??

Can't have it both ways!!

Same with Lovett...... Either one was wrong and one was right..... Can't both be right??

[BigMart]

I didn't hear Ross or the club backing it either, like Hardwick.... He wasn't forced to do so....

Silence was deafening

On Hypotheticals...

It's a bit hypocritical to say that I cant hypothetically say BC would have been a success at StK and then hypothetically give reasons he would have failed.

I just merely mention the FACT he did well at tiger land for a host of reasons, and evidence suggests he would have been handy on our books, considering we were one kick away......and even that is refuted because it makes sleeping easier

We have learned to live with mistakes at StK, by either not admitting them or justifying them..... I am a reflector and try to make honest assessments....

In my mind we erred.... And nothing will convince me otherwise, given the history of it all..... If Cuz did a Fev.... Different story
He did not

[dragit]

…nothing will convince me otherwise

That, says it all.

You do not consider any opinion that is not your own.

Was a good yarn you had going about the recruiters being sacked for not drafting BC, completely false, but keep running with it.

The board would not have commented on his footballing abilities, rather the consequences of drafting a player deregistered by the AFL because of his renown partying with drugs and the implications on PR and sponsorship to the club.

It really is a bit simplistic to say "would he have made a difference in place of Eddy or McQualter?"

Of course he would, but life is not that simple mate. If banger had gone on one more year he would have made the difference too, as would Armo, Geary or Steven…

Maybe it was a mistake, I still think that not getting Rockliff was much bigger than missing out what is clearly a train-wreck.

[BigMart]

Dragit, were you around in 2009??


The Lovett Thread was a ripper....

I wish I knew how to dig up past posts.... My view on that prick was the same even when he was at Essendon.


The Conners incident??
Do you know the details of that incident?? Because Cousins was Restraining Connors and Belted him for being a dick, which he clearly is!! BTW I would have chosen Connors in the 06 draft, so there you go....
There was another player there... Who we did draft after that, he is still on our list.... Should we have not taken him after this??

Anyway, the point was lost..

Many have tried to convince me he was average at Richmond, even though he finished top 5 in their club champion whilst missing 6 games.... I was just continuing the discussion in the face of a comment in yesterday's paper from one of their guns..

[dragit]

Dragit, were you around in 2009??

You got me, I was born in 2010…
God you're a hero…

[BigMart]

Rockliff was an unknown quantity at AFL level.... That is serious hindsight stuff... With Cuz, on the footy side of things he was well known he had played 230 games.

On evidence... Of course my mind won't be changed. Why would it??

History judges events.... Richmond would do it again, why??

We would draft Gardy again, why?

[plugger66]

Rockliff was an unknown quantity at AFL level.... That is serious hindsight stuff... With Cuz, on the footy side of things he was well known he had played 230 games.

On evidence... Of course my mind won't be changed. Why would it??

History judges events.... Richmond would do it again, why??

We would draft Gardy again, why?

What did MG do wrong? He crashed his car I think but I doubt he was suspended by the AFL for a year. I still would love to know why you thought this thread needed to start and how you know BC would have had the same impact at the saints as at Tigers. Surely things can be different at every club.

[BigMart]

Dragit, surely you understand that I was asking If you were on the forum in 2009?? Because the threads on these major happenings went for numerous fiery pages....

And again.... Was he a 'train wreck' at Richmond.... Afterwards I couldn't care less

P66
Are you even suggesting MG was not involved in the Perth drug scene along with Ben, surely then you are contradicting those who argue MG being on our list was a reason not to draft BC... Because of a few past issues
And yes he may well have failed at StK, but is there a chance he would have succeeded. IMO he really had a point to prove, and end on a rightful note... And he did!

If you believe MGs only issue in Perth was a car crash you aren't aware of his background in Per.th and he and Bens relationship with Kirzon??

But Gardy was exceptional in Melbourne.

[BigMart]

Dragit, surely you understand that I was asking If you were on the forum in 2009?? Because the threads on these major happenings went for numerous fiery pages....

And again.... Was he a 'train wreck' at Richmond.... Afterwards I couldn't care less

P66
Are you even suggesting MG was not involved in the Perth drug scene along with Ben, surely then you are contradicting those who argue MG being on our list was a reason not to draft BC... Because of a few past issues
And yes he may well have failed at StK, but is there a chance he would have succeeded. IMO he really had a point to prove, and end on a rightful note... And he did!

If you believe MGs only issue in Perth was a car crash you aren't aware of his background in Per.th and he and Bens relationship with Kirzon??

But Gardy was exceptional in Melbourne.

[plugger66]

Dragit, surely you understand that I was asking If you were on the forum in 2009?? Because the threads on these major happenings went for numerous fiery pages....

And again.... Was he a 'train wreck' at Richmond.... Afterwards I couldn't care less

P66
Are you even suggesting MG was not involved in the Perth drug scene along with Ben, surely then you are contradicting those who argue MG being on our list was a reason not to draft BC... Because of a few past issues
And yes he may well have failed at StK, but is there a chance he would have succeeded. IMO he really had a point to prove, and end on a rightful note... And he did!

If you believe MGs only issue in Perth was a car crash you aren't aware of his background in Per.th and he and Bens relationship with Kirzon??

But Gardy was exceptional in Melbourne.

Yep he was and of course I know he had issues but not nearly as big as Bens and everyone in footy knew Bens issues. They even named a clock after him. You only had to see his show he did to see that. MG was good at our club but it is all guess work whether the 2 could have worked togther and that is my point. Why bring up this when all could have changed. It is all hypotheticals and means jack unless of course it is an excuse to say the club stuffed up again.

[BigMart]

If he stayed in Perth he would have been.... Not much doubting that...

He was seen as a far more shady character than Ben, almost dangerous.

Whilst Ben was winning brownlows, Gardy was already on the chopping block.

[MrCordz]

This again...

Really?

Let it go BM, it's 3 years ago and nothing to do with the current coach.

This.

[gringo]

As we are talking hypotheticals, who's to say that by drafting Ben we wouldn't have developed Jack Steven at a slower pace. After BCs hammy pinged from all the residual ice and we lost the 2009 GF a couple of guys needed a little pick me up after the devastation Ben helps out, who knows what would happen. It's all nonsense because it didn't happen. Move on now.

[BigMart]

Because Jack Steven wasn't a regular until 2011, and has played 30 of his 40 games since Ben has retired...

Really, he would have just replaced Robby Eddy or Mini in those years...

[BigMart]

Because it didn't happen Gringo.... Doesn't mean it shouldn't have happened...

Again, the argument used against my hypothetical arguments are hypothetical arguments..... There is the fact that he did play in 2009... Averaged 22 possessions and stayed clean... Why don't we reflect on that

I'll they'll you why..... It doesn't suit! Does it!

And
Are we saying our leadership culture was so weak that Ben would not have been held accountable??

I can see the reasons why we didn't select him, obviously..... Not difficult. Do I think those reasons held logic... NO

Why went the same character principles used when recruiting Lovett at a cost therefore higher risk

What was the philosophy behind our recruiting??

[Spinner]

Ben Cousins' hamstring would have torn 10 minutes into the first quarter of the Grand Final.

Why? Because he tore three at Richmond and the pressure would have been intensified in a GF. Fact. (see what I did there.)

Leaving us a man down for the whole game & Ben icing his hamstring on the bench. (See what I also did there.)




Now go away BM.

[BigMart]

Nice facts spinner....

We were a man down anyway... L.Ball was obviously injured.... He hardly played in the second half....

[The Craw]

Because they humiliated themselves when the PI news was leaked.... He was very much considered by the Pies. Glad they didn't because we played them in the 09 finals....

Right ....................

They hired a private investigator to monitor his behaviour and assess his rehabilitation.

The investigator spoke to Cousins' confidants, former teammates and WA police.

But after exploring his recent behaviour and progress from every angle, they decided it was too dangerous a proposition to recruit him.........

I would say this is further to the truth, it is obvious your irrational ramblings is good therapy for you. As long as it keeps you off the streets.... carry on.

[defacto]

So Ricmond got it wrong??

On evidence, I would argue that..... He was obviously healthy... Over 100 tests all negative. He was the most tested player in the AFL in 2009. More to the fact was that BC was not a constant drug user, but would have big breaks, and then go on a massive binge. He often went through 3-6 month periods without using, and then have 7 days of abusing drugs, then stop again for a period

I would also argue..... If he did re-offend, which he may have. What would the risk have been???
Simply delist... He would have been given his chance and didn't take it, that would be his fault, yes???

Again, at least we wouldn't risk a 3 year $1M contract, a first round draft pick on a guy who hasnt even finished in the top ten in a club B&F. would you like me

The one argument you couldn't use against Ben is that his attitude towards his footy and fitness was not first class
I rate his training with the very best... Harvey, Bradley, Crawford... His training was legendary.....

Perhaps I list his CV again, to remind people of who we were dealing with.... This was not a GOP

A.Lovett was the laziest trainer at Windy Hill.... When he turned up at Moorabbin he was beaten in a time trial by Blake McGrath... And he was recruited as a runner.... Good due diligence there

you really have no idea. you need to go and do you research because you're posting blatant mis-truths that are akin to the herald suns reporting of the kim duthie case.

ben cousins was sober for a maximum of 3 months!!!! not up to 6 months like you have claimed.

his training was first class. it quickly deteriorated circa 2007 and never got back to the levels it once was. when he couldnt be bothered anymore he accused his eagles team mates of trying to show him up.

ben cousins is on record denying he was ever under the influence on drugs during game day. he refused to make the same decoration when it came to training.

you're deliberately thinking of cousins in his peak, rather than cousins at the end of his career when his addiction had well and truly taken over.

you're also blatantly making things up. like the sobriety part.

BTW the pies decided against it because it took only a couple of days of following him in perth to see him on the gear/buying it. his drug taking around this period was out of control.

[dragit]

Shhhh……!!!!
Nothing you can say will change his mind, not even the truth - cost us 2 flags.

[BigMart]

You know these things as a fact ..... Defacto, or speaking of the herald, are you just sprouting second hand news...

Again

Why did he not record a positive test in the 20 months at punt road when he had a mandatory test every week and hair testing every 4 weeks.... He was tested more than any other player in 2009/2010 and was not allowed the three strike policy of others as a condition of his re registration.

He had not one positive test result.... Why is that.

His reporting of not being 'sober' a term used for drunkenness was from 2006/2007 at the WCE.... When speaking of drug use, I reckon clean is the term related...

Cousins at his peak may well have had periods of drug abuse, although he was never tested as positive.

At Richmond, he was clean as far as he's said, what the club has said and what the AFL has said.... Has it been reported anywhere otherwise.... I think not

And dribble is not going to change my mind...

I'm not the one trying to convince myself BC was not a success at Richmond or could/would not have been able to succeed at StK... That to me is delusional, especially when history and evidence suggests otherwise

Not even sure how an argument can be mounted.... Case is too weak
And get it straight
He was a drug addict, not a drug cheat.... Recreational drugs are not performance enhancing.... Especially when used on 72 hour benders as Ben used them for...

The pies were embarrassed about the way they went about there due diligence. It was pathetic and only came to light by accident.. No Way Ben would have gone there after the fiasco anyway.

[Spinner]

BigMart's definition of success:

Punching a teammate in the face
Going to hospital because of a 'wine and sleeping pill' mix
Tearing a hamstring three times
Playing a few games at a club who won 4 & 5 games for the year respectively.

And the probabilities suggest continuing his drug dependency during.

Oh and he provided some leadership as well as some mentoring, of which included punching a teammate when they got a bit out of line...



The more important question here is BM, what's your definition of failure.

[whiskers3614]

1 million spent on LOvett!

[defacto]

You know these things as a fact ..... Defacto, or speaking of the herald, are you just sprouting second hand news...

Again

Why did he not record a positive test in the 20 months at punt road when he had a mandatory test every week and hair testing every 4 weeks.... He was tested more than any other player in 2009/2010 and was not allowed the three strike policy of others as a condition of his re registration.

He had not one positive test result.... Why is that.

His reporting of not being 'sober' a term used for drunkenness was from 2006/2007 at the WCE.... When speaking of drug use, I reckon clean is the term related...

Cousins at his peak may well have had periods of drug abuse, although he was never tested as positive.

At Richmond, he was clean as far as he's said, what the club has said and what the AFL has said.... Has it been reported anywhere otherwise.... I think not

And dribble is not going to change my mind...

I'm not the one trying to convince myself BC was not a success at Richmond or could/would not have been able to succeed at StK... That to me is delusional, especially when history and evidence suggests otherwise

Not even sure how an argument can be mounted.... Case is too weak
And get it straight
He was a drug addict, not a drug cheat.... Recreational drugs are not performance enhancing.... Especially when used on 72 hour benders as Ben used them for...

The pies were embarrassed about the way they went about there due diligence. It was pathetic and only came to light by accident.. No Way Ben would have gone there after the fiasco anyway.

1) its hard for drug testers to get a positive result for amphetamines which leaves the system within 72 hours (24 hours for coke, which was cousins drug of choice). cousins would often get tipped off that they were there and just wouldnt turn up. he would never use drugs within 72 hours of game day. he often stated he'd take them after the game, to give him as much time as possible. he also cut his hair as short as possible to reduce the sample. you can also use various substances on your hair to mask the test. also hair tests require atleast 3 uses of the drug to show up within the period. theres ways around the drug testers, something cousins demonstrated very effectively. they would have caught him if they tested him daily, but because they cannot do this, cousins was able to work a system,
2) "Cousins at his peak may well have had periods of drug abuse, although he was never tested as positive. " see above. i live in perth mate, it wasnt uncommon to see ben and other eagles on the gear at a number of clubs in perth, before the story broke over east. was the poorest kept afl secret,
3) "At Richmond, he was clean as far as he's said, what the club has said and what the AFL has said.... Has it been reported anywhere otherwise.... I think not" if he did test positive or if he fell off the wagon do you think the afl would issue a media release and kick him out of the league? they were pissed that he originally came out and said he had a drug addiction. it showed the bad side of AFL football and hurt their image. they werent angry that he was taking illegal drugs, they knew it was wide spread and quite common,
4) "I'm not the one trying to convince myself BC was not a success at Richmond or could/would not have been able to succeed at StK... That to me is delusional, especially when history and evidence suggests otherwise" WTF are you on about??? a success at richmond, that's debatable. someone hypothesizing about how one player close to retirement can somehow change the result and give us a flag, thats even more debatable. claiming that were delusional for accepting the facts is a very long bow to draw. you're starting to sound like a troll
5) "The pies were embarrassed about the way they went about there due diligence. It was pathetic and only came to light by accident.. No Way Ben would have gone there after the fiasco anyway." they were embarrassed because they got caught. it's also unethical. however, i reckon they do it all over again, because they dodged a bullet. ben wanted to go, he was disappointed when collingwood pulled out. would he go to a club that would follow him around and make sure he wasnt using, no, because he knew he couldnt stop.

[BigMart]

He should be lauded as being one of the greatest drug cheats in history, to even admit you take drugs, continue to do so and never get caught.... He is the 'white whale'
It's like phoning the cops before you drive home pissed, and drive right by them.... So brash.

Or maybe it was a huge AFL cover up... The allow drug users to play to keep their brand clean... They must control WADA

What is Debatable
Posters on here who can't fathom to think we dropped the ball, would be the only ones stupid enough to argue that his time at Richmond was unsuccessful.

Would be laughed at by general AFL supporters for uttering such crap.

On Collingwood
Again... Dodged a bullett. Exactly what bullet did they dodge?? You say that like he stuffed up his return to footy. He did not. My memory is of him being chaired off to cheers from the tiger army, who appreciated his efforts.

Spinner, come on man.... That is not very well thought out.
We've covered those areas already
He punched Connors because he deserved it for acting like a dick, which is why he was banned for 8 weeks
He had a bad reaction to sleeping pills which was ultimately a beat up non story.
He did his hammy once
He played nearly all the games and was top 5 in their B&F

Don't post rubbish to make a point, better off just saying I don't agree...