St Kilda thought about chasing Cousins during trade week?

[Brian Collis]

Will Cousins nominate for the draft & let it be known that he will sue the AFL if his request is denied?

On what grounds?

Restraint of trade!

[saintspremiers]

Would not want that miserable arrogant piece of cr@p anywhere near any brand that I associate with quality = Saints.

With the chances that arrogant little turd has had, I hope he rots where he sits next.

Mentor???? FFS yeah mentor Benny......

Such is Life.

A/Hole = not a required person at OUR club.

well if he did come to our club and was instrumental in us winning a flag next year would you eat your words??

IMO (and I might be off the mark a bit with this statement), winning the flag = very forking good for our brand, even with a Benny on board!

Sorry if that last comment sounds like Martian speak, but I just may be onto something........

[Ghost Like]

well if he did come to our club and was instrumental in us winning a flag next year would you eat your words??

IMO (and I might be off the mark a bit with this statement), winning the flag = very forking good for our brand, even with a Benny on board!

Sorry if that last comment sounds like Martian speak, but I just may be onto something........

The Eagles won a flag not more than 13 months ago, how do you reckon their brand is travelling at the moment? Thanks Ben and friends.

I'm as desperate as the next Saints supporter to win a flag but not at the expense of the club's integrity or credibility. The satisfaction of winning a flag without selling our soul far outweighs a tainted one.

Ben needs a few years to get his life back in order and by then he'll be concentrating on a lot more pressing issues than getting a kick.

Pass

[B W and R all over]

Not that I think we should go for him but...

I'd rather have a premiership than a good brand.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

While interesting speculation as to whether the AFL would take the risk of declining Cousins application should he place one at this point... surely rather than doing so, Cousins (if he's being even remotely well advised by those around him, and from comments Nixon made on SEN last week, I suspect he is) will be better served NOT applying for the preseason draft, spending 12 months getting clean and looking at whether he's motivated and capable this time next year.

[fisher_fan]

if he was to play anywhere in 08 (i doubt he will) in his contract they would have to have

1 - Will not get a game until he and the club doctors (including psychologists) cleared him to play (mentally and physically)

2 - One and one chance only, any off field misbehaviour and his contract is torn up immediatley and no more payments would be made to him

The media would hassle the club, and bag it. If he did misbehave sponsors would get as far away as possible, it would do the club massive damage and smear it for many years to come.

If that is worth the risk on a 29 year old who would have 3 years left in the tank at the most then shoot me.....

[evertonfc]

Not that I think we should go for him but...

I'd rather have a premiership than a good brand.

Absolutely.

If we won a flag with Cousins, and he tested clean all next year, then it would be a flag not tainted one iota.

BTW - nobody says Port's 2004 flag was tainted, do they?

If we were talking about an average player, I wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot pole. But we're talking about one of the all-time greats of the game. A player who is probably in the top 50 to have ever pulled on a boot.

A match-winner, a born winner, a man who changes the outcome of football matches.

If he's mentally fit and physically clean, we have to look at him.

[CURLY]

Look at it from another angle with Cousins. There would be a few coaches who would look upon this as a challenge perhaps, be the one that turned Cousins around. A club may go to the goverment for sponsership and use Cousins rehab as a example as to how you can turn a drug addicts life back around that sort of thing. Community groups would more than likely get behind him and the club to show there is a way out. I dont really know if its a good idea or not but if I was a AFL coach Id take him for sure.

[st.byron]

if he was to play anywhere in 08 (i doubt he will) in his contract they would have to have

1 - Will not get a game until he and the club doctors (including psychologists) cleared him to play (mentally and physically)

2 - One and one chance only, any off field misbehaviour and his contract is torn up immediatley and no more payments would be made to him

Exactly the scenario that allowed him to come back with WCE and he blew it.
Wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole. No way I'd want him anywhere near Moorabbin.

[n1ck]

If we won a flag with Cousins, and he tested clean all next year, then it would be a flag not tainted one iota.

BTW - nobody says Port's 2004 flag was tainted, do they?

Fair call.

[Ghost Like]

If we won a flag with Cousins, and he tested clean all next year, then it would be a flag not tainted one iota.

BTW - nobody says Port's 2004 flag was tainted, do they?

Fair call.

Apologies, what am I missing here? Port's 2004 flag? Who am I forgetting that was in that side that may have had a ? over their head.

[SaintBot]

If we won a flag with Cousins, and he tested clean all next year, then it would be a flag not tainted one iota.

BTW - nobody says Port's 2004 flag was tainted, do they?

Fair call.

Apologies, what am I missing here? Port's 2004 flag? Who am I forgetting that was in that side that may have had a ? over their head.

********?

*name deleted by mod

[Ghost Like]

Received a PM, cheers.

Perhaps if that was more widely known (including the drug type) and Port had been severely embarrassed by it's players or one particular recurring player then it would be.

I think the cost to the club, especially without a guarantee (i.e. Just because he plays for us would mean we would win) is far too great.

We don't need to be the Patron Saint (Club) of lost causes, that's what Centres in Malibu are for.

[SaintBot]

If we won a flag with Cousins, and he tested clean all next year, then it would be a flag not tainted one iota.

BTW - nobody says Port's 2004 flag was tainted, do they?

Fair call.

Apologies, what am I missing here? Port's 2004 flag? Who am I forgetting that was in that side that may have had a ? over their head.

********?

*name deleted by mod

apologises...didnt realise it was still a hush up

interesting that the above player is the only one of the three to have stayed at his club

[snoopygirl]

Pretty sure he was shopped around 12 months ago, but no takers. Also, the Port player concerned didn't spend time in a drug rehab place o/s. Therein lies the difference in peoples attitudes towards any flag being tainted.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Look at it from another angle with Cousins. There would be a few coaches who would look upon this as a challenge perhaps, be the one that turned Cousins around. A club may go to the goverment for sponsership and use Cousins rehab as a example as to how you can turn a drug addicts life back around that sort of thing. Community groups would more than likely get behind him and the club to show there is a way out. I dont really know if its a good idea or not but if I was a AFL coach Id take him for sure.

Can of worms... Sends the message that to help an addict, you've got to keep trying, and trying, and trying, no matter how many times they let you down or spit in your face. Tough to be sincere about such a giving approach under the cynical pressures of chasing a premiership when that player just happens to be an elite midfielder in their prime.

Should Cousins get clean, there's no doubt he will recieve many offers to be the posterboy for rehab. It's more likely to have an impact with him being an ex-champion cut down by his addiction in his prime than it would be with him still playing.

[Saint Mik]

The pecentages of him actually beating this addiction in the short term is well against him and with his attitude to the whole problem there is no way the saints will go near him.

The chances of him having a relapse in the social life of the AFL and then the pressure this puts on the club is not worth it.

If it was worth a shot the West Coast would of stuck with him but they have been putting up with this for years now and he has a MASSIVE problem, they will help him but football will have nothing to do with it.

We all dont know how hard it was for WC to let someone like Ben go so why do we all think it is going to be easy for someone else to turn him around its not that simple and its been an ongoing problem for WC and not worth the risk no matter how good a player he is.

[Dan Warna]

the AFL declared a few months ago that cousins NEVER tested positive for drugs in game.

the AFL was also discovered to not be testing for a whole heap of agents when EPO was brought up.

so according the AFLs OWN testing regime cousins doesn't have a problem.

yet he is going to the US for a SECOND series of rehab.

DOES he have a problem or not?

if he does have a problem why was it NEVER detected

cousins apparantly can go through a season without being tested.

also there is his relationship to kizon, drug dealers, criminal elements and a heap of other things to take into account.

this is as much a failure of the AFL commission and its bollux testing policy.

the AFL at one time declares that cousins HAS NEVER tested positive and declares he needs rehab.

this is far worse but the same sort of bollux hypocracy and smoke and mirrors as we saw with the headland/selwood incident. Headland had his charges mitigated for something selwood DIDN"T SAY. Selwood had to apologise and speak to a group of women and geet counselling for something the AFL declared he DIDN"T say

cousins is damaged goods, and his actions are covered in a trail of injunctions, cover ups, misdirections.

a player could commit the most heinous of crimes and as long as the AFL maintained its revenue streems and the public didn't find out, the AFL couldn't give a rats. If it did get out, the AFL will look to protect its brand rather than the rights of the victim.

the AFL has reached the proportions of arrogance that the catholic church has in covering up the actions of its miscreant priests. instead of crushing the problem head on so the vast majority of peeps doing the right thing can go about it, its covers it up so the tar spreads all over.

we have had cases where innocent players are being identified because the AFl slams injunction after injunction to cover it up its mess.

in BF yesterday, slurs against saints players and richmond and essendon and WCE players was made.

this will continue to go on until the AFL puts its foot down and cleans up the game.

[stinger]

good sensible post dan.....

[Saint Mik]

YEP dan, and even at the most critical time when a test should DEFINATLEY of been done the AFL were nowhere to be seen.

This is a major problem for the game and what has the boss of the AFL done about it absoutley F*** ALL because he wont interupt his holidays but will continue to back the drugs policy's that they have in place which are not working when he finally decides he had better come back and face the music.

The whole thing is a farce and has been laughed at from players that want to have a crack at the nightclubs scene and think that drugs and the chances of getting done is a better way to go.

Ben has done the wrong thing but the AFL is also part of the problem for letting it get to this.

Any player that can slip through the system and end up in rehab for the second time is a disgace and should be looked at seriously and not from a deckchair beside a pool in another country.

[Richter]

DOES he have a problem or not?

if he does have a problem why was it NEVER detected

cousins apparantly can go through a season without being tested.

.............................

the AFL at one time declares that cousins HAS NEVER tested positive and declares he needs rehab.

...........................

cousins is damaged goods, and his actions are covered in a trail of injunctions, cover ups, misdirections.

a player could commit the most heinous of crimes and as long as the AFL maintained its revenue streems and the public didn't find out, the AFL couldn't give a rats. If it did get out, the AFL will look to protect its brand rather than the rights of the victim.

.........................................

this will continue to go on until the AFL puts its foot down and cleans up the game.

Dan, at first look what you say seems reasonable, however I'm afraid that you are speaking out of some ignorance on this (no offence intended). Dealing with some of your points......

- detection of a drug abuse problem clinically is not by the use of urine drug tests. UDS can only detect if amphetamines (also cocaine/crack) are in the system between 24-72 hours after ingestion. i.e. the absence of a positive UDS does not disprove drug use. This is so obvious that many clinicians do not bother with UDS and diagnose substance misuse problems by clinical means only (i.e. by mesns of history taking and physical examination). The use of drug tests in the AFL is for the purposes of WADA testing and does not really help much in the clinical management of the problem.

- the current system is on place in order that the players legal rights are protected, hence why the AFLPA are so in favour of the current 3 strikes policy. Also in order to try to pick up those with substance misuse problems are TREAT them rather than merely punish them.

- if you think that the AFL can really "clean up the game" by cracking down even more you are living in cloud cuckoo land IMO. All you are likely to do is drive users "underground" and mean that you deter people from seeking help.

[fonz_#15]

Look at it from another angle with Cousins. There would be a few coaches who would look upon this as a challenge perhaps, be the one that turned Cousins around. A club may go to the goverment for sponsership and use Cousins rehab as a example as to how you can turn a drug addicts life back around that sort of thing. Community groups would more than likely get behind him and the club to show there is a way out. I dont really know if its a good idea or not but if I was a AFL coach Id take him for sure.

not a bad idea, quite thought provoking, but do you think it would be wise for him to walk into an afl club to try and attemp this? I think you will find that when attempting to turn their live's around, drug addicts second chances should not start in the big league.

maybe a year with a wafl, or vfl club would be better, but time is running out with cousins career.

[Saint Mik]

The AFLPA is in favour of the 3 strikes because of how many players that have 1 or 2 strikes to there names already IMO.

The policy does not work because if it was the correct policy Ben Cousins would most likley not of been able to do what he has done and in return ended up an addict in need a rehab.

If one players slips through like this is needs to be looked at IMO.

[CURLY]

I would be dissapointed if Cousins was available to be picked up and we didnt take a punt on him. As a club wed have to back our team of coaches,mentors pycoligists and what ever else to make this work. If our core group has true leadership qualities would this not be a great triumph and maybe Gardener has been turned around by what hes been part of.

[Dan Warna]

between 150 to 500 tests per annum from when the policy was first announced. realistically you have to be a moron to be caught once let alone 3 times.

the hair test is both cheaper and detects drugs in the system longer than the urine test and is less invasive was discussed and used as a realistic option in other agencies.

Hair testing is quite accurate and can go back normally 3 months (6 months or longer possible with specialty tests), showing any drugs of abuse used in the detection window. As hair grows out, any drugs used are encased in the hair shaft, so the longer the hair, the longer back in the individual's drug history the lab can detect. Accredited hair drug testing labs, however, only use hair within about 2.5–4 cm of the scalp, and discard the rest. With head hair each 0.5 inch (1.27 cm) corresponds to about 30 days. This limits the detection history to about 90 days, depending upon the rate at which the individual's hair grows. Some people attempt to circumvent this through shaving their heads. In the absence of the required amount of hair on the scalp, body hair can be used as an acceptable substitute.

Additionally, for pre-employment hair testing, the inability to obtain a sample may be grounds for not hiring the individual. Hair Testing labs are regulated by CLIA or SAMHSA (not FDA). There is a growing trend in major companies and law enforcement agencies to utilize hair analysis on account of its efficiency and reputation as the gold standard when considering test accuracy. This technology makes use of radioimmunoassaytechnology with subsequent confirmation by mass spectrometry.

this isn't so much about treatment, I dont really care in the CONTEXT of afl what they do, this is about cheating.

IMO if a player were to consume an illegal stimulant, and thus get an unfair advantage over an opposition that is cheating.

the likelyhood of testing under the 2004 to 2007 regime is impossible to discover anything.

also the AFLs terminology of 'recreational drugs' has been exposed as a completely bollux interpretation. having recently read the WADA policy on drugs, methamphetamines is considered a stimulant under s6 and prohibited for the duration of acompetition, (which in terms of the olympics would be the duration of the olympics or in terms of the AFL, the duration of the football season)

pre 07, it was unlikely a player would be tested once let alone 3 times in a season, and many agents were not even being tested for.

IMO introduce a NON invasive hair test = 3 month coverage = less cost given that urine and blood tests are of a lot lower duration.

any player caught 3 times is a moron, given the pathetic regime in place.

Jono hay himself said he consumed drugs and never tested once.

take it underground? they can piss off from playing AFL if they want to do drugs IMO, sure choose a lifestyle where drugs are part of your life, but dont be an AFL footballer then.

ben cousins = drug cheat

[/i]