Comments on: It's more important than the CPRS…

By: Declutter

Declutter — Fri, 29 May 2009 03:52:22 +0000

What about all the other players who are just left with their drug taking behavior. It will come up again when the next superstar is caught.

By: Auto1

Auto1 — Fri, 29 May 2009 02:16:33 +0000

I am a supporter of Ben Cousin’s. We need to get more support structures in place to make sure these young players who are paid crazy money and given god like status also learn how to deal with the pressures and not turn to drugs.

By: AFL

AFL — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:05:33 +0000

I’m not a Richmond supporter but I just took out Richmond membership in support of Ben Cousins.

And what’s a CPRS?

By: Ben Cousins

Ben Cousins — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:34:13 +0000

West Coast sacked Ben Cousins for his failure to attend training without reason.

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?

By: Dr S

Dr S — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:23:18 +0000

Yup wrong on the drunk driving, apologies about that one.

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.

By: GregM

GregM — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:18:19 +0000

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.

By: FDB

FDB — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:58:00 +0000

Liam – he’s only really cheated himself though.

By: wilful

wilful — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:57:08 +0000

I think that the individual clubs should be putting in whatever testing regimes they want to protect their assets from wasting their time and money with drugs. But the AFL should stay the hell away from non-performance enhancing drugs, it should be none of their business.

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.

By: Liam

Liam — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:43:17 +0000

Robert, I’m sympathetic to that position, as I’m of the opinion—without any evidence—that coke and speed and beer during the week have little or no game day performance-enhancing capacity. I dislike professional sport’s no-party drugs stance exactly because it confuses cheating and health.
I was pointing out to Dr S that it’s quite easy to bring a sport into disrepute without returning a positive sample for anything. On any account Cousins has broken more laws than Marion Jones, and endangered the lives of more people. Why should a drink-driver be more redeemable than a perjurer?
Besides which, there’s a very real sense in which Cousins has cheated every other AFL player who submits to the no-cocaine-in-professional-sport rule. Everyone else’s training regime involves abstention, why shouldn’t his?

By: FDB

FDB — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:41:56 +0000

Definitely Robert.

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.