Cousins is now a crack junkie in downtown LA? Version 2

Dan Warna · Post: # 485122Post **Dan Warna** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 1:57pm

so you have no evidence that he is in the rehab centre, and no evidence that he isn't in the rehab centre but he deserves the benifit of the doubt?

his trial for refusing a drug test was postponed on the provisio he was going to do rehab.

frankly he doesn't deserve the benifit of the doubt.

stinger · Post: # 485123Post **stinger** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 1:59pm

evertonfc wrote:
n1ck wrote:Why is Bryan Cousins obligated to tell the world how Ben is doing?

If it was my dad, I sure as hell wouldnt want him telling everyone my medical history.

'wouldnt elaborate on Ben's health.'

Again - why does he have to? HE DOESNT!
Well said.

i don't think any of us would disagree with you or nick on that point...but the guy is still a druggie...and i don't want druggies at st kilda......well not new ones anyway.....

Saint Mik · Post: # 485124Post **Saint Mik** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 2:01pm

How many virgins do i get with that title

I'll take the two that picked up Ben

LOL very good everton(picture)

Reidwolting that may be the case but i'm willing to wait and see the outcome before i go saying he refused it because of ??????????????

I think that the people he has in his legal team that are representing him are supposed to be very good, that Brennan guy was reported to of got somebody else out of all sorts once before but i cant think who it was right now so who knows what he has told Ben what to do in that situation like i have said many times over NO ONE knows so why carry on about it, there are some close to him reported to say he has been clean all year since his first rehab stint yet they dont print that everyday.

Iced tea is very good for you

Dan Warna · Post: # 485125Post **Dan Warna** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 2:03pm

wow st mik, so even if he is a drug cheat and junkie you'd be wanting his lawyers to get him off then into st kilda?

st.byron · Post: # 485133Post **st.byron** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 2:15pm

Riewoldting wrote: Well technically, it's possible he was shafted by Daniel Chick, or maybe even Sam Druce.

Very likely I'd say.

Saint Mik · Post: # 485139Post **Saint Mik** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 2:20pm

IF there is any doubt at all about IF he needed to take the drug test it will come out in the court case wont it until then we wont know.

There are people out there including those representing him IMO that think he has been clean all year so what makes your opinion any different to theres.

You keep throwing those IF's in your posts Dan which make your argument exactley what i'm trying to say and yes you know i would take him at the Saints IF he is able to play.

Tell me whats the difference between Cousins and a player on 2 strikes again? Has Cousins even got any strikes to his name?

Please dont come out with a bullshyte story just explain to me what the REAL difference is because the way i see it is one has come out and admitted he has a problem with drugs while the other is hiding behing the AFL system and could be anywhere.

OH and one is in the headlines because of it.

Dan Warna · Post: # 485141Post **Dan Warna** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 2:24pm

Saint Mik wrote:IF there is any doubt at all about IF he needed to take the drug test it will come out in the court case wont it until then we wont know.

There are people out there including those representing him IMO that think he has been clean all year so what makes your opinion any different to theres.

You keep throwing those IF's in your posts Dan which make your argument exactley what i'm trying to say and yes you know i would take him at the Saints IF he is able to play.

Tell me whats the difference between Cousins and a player on 2 strikes again? Has Cousins even got any strikes to his name?

Please dont come out with a bullshyte story just explain to me what the REAL difference is because the way i see it is one has come out and admitted he has a problem with drugs while the other is hiding behing the AFL system and could be anywhere.

OH and one is in the headlines because of it.

of course his lawyers out there saying he is clean, its not as if they are going to admit he's a drug cheat.

as for outing himself, its the worst kept secret in the West.

and he's dodged the bullet before by running off and avoiding a testing station, thats well documented event.

and no I wouldn't take him at the saints, I believe he is a drug cheat.

and if saints players are discovered to be drug cheats I hope they are equally exposed. as for strikes against their name, pffft the AFL testing program is a joke, only an idiot would get caught once, and a moron would get caught twice...

you ahve no idea if he is clean, you are giving him the benifit of the doubt, I am not.

even if he is not clean you are hoping it seems that he beats the rap.

Saint Mik · Post: # 485146Post **Saint Mik** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 2:35pm

OK so your happy to pick anyone up with strikes next to there name because you dont know the FACTS.

Yet you wont take Cousins even though you dont know the FACTS.

I'll take my chances whats that saying the devil you know?

There is a chance you are right and he is a drug user but there is also a chance that he is clean its in the balance and the courts will sort it out the only thing is I will accept what the outcome will be either way.

Dan Warna · Post: # 485149Post **Dan Warna** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 2:43pm

Saint Mik wrote:OK so your happy to pick anyone up with strikes next to there name because you dont know the FACTS.

Yet you wont take Cousins even though you dont know the FACTS.

I'll take my chances whats that saying the devil you know?

There is a chance you are right and he is a drug user but there is also a chance that he is clean its in the balance and the courts will sort it out the only thing is I will accept what the outcome will be either way.

who said I'd be happy to take players with strikes against their names? IMO the AFL drug policy on some substances is soft in comparison to international standard.

yes I do know what you are referring to, and happy to take it to PMs, however I was definately not happy about some player or players we have traded for in recent years leading up to the 07 season (mcgough being one talent challenged, and Gardiner's off field issues as well as his injuries being another)

as for being clean, everyone knows taht the AFL drug policy is a joke and inneffective.

even if he doesn't have a recorded 'strike' i believe he is a drug cheat and its only a matter of time before he gets caught.

Ghost Like · Post: # 485150Post **Ghost Like** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 2:47pm

Saint Mik wrote:OK so your happy to pick anyone up with strikes next to there name because you dont know the FACTS.

Yet you wont take Cousins even though you dont know the FACTS.

I'll take my chances whats that saying the devil you know?

There is a chance you are right and he is a drug user but there is also a chance that he is clean its in the balance and the courts will sort it out the only thing is I will accept what the outcome will be either way.

I'm picturing you as a professional jury foreman Saint Mik.

st.byron · Post: # 485158Post **st.byron** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 3:00pm

Dan Warna wrote:
Saint Mik wrote:OK so your happy to pick anyone up with strikes next to there name because you dont know the FACTS.

Yet you wont take Cousins even though you dont know the FACTS.

I'll take my chances whats that saying the devil you know?

There is a chance you are right and he is a drug user but there is also a chance that he is clean its in the balance and the courts will sort it out the only thing is I will accept what the outcome will be either way.
who said I'd be happy to take players with strikes against their names? IMO the AFL drug policy on some substances is soft in comparison to international standard.

yes I do know what you are referring to, and happy to take it to PMs, however I was definately not happy about some player or players we have traded for in recent years leading up to the 07 season (mcgough being one talent challenged, and Gardiner's off field issues as well as his injuries being another)

as for being clean, everyone knows taht the AFL drug policy is a joke and inneffective.

even if he doesn't have a recorded 'strike' i believe he is a drug cheat and its only a matter of time before he gets caught.

agree with all of that Dan. For anyone to be suggesting that Cousins is clean after having been in a drug rehab clinic earlier this year is just ridiculous. It's a benefit of the doubt argument just because it's the guiding
principal of our justice system. In this case, there is no doubt. Cousins has a drug addiction problem. Where's the lack of clarity St. Mik?

Saint Mik · Post: # 485171Post **Saint Mik** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 3:23pm

No doubt at all st byron you can sleep well tonight on knowing for sure he has a drug problem.

The lack of clarity is there the word proof comes to mind NEVER been done for drug taking makes that very clear for me.

You cant say he has a drug problem just because you think he has one he may well be doing very well with his rehab and has been clean all year and has gone back to finish what he started why is that so ridiculous it is no different to saying he has spent all this time and money on getting clean yet is still doing drugs (even at half time) now that sounds ridiculous IMO.

I'm not saying he is clean but i also dont say he is a drug user because i just dont know but i do think he is having a go at being clean and if he thinks he is going to play next year and is able to then there is no way he will be on drugs IMO and if thats the case what makes him any different to others players with strikes and a record to there name i just cant see the difference so yes there is some (sorry) plenty of doubt.

Riewoldting · Thu 01 Nov 2007 3:24pm

Saint Mik wrote:There are people out there including those representing him IMO that think he has been clean all year so what makes your opinion any different to theres.

Exactly Saint Mik. Both are valid. That's the nature of an opinion.

So what's the problem?

st.byron · Post: # 485188Post **st.byron** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 3:52pm

Saint Mik wrote:No doubt at all st byron you can sleep well tonight on knowing for sure he has a drug problem.

The lack of clarity is there the word proof comes to mind NEVER been done for drug taking makes that very clear for me.

You cant say he has a drug problem just because you think he has one he may well be doing very well with his rehab and has been clean all year and has gone back to finish what he started why is that so ridiculous it is no different to saying he has spent all this time and money on getting clean yet is still doing drugs (even at half time) now that sounds ridiculous IMO.

I'm not saying he is clean but i also dont say he is a drug user because i just dont know but i do think he is having a go at being clean and if he thinks he is going to play next year and is able to then there is no way he will be on drugs IMO and if thats the case what makes him any different to others players with strikes and a record to there name i just cant see the difference so yes there is some (sorry) plenty of doubt.

Fair call that the onus is on the prosecution to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt. So yes you're right, he hasn't been proven in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt to still be on drugs.
His behaviour and circumstantial evidence however suggests that drugs are still part of his life and he is struggling with that. All of this debate came out of whether or not STKFC should consider drafting him ( if that far fetched idea was indeed possible). IMO, given the evidence available, he's still an addict to some extent and that's enough for me to go no way we should have anything to do with him. It's my opinion and you have yours. Fair enough.

loriswa · Post: # 485193Post **loriswa** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 3:59pm

Heard on ABC radio this morning that Danel Chick is supposedly in LA at present. Maybe one of the blondes picking Benny up at airport the other day was Chickies ex?

And maybe Chickie and his ex will give Benny some boxing exhibitions as a form of training drill for his fitness whilst he's in rehab.

saint66au · Post: # 485198Post **saint66au** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 4:05pm

Saint Mik wrote:No doubt at all st byron you can sleep well tonight on knowing for sure he has a drug problem.

The lack of clarity is there the word proof comes to mind NEVER been done for drug taking makes that very clear for me.

You cant say he has a drug problem just because you think he has one he may well be doing very well with his rehab and has been clean all year and has gone back to finish what he started why is that so ridiculous it is no different to saying he has spent all this time and money on getting clean yet is still doing drugs (even at half time) now that sounds ridiculous IMO.

I'm not saying he is clean but i also dont say he is a drug user because i just dont know but i do think he being clean and if he thinks he is going to play next year and is able to then there is no way he will be on drugs IMO and if thats the case what makes him any different to others players with strikes and a record to there name i just cant see the difference so yes there is some (sorry) plenty of doubt.

You contradict yourself so may times in that post I got dizzy reading it

So his Dad went on national TV and told lies????? "Battling a substance abuse problem" was the phrase I believe he used.

Oh and on your keyboard somewhere is the full stop key. Do you mind using it from time to time??

Saint Mik · Post: # 485199Post **Saint Mik** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 4:06pm

The problem is that right now Ben IS clean and NOT a drug user until proven otherwise wether you agree or not thats the fact because there is no proof.

Yet he is being called a drug user and a cheat

Imagine for a moment if he genuinley is clean how do you think he would be feeling right now after all the hard yards and rehab getting clean again, then to cop what he has in the past two weeks, people say he thinks of no one but himself, have we given him a choice in the matter with the treatment he has copped from all around him, he is guilty as hell no matter what attitude is wrong IMO.

It is just to easy to hang the bloke for his past and thats what the media,police,WC,AFL and people in general are doing IMO.

You can not say he is a drug user and i will give him the benifit of the doubt because I wont hang someone without proof and i dont care if in a months,years time everyone says i told you so at least i can say i know i didnt jump to conclusions at the drop of a headline.

I truly do want the best outcome and see him with his life in order and back on the ground getting a kick because thats got to be better than him having a drug problem in a downward spiral and i dont have a problem with St. Kilda being on the receiving end which ever way it goes because at least we were strong enogh to give him a go and thats better than not giving him a go because of what might happen IMO.

Ghost Like · Post: # 485200Post **Ghost Like** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 4:08pm

loriswa wrote:Heard on ABC radio this morning that Danel Chick is supposedly in LA at present. Maybe one of the blondes picking Benny up at airport the other day was Chickies ex?

And maybe Chickie and his ex will give Benny some boxing exhibitions as a form of training drill for his fitness whilst he's in rehab.

Ahh, the missing piece. There you go Saint Mik, beyond a reasonable doubt now.

He was the one that called Ben's dad, "It's ok Bryan, he's with me."

Saint Mik · Post: # 485204Post **Saint Mik** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 4:12pm

Sorry about the full stop key better ban me then

F*** OFF WILL YA dont have a go at the way others type its so bloody petty that it is not worth the time and effort.There goes my smily face and gold star then

How long ago did his Dad go on t.v. and talk about substance abuse and thats my point i'm talking about now, today not the past.

TimeToShineFellas · Thu 01 Nov 2007 4:13pm

Saint Mik wrote:The problem is that right now Ben IS clean and NOT a drug user until proven otherwise

How would you know?

Post: # 485208Post **n1ck** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 4:14pm

TimeToShineFellas wrote:
Saint Mik wrote:The problem is that right now Ben IS clean and NOT a drug user until proven otherwise
How would you know?

He doesnt need to know. He said "until proven otherwise".

Saint Mik · Post: # 485210Post **Saint Mik** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 4:15pm

YEP beyond reasonable doubt SUPPOSEDLY so then

Here we go again

Dan Warna · Post: # 485214Post **Dan Warna** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 4:18pm

n1ck wrote:
TimeToShineFellas wrote:
Saint Mik wrote:The problem is that right now Ben IS clean and NOT a drug user until proven otherwise
How would you know?
He doesnt need to know. He said "until proven otherwise".

yes and the only thing that al capone ever did was tax fraud

you can give him what support you like, I don't want him at st kilda and would be disgusted that we are giving money to this drug cheat.

TimeToShineFellas · Thu 01 Nov 2007 4:19pm

Saint Mik wrote:YEP beyond reasonable doubt SUPPOSEDLY so then

Here we go again

I was only asking you a question....

No need to get defensive.

Dan Warna · Post: # 485218Post **Dan Warna** » Thu 01 Nov 2007 4:26pm

and in further news

The AFL is understood to be considering charging Cousins with bringing the game into disrepute over his Perth arrest

looks like the drug cheat is going to get nailed!

at least the AFL finally do something right!