Talking Footy

I'd say none on this planet. Cousins is one of a kind and is the result of being given license to live it large like a rock star/drug barron by his employer, the AFL. The AFL's drug policies need to change more like the NRL. Protecting players with drug problems and giving a three chances policy is not reflective of the rules common in australian society.

Dear oh deary me it saddens me to see what has become of Benny Cousins. Does anyone else think there should be an independent inquiry into the AFL's supposed lack of action and awareness on this poor blokes situation long long long ago?

King-Eliagh wrote:

I'd say none on this planet. Cousins is one of a kind and is the result of being given license to live it large like a rock star/drug barron by his employer, the AFL. The AFL's drug policies need to change more like the NRL. Protecting players with drug problems and giving a three chances policy is not reflective of the rules common in australian society.

Dear oh deary me it saddens me to see what has become of Benny Cousins. Does anyone else think there should be an independent inquiry into the AFL's supposed lack of action and awareness on this poor blokes situation long long long ago?

Ben Cousins developed his addictive behaviour before the current 3 strikes policy was introduced. He is therefore not a product of current policy so your comments are incorrect.

The NRL have had their fair share of drug related issues. Andrew Johns confessed to taking drugs his entire career but was never even identified by the NRL as a user.

Yes Andrew John "confessed". An act of a man who knew he had to come to terms with his past and did so in a most respectable manner. Johns clearly doesnt have, nor did have a serious drug problem.

Cousins however appears to have a very serious problem. I for one think his employer could have done more early on to help him realise the life problems such a path can create. As for your first comment Xman can you inform us when Ben Cousins developed his addictive behaviour, if you indeed know. And what was the AFL policy of the time?

Xman wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

I'd say none on this planet. Cousins is one of a kind and is the result of being given license to live it large like a rock star/drug barron by his employer, the AFL. The AFL's drug policies need to change more like the NRL. Protecting players with drug problems and giving a three chances policy is not reflective of the rules common in australian society.

Dear oh deary me it saddens me to see what has become of Benny Cousins. Does anyone else think there should be an independent inquiry into the AFL's supposed lack of action and awareness on this poor blokes situation long long long ago?

Ben Cousins developed his addictive behaviour before the current 3 strikes policy was introduced. He is therefore not a product of current policy so your comments are incorrect.

The NRL have had their fair share of drug related issues. Andrew Johns confessed to taking drugs his entire career but was never even identified by the NRL as a user.

Andrew Johns didn't have to admit anything ... but being a man , by playing a mans game all his life ... knew part of his rehab & a sense of responsability to the game & his family .. knew he had to clean about his past .
well done .. a brave thing to do =D> =D>

Ben Cousins is VFL through n through
never taking responsability
always blaming everyone else
hiding from his problems like a gutless cat

the differences between our games is vast
here is another example

King-Eliagh wrote:

Yes Andrew John "confessed". An act of a man who knew he had to come to terms with his past and did so in a most respectable manner. Johns clearly doesnt have, nor did have a serious drug problem.

Cousins however appears to have a very serious problem. I for one think his employer could have done more early on to help him realise the life problems such a path can create. As for your first comment Xman can you inform us when Ben Cousins developed his addictive behaviour, if you indeed know. And what was the AFL policy of the time?

My understanding is that the AFL, like almost every other code in the world including the NRL, didn't have a specific illicit drugs policy when Ben Cousins began his AFL career. To say they could have done more is ludicrous because they were obviously not aware he had a problem until he was found out when illicit drug testing began. When his problem became known he was suspended for a year and unable to return until he could show he was over his problem. Unfortunately for Ben his problems have returned with a vengeance. Some people are more susceptible to addictive behavior and this really seems to apply to Ben.

Andrew Johns is to be congratulated on admitting his problem. However if you think his ability to stop his habit was due to any action from the NRL you are clearly mistaken. He admitted his habit occurred through his entire career undetected. Therefore they took no action because they were unaware he had one.

Never owned up to it?

Raiderdave do just make this tripe up as you go?

cousins did an entire documentary on his battle with addiction, unlike johns 15 minute scripted footy show segmeant!!

so please come down from your nrl ivory tower and be real

Also cousins relapse also had nothing to do with the AFL as the AFLPA had offered assistance two days prior which he refused .

Well put xman, if anyone is a smoker who has attempted to quit they would know that you never shake the demon! personally i dont think anyone deserves the public humiliation he has endured, after all drug addiction is a disease.

milznjim wrote:

Never owned up to it?

Raiderdave do just make this tripe up as you go?

cousins did an entire documentary on his battle with addiction, unlike johns 15 minute scripted footy show segmeant!!

so please come down from your nrl ivory tower and be real

Also cousins relapse also had nothing to do with the AFL as the AFLPA had offered assistance two days prior which he refused .

Well put xman, if anyone is a smoker who has attempted to quit they would know that you never shake the demon! personally i dont think anyone deserves the public humiliation he has endured, after all drug addiction is a disease.

the cat made the documetary AFTER he was caught & his addicition was public
blamed everyone else for it
never took responsibility for it

a typical VFL'er

Raiderdave wrote:

milznjim wrote:

Never owned up to it?

Raiderdave do just make this tripe up as you go?

cousins did an entire documentary on his battle with addiction, unlike johns 15 minute scripted footy show segmeant!!

so please come down from your nrl ivory tower and be real

Also cousins relapse also had nothing to do with the AFL as the AFLPA had offered assistance two days prior which he refused .

Well put xman, if anyone is a smoker who has attempted to quit they would know that you never shake the demon! personally i dont think anyone deserves the public humiliation he has endured, after all drug addiction is a disease.

the cat made the documetary AFTER he was caught & his addicition was public
blamed everyone else for it
never took responsibility for it

a typical VFL'er

Rubbish

The biggest point out of the comparison between cousins and johns is that cousins was caught and johns managed to hide it for his entire career. Which Codes drug policy was more effective at finding drug use?

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

milznjim wrote:

Never owned up to it?

Raiderdave do just make this tripe up as you go?

cousins did an entire documentary on his battle with addiction, unlike johns 15 minute scripted footy show segmeant!!

so please come down from your nrl ivory tower and be real

Also cousins relapse also had nothing to do with the AFL as the AFLPA had offered assistance two days prior which he refused .

Well put xman, if anyone is a smoker who has attempted to quit they would know that you never shake the demon! personally i dont think anyone deserves the public humiliation he has endured, after all drug addiction is a disease.

the cat made the documetary AFTER he was caught & his addicition was public
blamed everyone else for it
never took responsibility for it

a typical VFL'er

Rubbish

The biggest point out of the comparison between cousins and johns is that cousins was caught and johns managed to hide it for his entire career. Which Codes drug policy was more effective at finding drug use?

there could be 100 Ben cousins on their 2nd offence out there in VFL land

but who the hell would know , not even their clubs

so quite obviously the NRL's policy is better d head

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

the cat made the documetary AFTER he was caught & his addicition was public
blamed everyone else for it
never took responsibility for it

a typical VFL'er

Rubbish

The biggest point out of the comparison between cousins and johns is that cousins was caught and johns managed to hide it for his entire career. Which Codes drug policy was more effective at finding drug use?

there could be 100 Ben cousins on their 2nd offence out there in VFL land

but who the hell would know , not even their clubs

so quite obviously the NRL's policy is better d head

Wrong!! The AFL and their club doctors know, PLUS THE RESULTS ARE RELEASED TO THE MEDIA EVERY YEAR with full transparency. =D> the only thing this policy protects is the player themselves which is totally reasonable. The AFL still take the hit by releasing their results.

Meanwhile the NRL release nothing so there could be a million strike one results, or they may not even be testing properly at all, as was seen by one of their clubs some years ago. Who knows? Sweep sweep.....

The results are released yet the players remain in a safety cocoon, their names held only by the AFL. Is this right Xman? If so is the AFL not protecting criminals? Ben Cousins would have been better off being named and shamed early on in his career rather than later when it was all unfortunately too late.

King-Eliagh wrote:

The results are released yet the players remain in a safety cocoon, their names held only by the AFL. Is this right Xman? If so is the AFL not protecting criminals? Ben Cousins would have been better off being named and shamed early on in his career rather than later when it was all unfortunately too late.

If you went to your doctor and claimed you had a drug problem he would keep this matter confidential and hopefully make arrangements for your treatment. He would not tell you family, your employer or the authorities. How is this different??

The AFL keep the players identities confidential for the benefit of the player, yet still release the overall results. This protects the players and opens the AFL up to scrutiny. This policy is to be commended. The NRL could learn a thing or two here!

The AFL is not the players doctor. They're the employer and thus there should be no incentive to protect players, who are public figures and hold a large stake in their clubs future. Harsh penalties should be put down and being public figures the players should cop it sweet like men in front of the public to which they perform and are idolized. Sure the club might assist with rehab etc but hiding them from the public provides a shadow in which players can hide their shame and thus not fully comprehend their stature in society and the need for them to acknowledge this stature. Name and shame would have helped benny cousins with a reality check rather than allowing him to shamefully hide from his misdemeanour, while his adoring fans continued to idolize him, none the wiser...

King-Eliagh wrote:

The AFL is not the players doctor. They're the employer and thus there should be no incentive to protect players, who are public figures and hold a large stake in their clubs future. Harsh penalties should be put down and being public figures the players should cop it sweet like men in front of the public to which they perform and are idolized. Sure the club might assist with rehab etc but hiding them from the public provides a shadow in which players can hide their shame and thus not fully comprehend their stature in society and the need for them to acknowledge this stature. Name and shame would have helped benny cousins with a reality check rather than allowing him to shamefully hide from his misdemeanour, while his adoring fans continued to idolize him, none the wiser...

Not sue how naming and shaming would have helped cousins given his problems have persisted since his habit was known to the public. He received a lengthy ban and was shamed as you say, yet still uses. If the current policy was in place when he first began his habit he may have been discovered earlier, educated better, and never developed such dependent behavioral patterns.

The AFL club doctors are the ones who know of the players problem. The AFL are also informed, otherwise how else would they know the results of their policy and whether a player is on strike 1,2 or 3?

The extremely well credentialled policy creators have stated that overwhelming evidence has shown a name and shame combined with punitive approach has failed dismally in addressing illicit drug use to date. This AFL policy is a totally new approach and the results speak for themselves, so much so it has been adopted by other codes. Illicit drug use amongst AFL players has plummeted every year since the policy was introduction. Where as illicit drug use in the community, who are under a punitive policy, is spiraling out of control.

"Extremely well credentialled policy makers"

Xman you're talking out of your ass again