And what’s a CPRS?

Although his failure to attend training may have been caused by drugs, there was notably no mention of drugs in his sacking.

One angle that seems to have escaped speculation is how his association with other drug users in the WCE may have contributed to his usage and subsequent addiction. By sacking Cousins for training non-attendance, it neatly sidestepped discussions of any duty of care that the club may have had to provide a safe working environment.

If the AFL is seriously interested in protecting itself from being brought into disrepute how do buffoons who urinate on nightclub windows and sexually harass women still have a job in footy?

However, if drunk driving were a reason to be dis-barred (for instance) there would be a damn sight fewer lawyers. There were, however, no charges over any of the issues for which he actually seems to have been keel-hauled.

Now, as to the disrepute. I would contend that the policy of the AFL, not to mention the medical board or bar association, was that drug use is a health issue. There are clear guidelines for how that should be addressed. Which were ignored. Instead, the fact that this was public and embarrassing has led to significant overreaction.

Now, if the medical board went similarly nova on one of my colleagues without said procedural fairness they would arrive with their slightly hung over barrister and leave with their registration intact and probably an apology, at the least. This was the point. It may well be true that, as this is a purely commercial relationship based on the sale of the intangible asset of celebrity, that Mr Cousins has no such reasonable expectation of procedural fairness.

Still an ugly sight.

Oh, and Marion Jones should simply have got herself a better endocrinologist.

Let the clubs, and only the clubs, worry about sponsors and public perceptions of their players’ behaviour. The clubs are businesses, the AFL is a regulator more or less – of their business activities, not their hiring and firing policies.

THe AFL is, and has been since the 1980s, a business with a franchise to protect. It is a great deal more than a regulator.

Most of the huffing and puffing in the media is about ecstasy and pot. Sure that would concern me as a coach, but it should be nobody’s business but the club’s own. If the AFL wants to protect it’s image, it could STFU about personal matters and stop buying into the Herald Sun’s game.

Or if they were really serious, they could attack the real drug problem in football – alcohol.

Let the clubs, and only the clubs, worry about sponsors and public perceptions of their players’ behaviour. The clubs are businesses, the AFL is a regulator more or less – of their business activities, not their hiring and firing policies.

Ben Cousins may be many things, but there is no evidence that he is an on-field cheat. And, frankly, that is what the AFL should care about.

Eddie’s squibbed this opportunity. His confidence shaken by his handling of Didak et al last year probably.

How can these idiots impose a possible 3 urine tests a week on Cousins or be the quasi judge of extreme violence on the field? Cases of common assault should be dealt with by the courts and they should have no say on drug matters when the substances are not performance enhancing. Drug rehabilitation should be taken completely out of their hands.

Still on the other hand, there are plenty to add to the plus side with Wanganeen. McLeod, Robert Harvey, Bradley, Hird, Voss all come to mind.

I hope he makes it, even though I still have bad memories of him virtually sinking the Crows single-handedly in the Prelim finals of 05 and 06. If he can do it, without a spate of soft tissue injuries (usually the fate of older players making a comeback at this level) Richmond will almost certainly be in the finals.

Drug abusers, and he is an admitted drug abuser, are a risk to the reputation of AFL professional football and therefore its revenue. The AFL has a legitimate concern to protect its business and in protecting that business it has a right to set terms, as it has, for Cousins’ continued participation in its business and to exclude him if he fails to keep to those terms.

My reference to Cousins’ Court appearance in 2006 was simply to point out the untruth of Dr S’s statement that Cousins had never been before a court for a crime let alone convicted of one. I do like people to get their facts right.

And defamation is completely irrelevant to the argument.

This man has never failed to perform in his professional capacity and has never been to court over a crime, let alone been convicted of one.

Quite frankly, if the Bar association or the Medical Board tried what the AFL have done they would be sued for a lifetimes’ earnings.

Not when the issue is one of illegal drug use and there have been public admissions of such use. Justification (truth) is a complete defence to a defamation action, except in New South Wales.

Oh, and he was in Court in Perth in February 2006 where he pleaded guilty to one count of obstructing traffic and one count of obstructing police (both of which are crimes) and was fined $900.

He has been an over-indulged young man. It will be interesting to see if his time at Richmond is one of further over-indulgence or one of achievement.

Quite frankly, if the Bar association or the Medical Board tried what the AFL have done they would be sued for a lifetimes’ earnings.

Probably rightly.