conditions "too harsh" for cousins (herald sun)

[bigcarl]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 61,00.html

BEN Cousins may walk away from football after the AFL yesterday placed tough drug-testing conditions on his comeback.

Cousins' manager Ricky Nixon will tell the AFL Players Association that it is almost impossible for the 30-year-old former champ to reignite his career under the rules announced yesterday.

Cousin will consider in the next few days if a return to football is worth it.

The Cousins camp is furious the self-confessed drug abuser has been singled out by the AFL for special treatment, when six players continue to play with two strikes for drug taking beside their name.

Nixon will meet the players association today to propose urgent changes to the conditions.

The association believes a dangerous precedent has been set by making one rule for Cousins and another for other players.

[F_Q_F]

Also says that Cousins didn't do a hair test because they couldn't find a hair long enough.

Wonder if a new condition will be that he has to maintain a pony tail of a certain length during the season. Its a joke and I agree that he shouldn't be singled out so blatantly by the AFL, very poor management of the situation.

[bigcarl]

Its a joke and I agree that he shouldn't be singled out so blatantly by the AFL, very poor management of the situation.

yeah, there are others (including some high-profile players) who don't even admit to having a problem. at least ben realises his.

but he should adhere to the rules they've put in place. if he is determined not to do drugs he'll have nothing to hide.

[Saint Mick]

This whole episode just goes to show how pathetic the AFL are - has Ben Cousins ever tested positive for substances? No. Was he found guilty of anything when arrested in Northbridge? No. It is a witch hunt, pure and simple - the AFL are ticked off that he managed to be a superstar and have an alleged drug habit at the same time, whilst they were none the wiser. I couldn't blame him if he didn't want to get drug tested four times a week, what a disgraceful invasion of privacy that is. The bloke wants to come back and play football, has ticked all the boxes and the AFL are treating him like a convicted murderer. I hope the next player who gets done DUI or drunk in a public place is subjected to the same draconian testing otherwise it would be grossly unjust in my opinion.

[saint66au]

Seems to be 2 arguments here..

Does Benny think he cant adhere to the AFL edicts..or does he think he can but shouldnt have to because of their inconsistancy with other offenders?

If its the latter well and good and I think he has a point, but Id be hoping the former is'nt the case..cos better off without him if he thinks its too hard IMHO

[JeffDunne]

I know this is probably stating the bleeding obvious, but Ben could really do with some better representation than what he gets from Nixon.

Ben and his management should thank the AFL for their consideration and welcome the opportunity for Ben to play AFL football again.

Full stop, end of story.

Any disquiet about the conditions should be done behind closed doors and pressure should come from the AFLPA and not from Ben or his manager. If the AFLPA won't get on board, work with Ben's new club to try and bring pressure from them. Ben and his management aren't in a position to pressure anything.

If Ben walks away because the conditions are too tough then Ben's reputation will take another hit.

If Nixon tries to pressure the AFL through the media or the courts then Ben becomes and even riskier proposition for a club than he is now.

Please Ricky, for Ben's sake, just STFU.

[bigred]

I wouldnt blame him if he walked away from those conditions.

Its almost a complete invasion of his civil liberties.

Seriously, 3 urine tests a week....

While there are other players on two strikes undertaking NO extra testing...

One rule for him.

Bugger that.

If our club is fair dinkum they should go into bat for him.

I dont think that the issue here is his ability to undertake the tests....more along the lines of why the hell should he?

All the other 2 strike players are shrouded by the AFL's ill informed drug policy.

I would have thought that 2 tests a month, or one hair sample a month would have been more satisfactory.

The AFL is gonna cop a heap of shyte for this...

[sax]

I know this is probably stating the bleeding obvious, but Ben could really do with some better representation than what he gets from Nixon.

Ben and his management should thank the AFL for their consideration and welcome the opportunity for Ben to play AFL football again.

Full stop, end of story.

Any disquiet about the conditions should be done behind closed doors and pressure should come from the AFLPA and not from Ben or his manager. If the AFLPA won't get on board, work with Ben's new club to try and bring pressure from them. Ben and his management aren't in a position to pressure anything.

If Ben walks away because the conditions are too tough then Ben's reputation will take another hit.

If Nixon tries to pressure the AFL through the media or the courts then Ben becomes and even riskier proposition for a club than he is now.

Please Ricky, for Ben's sake, just STFU.

I think you'll find the pressure is coming from the AFLPA!

[JeffDunne]

I think you'll find the pressure is coming from the AFLPA!

I'll believe that when I see it.

And by that I don't mean making a few comments in the press and then doing nothing about it.

[Saint Mik]

What a joke this is turning into, surley a hair test once a month is fair

The question needs to be asked as to how the hell a champion player can end up where he has in the first place.

I'm really getting tired of the AFL's lack of taking responsibilty for what has happened to Ben, yes he had a abuse problem but F*** ME how did he get to the point of addiction.

The WCE and the AFL turned a blind eye years ago and now Ben is paying the price, its just not right and I hope someone ANYONE ripps the shyte out of the AFL over this crap.

THE DRUG POLICY IS NOT WORKING! WAKE UP YOU MORON FAT CATS IN CHARGE OF THIS COMPETITION

[chook23]

Surely the same conditions on Ben should be applied to the
SIX who have tested postive TWICE

Not saying Bens to harsh...............

but is being treated completely different to others.

[JeffDunne]

Does anyone know if the AFL ever decided upon criteria for the return of a player if someone was suspended under the drug code (i.e. someone testing positive to performance enhancing or testing positive on a match day)?

If the AFLPA didn't have the foresight to establish criteria for a player's return after a suspension then, as usual, they have been completely derelict in their representation of players and their rights.

If the agreement was that it would be subject to whatever terms & conditions the AFL Commission wanted to impose, then I would suggest they’ve been more than derelict in their responsibilities and they hardly can complain now.

[Saint Mik]

Surely the same conditions on Ben should be applied to the
SIX who have tested postive TWICE

Not saying Bens to harsh...............

but is being treated completely different to others.

Wont be the same as others on 2 strikes becausde Ben has come out and said he has an abuse problem (had no choice but to admit it mind you), the others have not.

BUT why p!ss in a cup 3 times a week when you dont have to, a hair test once a month would give a better result for everyone, it's just another mis- managed situation from the AFL bosses once again.

Imagine being the brains trust behind the scenes at the so called meetings they have had on this one, bloody hell they all must be red faced and feeling the heat

[markp]

Once again the AFL only care about appearances and protecting their interests, and that is all.... I think Nixon and the AFLPA will probably be assured behind closed doors that so long as Ben behaves 'up to 3 times a week testing' will really mean something closer to once week at first, then once a month, etc.... But if he's hangin round Crown and being a general tool, they have just given themselves the ability to make his life very difficult.

He will play, it will be for us, and it's gonna be sensational.

[Eastern]

Seems to be 2 arguments here..

Does Benny think he cant adhere to the AFL edicts..or does he think he can but shouldnt have to because of their inconsistancy with other offenders?

If its the latter well and good and I think he has a point, but Id be hoping the former is'nt the case..cos better off without him if he thinks its too hard IMHO

There is also another side to the latter (inconsistent) arguement. If Ricky Nixon gets the required support from the AFLPA, this will completely destroy the AFL's illicit drugs policy and make Demetriou & Anderson look like complete fools. We must take into account that Ben Cousins has NEVER tested positive to illicit drugs and there are 6 players running around who are on 2 strikes

FWIW I think the AFLPA will roll over like lap dogs on this because of the funding they receive from the AFL !!

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Given the position Cousins is in, I'm a bit surprised at the reaction to be honest. Given where things ended up just over 12 months ago, by now he should have made a decision about whether he's willnig to put footy ahead of everything else - and if he has, for as long as he wants to play AFL, he ought be willing to put his hand up and say "I will do whatever is required to demonstrate I'm clean"... if I'm Ricky Nixon, my plan is to say "bring it on!"

3 tests a week is an over the top testing regime - but that's more about education on drug issues than Ben Cousins. There really aren't that many substances that are out of the bloodstream that fast (as far as I know, I'm not an expert, haven't been for quite a number of years if that's changed in the meantime, then it may even be a reasonable position). The AFL is trying to demonstrate they are "serious" about curbing drug use, and they're doing it pariah style - the response is simply to not accept the pariah tag and make the AFL look inept and misinformed in the process.

Perfectly reasonable for the AFLPA to quention what the AFL is doing. Perfectley reasonable for Nixon and Cousins to question what the AFL is doing. It only works if Cousins takes responsibiility to demonstrate the time and money wasted with an onerous testing regime.

[Eastern]

The question remains;

Why impose all these conditions on a player on NO STRIKES and not on the SIX players on TWO STRIKES.

As soon as the personalities are taken out of the equation, the entire policy is flawed !!

[joffaboy]

It is obvious the AFL dont want Cousins to play again.

Forget if he is coming to the Saints or not, that is beside the point.

The guy has never been tested positive, the guy has embarrassed Demented and his Monkey and shown their "best practice" drug policy to be a total heap of crap.

Dementriou has been given medical advice that resuming an AFl career will help Cousins the addict recover and rehabilitate.

So what does he and his fawning group of yes men do?

They completely change the rules without notifying the AFLPA and make the conditions extremely harsh.

All the while they have at least SIX current AFL who have tested positive to drugs TWICE, but do not have these harsh rules applied to them.

Some might say "oh its only a piss in a bottle", but if you know anything about drug testing and how invasive it is and how long it takes to conduct, it it tantamount to invasion of privacy and akin to a court order.

It is Demetriou at his vindictive best, and most hypocritical. He allows guilty drug offenders to run about in the AFL, some may even be premiership players, but inflicts penalties on a bloke where it could have disasterous psychological repercussions.

If Cousins doesn't play AFL again and relapses, will the small mindeness and vindictiveness of Demetriou have anything part in it?

The AFL have made it clear - steer clear of Cousins - we have spoken.

The STKFC would be well advised to heed the message. We have seen what the AFL will do if you dont.

[markp]

The question remains;

Why impose all these conditions on a player on NO STRIKES and not on the SIX players on TWO STRIKES.

As soon as the personalities are taken out of the equation, the entire policy is flawed !!

Because they don't really care about what is right or fair.

It's all about protecting the 'brand'.

[saint66au]

The question remains;

Why impose all these conditions on a player on NO STRIKES and not on the SIX players on TWO STRIKES.

As soon as the personalities are taken out of the equation, the entire policy is flawed !!

I guess the AFL's answer to that would be that Cousins has been charged with bringing the game into disrepute..different path to their drugs policy. Just so happens that his addiction is what brought on the behaviour that led to the charge. The problem is of course is that the AFL's conditions are for more conected to a drugs suspension not a disrepute suspension. If he'd been rubbed out for multiple serious driving offences, would the AFl dictate that he cant carry any passengers or drive a 6 or 8 cylinder car??

Tend to agree with Bam here..regrettably Ben hasnt got a lot of negotiating power..might be in his best interests to just suck it in, agree to whatever the AFL dictate, and use it to show how much he wants to play footy again. Let the AFLPA and AFL bicker over how unfair it is

[saintspremiers]

The question remains;

Why impose all these conditions on a player on NO STRIKES and not on the SIX players on TWO STRIKES.

As soon as the personalities are taken out of the equation, the entire policy is flawed !!

I guess the AFL's answer to that would be that Cousins has been charged with bringing the game into disrepute..different path to their drugs policy. Just so happens that his addiction is what brought on the behaviour that led to the charge. The problem is of course is that the AFL's conditions are for more conected to a drugs suspension not a disrepute suspension. If he'd been rubbed out for multiple serious driving offences, would the AFl dictate that he cant carry any passengers or drive a 6 or 8 cylinder car??

Tend to agree with Bam here..regrettably Ben hasnt got a lot of negotiating power..might be in his best interests to just suck it in, agree to whatever the AFL dictate, and use it to show how much he wants to play footy again. Let the AFLPA and AFL bicker over how unfair it is

Agree that it's up to the AFLPA to kick Dimwit's head in over this nonsense - as this path would clear us (assuming we draft him) and Benny from the limelight - so we and Ben can focus on football!

I reckon Dimwit will back down on the testing regime, or perhaps some more skeletons will come out of the closet re those on strikes already???

I agree with Joffaboy - the AFL don't want Cousins to play - it certainly sounded that way listening to the tone of the announcement yesterday.

[Beekay]

yeah, there are others (including some high-profile players) who don't even admit to having a problem. at least ben realises his.

The players that have the two strikes ?

Just because you test positive for drugs twice doesn't mean you have a problem. If you're addicted to drugs or they are affecting your life, then you have a problem.


At least Ben realises his? What the hell sort of comment is that. hahaha

[The Saintsational Man]

I just think Nixon is doing the best he can for his client.

I don't see Ben walking away for this opportunity.

[Pilgram]

I just think Nixon is doing the best he can for his client.

I don't see Ben walking away for this opportunity.

for this opportunity or from this opportunity?

[bigcarl]

At least Ben realises his? What the hell sort of comment is that. hahaha

a lot of people with substance abuse problems, including alcoholics, are in denial that they have a problem.

admitting that they do is often the first step to recovery.

it's a sane and logical comment.