Ben Cousins

[JAS]

Give him a break.....

Brake.....

Lets get behind him....

Sorry Dog_ger but no way..the guy deserves nothing...especially after that shaving/waxing stunt...yeh that really sent out the right message of remorse and a willingness to toe the line.

If I'd ever been moronic enough to try illegal drugs and got caught I'd have been immediately kicked out of my career without benefits, reference or any right of appeal...zero tolerance...should be brought into every workplace imo. Doesn't stop it completely...nothing ever will cos there will always be dh's...but it makes a lot of people think twice.

Regards
JAS

[Dutchy]

Give him a break.....

Brake.....

Lets get behind him....

Sorry Dog_ger but no way..the guy deserves nothing...especially after that shaving/waxing stunt...yeh that really sent out the right message of remorse and a willingness to toe the line.

If I'd ever been moronic enough to try illegal drugs and got caught I'd have been immediately kicked out of my career without benefits, reference or any right of appeal...zero tolerance...should be brought into every workplace imo. Doesn't stop it completely...nothing ever will cos there will always be dh's...but it makes a lot of people think twice.

Regards
JAS

Yet there are 6 players in the AFL system right now that have tested positive TWICE, cousins isnt one of them, I guess the ones that got caught didnt consult Psyber....

[Psyber]

Give him a break.....
Brake.....
Lets get behind him....

Sorry Dog_ger but no way..the guy deserves nothing...especially after that shaving/waxing stunt...yeh that really sent out the right message of remorse and a willingness to toe the line.

If I'd ever been moronic enough to try illegal drugs and got caught I'd have been immediately kicked out of my career without benefits, reference or any right of appeal...zero tolerance...should be brought into every workplace imo. Doesn't stop it completely...nothing ever will cos there will always be dh's...but it makes a lot of people think twice.

Regards
JAS

Yet there are 6 players in the AFL system right now that have tested positive TWICE, cousins isnt one of them, I guess the ones that got caught didnt consult Psyber....

It wouldn't have helped if they had. The stuff I mentioned here they all know, and I wouldn't have told them anything they didn't know.
I've turned down various offers from druggies in the past...

[Titanic]

Give him a break.....
Brake.....
Lets get behind him....

Sorry Dog_ger but no way..the guy deserves nothing...especially after that shaving/waxing stunt...yeh that really sent out the right message of remorse and a willingness to toe the line.

If I'd ever been moronic enough to try illegal drugs and got caught I'd have been immediately kicked out of my career without benefits, reference or any right of appeal...zero tolerance...should be brought into every workplace imo. Doesn't stop it completely...nothing ever will cos there will always be dh's...but it makes a lot of people think twice.

Regards
JAS

Yet there are 6 players in the AFL system right now that have tested positive TWICE, cousins isnt one of them, I guess the ones that got caught didnt consult Psyber....

It wouldn't have helped if they had. The stuff I mentioned here they all know, and I wouldn't have told them anything they didn't know.
I've turned down various offers from druggies in the past...

I think JAS must live in a cocoon.Addiction is a illness just like alcoholism.I agree that zero tolerance in the work place is a must for the saftey of others when it comes to substances of addiction.The AFL are the ones who bought in the 3 STRIKES policy so this should apply to all equally.Cousins is a self confessed addict,not caught like the other 6 players on their 2nd strike.He never tested positive in a AFL drug test.If he makes it back to play AFL at the elite level he will be living proof to all other addicts that you can get clean and rise above it and get your life back drug free.I think we would be naive if we think he is the only player in the AFL with a substance abuse problem.To call people morons for trying drugs is dumb.Drugs are a fact of life and education about them to all young people in all walks of life is what is needed IMO.

[Psyber]

I think JAS must live in a cocoon.Addiction is a illness just like alcoholism....

Addiction including alcoholism is an "illness" only to the extent that some people are genetically predisposed to become addicted more easily than others, and because anyone can develop a physiological change creating dependency on any addictive substance if they use enough of it for long enough. From memory I think for alcohol it is about 1 person in 7.

However, there is an element of choice.
One can choose not to overuse/abuse addictive substances in the first place.
One can heed the warnings - I did the one time I drove home and didn't remember doing so the next day - it was sometime in 1976 I think.

If you get addicted to something and get a withdrawal reaction, there is a choice - you are not helpless in the grip of a purely medical condition.
You can say "this is too hard" and go get more of your drug of choice or a substitute, or you can taper down the dose, under medical supervision if it is severe, and bear the pain and discomfort for as long as it takes. Physiological withdrawal can be anything from a few days to 10 or 14 days depending on the severity of physiological dependence.

Then you no longer chemically addicted, unless you go back to using and start the pattern again.
However, you are now sensitised and predisposed to become physiologically addicted more easily on using the drug again.
Habit, or psychological dependence, is a longer fight, and thence one can get into the debate about whether that is illness or choice.

[Hondo]

Yet there are 6 players in the AFL system right now that have tested positive TWICE, cousins isnt one of them, I guess the ones that got caught didnt consult Psyber....

The AFL are the ones who bought in the 3 STRIKES policy so this should apply to all equally.Cousins is a self confessed addict,not caught like the other 6 players on their 2nd strike.He never tested positive in a AFL drug test.

For the record, I hope Ben gets it all sorted and gets to play AFL again. However, I feel the need to keep chiming in to clarify the same points.

1 - The AFL are not holding him back now, it's the actual clubs in not drafting him (so far).

2 - His own club sacked him before the AFL stepped in and suspended him. This is not an AFL conspiracy.

3 - Even though his alleged drug use would have been a factor, his crime according to the AFL was "bringing the game into disrepute" due to a series of public incidents that have been well documented. Drugs may have been the cause, but drug use was not what he was suspended for directly.

4 - Never testing positive for a drug test is irrelevant. He's admitted to the crime that the testing was trying to catch so we may as well assume he did test positive, it's the same end result.

5 - Finally on this "admission". Let's be honest, he didn't walk into AFL HQ at the start of 2007, confess his sins and say "please sack me". Yes, he (grudgingly it seemed) admitted to drug addiction but that was afterwards and was part of his PR campaign to get back to the game.

He was a great player and I'd like to seem get a second chance. But let's not get confused about what's got him here.

[Adelaide Hawk]

I believe you are spot on the money Hondo. We should never lose sight of the events that culminated in Cousins not being selected in the draft. Nor should we lose sight of the reasons why they occured.

Whereas I have no axe to grind with Cousins, part of me really hoped he missed being drafted in order for the message to be learned. Up to now, there is still a level of tolerence amongst AFL players towards drugs. IMHO, had Cousins been picked up, it would have been seen as a green tick for drugs.

Seeing a great player such as Cousins being overlooked by all 16 clubs, hopefully this will ram home the message that the AFL is serious about drugs, and behaviour such as Ben's will not be tolerated.

Players are paid as professionals, it's time they began to behave like professionals ... both on and off the field.

[Psyber]

Yes - good sumnmary of the situation Hondo.

[Q.]

Sorry Dog_ger but no way..the guy deserves nothing...especially after that shaving/waxing stunt...yeh that really sent out the right message of remorse and a willingness to toe the line.

If I'd ever been moronic enough to try illegal drugs and got caught I'd have been immediately kicked out of my career without benefits, reference or any right of appeal...zero tolerance...should be brought into every workplace imo. Doesn't stop it completely...nothing ever will cos there will always be dh's...but it makes a lot of people think twice.

Regards
JAS

I don't want to detract too much from the core argument of this thread, but that isn't a rational point of view. It is the basic right of an individual to have self-determination and what they do out of hours is nobody's business.

If you call for zero tolerance, how about zero tolerance to all drugs, that includes alcohol and nicotene. Wonder how many people will be left at your workplace then?

[Psyber]

Sorry Dog_ger but no way..the guy deserves nothing...especially after that shaving/waxing stunt...yeh that really sent out the right message of remorse and a willingness to toe the line.

If I'd ever been moronic enough to try illegal drugs and got caught I'd have been immediately kicked out of my career without benefits, reference or any right of appeal...zero tolerance...should be brought into every workplace imo. Doesn't stop it completely...nothing ever will cos there will always be dh's...but it makes a lot of people think twice.

Regards
JAS

I don't want to detract too much from the core argument of this thread, but that isn't a rational point of view. It is the basic right of an individual to have self-determination and what they do out of hours is nobody's business.
If you call for zero tolerance, how about zero tolerance to all drugs, that includes alcohol and nicotene. Wonder how many people will be left at your workplace then?

That's not entirely rational either Quichey. Alcohol and Nicotine have an established place because they have been part of our culture for a long time and most people have used them in a culturally integrated way with restraint, not to get "off your face" with them. New drugs tend to be adopted with that "off your face" intent. The "off your face" generation though are showing signs of increasingly using alcohol in that way too, and it is possible we may see that push society towards a new trend to prohibition of alcohol as a result, as is already happening with cigarettes.

However, the replacement of cigarettes with other sources of addictive nicotine, and of addictive caffeine with "natural Guarana" which is high in caffeine anyway, shows how little people think things through.

Guarana (Portuguese guaraná) (IPA: [ɡu̯a.ra.'na], [ɡu̯a.ɾa.'na] or [ɡu̯a.'ɹa.na]), Paullinia cupana (syn. P. crysan, P. sorbilis), is a climbing plant in the Sapindaceae family, native to the Amazon basin and especially common in Brazil. Guarana features large leaves and clusters of flowers, and is best known for its fruit, which is about the size of a coffee berry. Each fruit harbors one seed which contains approximately five times as much caffeine as coffee beans.

[Q.]

Sorry Dog_ger but no way..the guy deserves nothing...especially after that shaving/waxing stunt...yeh that really sent out the right message of remorse and a willingness to toe the line.

If I'd ever been moronic enough to try illegal drugs and got caught I'd have been immediately kicked out of my career without benefits, reference or any right of appeal...zero tolerance...should be brought into every workplace imo. Doesn't stop it completely...nothing ever will cos there will always be dh's...but it makes a lot of people think twice.

Regards
JAS

I don't want to detract too much from the core argument of this thread, but that isn't a rational point of view. It is the basic right of an individual to have self-determination and what they do out of hours is nobody's business.
If you call for zero tolerance, how about zero tolerance to all drugs, that includes alcohol and nicotene. Wonder how many people will be left at your workplace then?

That's not entirely rational either Quichey. Alcohol and Nicotine have an established place because they have been part of our culture for a long time and most people have used them in a culturally integrated way with restraint, not to get "off your face" with them. New drugs tend to be adopted with that "off your face" intent. The "off your face" generation though are showing signs of increasingly using alcohol in that way too, and it is possible we may see that push society towards a new trend to prohibition of alcohol as a result, as is already happening with cigarettes.

Regardless of intent (besides the fact that I find the term 'off your face', or any other generic term like 'high' etc., to be a fairly arbitrary concept) it is basic that we should be given the right to self-determination.

Secondly, I would say that alcohol has never been entirely used with restraint and there is little to suggest that tobacco has EVER been used with the restraint by the majority in Western culture. Their place in our history only allows us to tolerate or rather, turn a blind eye, to the consequences.

[Drop Bear]

To my knowledge Cousins has never come out and said "he's sorry for using drugs" or that "drugs are bad". He's a great player and I would have liked to see him in Brisbane when he's fully fit, but he hasn't really helped his situation too much.

[Psyber]

..Regardless of intent (besides the fact that I find the term 'off your face', or any other generic term like 'high' etc., to be a fairly arbitrary concept) it is basic that we should be given the right to self-determination.

Secondly, I would say that alcohol has never been entirely used with restraint and there is little to suggest that tobacco has EVER been used with the restraint by the majority in Western culture. Their place in our history only allows us to tolerate or rather, turn a blind eye, to the consequences.

Self-determination is fine until it reaches the point of making the streets and roads unsafe for innocent bystanders, and infringing on their freedom and impairing their right to self-dertimination too far.
The right to self-determination, and the patterns of use of alcohol you refer to in you second point, have always been cyclical. Society tolerates a certain amount of delinquent behaviour until it becomes too threatening to the general public, and then slowly responds and tightens up again. We are now late in a cycle of loosening up that began in the late 1960s, and I suspect, from the noises the press and politicians are increasingly making, that we are about to see the other side of that cycle, with, in Melbourne for example, increasing police presence in the city and calls for earlier closing of venues, and for enforcing the drunk and disorderly laws that have been ignored for some years. An early sign of this was debate about the public cost of treating the health damage caused by people exercising their right to self-determination but not their right to self-restraint. I was talking to a local lawyer about this recently.

I agree about tobacco. The problem was the myth that it was harmless lasted a long time, despite the first reports of the correlation between smoking tobacco and an increased risk of heart attack appearing in The Lancet in 1903. The tobacco industry lobby was very effective. It was only the relatively new studies suggesting passive smoking was not harmless that made it a public well-being issue as well as just a matter of self-determination and personal health risk - but with the health bills of that self-determination being picked up by the public!

The same cycles of tolerance level occur in other areas too. For example in SA, the government tried the policy of closing the old "lunatic asylums" and treating psychiatrically disturbed people in the community in the 1890s, and by 1928 [I think that was the year] was again building a new "Receiving House" at Enfield and increasing the number of long-stay beds. John Clayer wrote an article about the cycles when he was deputy director of Mental Health Services in SA some years ago, when the present cycle of trying the same idea began.

[Q.]

Self-determination is fine until it reaches the point of making the streets and roads unsafe for innocent bystanders, and infringing on their freedom and impairing their right to self-dertimination too far.

And I don't disagree with you Psyber.

However, IMO, where given greater freedom to exercise self-determination though, it removes the criminal element and the cost to taxpayers is transferred to health and education, thereby allowing for a harm minimisation (rather than zero tolerance which is information biased and proven to be inneffective) approach that teaches self restraint.

The right to self-determination, and the patterns of use of alcohol you refer to in you second point, have always been cyclical. Society tolerates a certain amount of delinquent behaviour until it becomes too threatening to the general public, and then slowly responds and tightens up again. We are now late in a cycle of loosening up that began in the late 1960s, and I suspect, from the noises the press and politicians are increasingly making, that we are about to see the other side of that cycle, with, in Melbourne for example, increasing police presence in the city and calls for earlier closing of venues, and for enforcing the drunk and disorderly laws that have been ignored for some years. An early sign of this was debate about the public cost of treating the health damage caused by people exercising their right to self-determination but not their right to self-restraint. I was talking to a local lawyer about this recently.

I find that kind of ad hoc policy making to be reactionary and feel it doesn't tackle the root issues leading to said problems.


I certainly agree that the right to self-determination goes as far as as to not infringe on another's. How we tackle that small percentage that break that rule is hard to say, but I don't believe it lies in the blanket ban on certain civil liberties.

[Psyber]

I agree with what you say above Quichey. But we do have to face the reality that some people are simply nasty and selfish and can't be changed, either because the behaviour has been too entrenched for too long, or because there is a genetic factor.
In my public service days I also had to deal with a few sociopaths, and I think that is a fault in the wiring rather than the upbringing and training.

[JAS]

Sorry Dog_ger but no way..the guy deserves nothing...especially after that shaving/waxing stunt...yeh that really sent out the right message of remorse and a willingness to toe the line.

If I'd ever been moronic enough to try illegal drugs and got caught I'd have been immediately kicked out of my career without benefits, reference or any right of appeal...zero tolerance...should be brought into every workplace imo. Doesn't stop it completely...nothing ever will cos there will always be dh's...but it makes a lot of people think twice.

Regards
JAS

I don't want to detract too much from the core argument of this thread, but that isn't a rational point of view. It is the basic right of an individual to have self-determination and what they do out of hours is nobody's business.

If you call for zero tolerance, how about zero tolerance to all drugs, that includes alcohol and nicotene. Wonder how many people will be left at your workplace then?

If alcohol and nicotine were illegal then I'm pretty sure there would have been zero tolerance of them too. I'm afraid the 'what I do outside of work is nobody elses business' arguement doesn't always apply. My actions outside work could have relevance to my career and, if necessary, could be scrutinised at will by my employers...but you accept that when you work for the military or government.

I believe that in Cousins case his actions outside work are also relevant. He chose a career that would knowingly put him in the spotlight and subject him to a certain amount of public/media scrutiny. The same applies to any sportsperson the same way it does to actors and popstars. You can't flaunt yourself in front of the cameras etc when it suits you and then expect the cleb obsessed public who lap up every article or appearance to back off so you can indulge your hedonistic lifestyle in private. IMHO if he can't accept responsability for the way he represents his sport on and off field and set an example to other players and his army of young fans then he's in the wrong job. And just to be clear it's not only him...I say the same about anyone who behaves in a similar way...George Best, Gazza, Kate Moss, her DH ex etc etc etc.

Regards
JAS

[rod_rooster]

*

[Adelaide Hawk]

If alcohol and nicotine were illegal then I'm pretty sure there would have been zero tolerance of them too. I'm afraid the 'what I do outside of work is nobody elses business' arguement doesn't always apply. My actions outside work could have relevance to my career and, if necessary, could be scrutinised at will by my employers...but you accept that when you work for the military or government.

I believe that in Cousins case his actions outside work are also relevant. He chose a career that would knowingly put him in the spotlight and subject him to a certain amount of public/media scrutiny. The same applies to any sportsperson the same way it does to actors and popstars. You can't flaunt yourself in front of the cameras etc when it suits you and then expect the cleb obsessed public who lap up every article or appearance to back off so you can indulge your hedonistic lifestyle in private. IMHO if he can't accept responsability for the way he represents his sport on and off field and set an example to other players and his army of young fans then he's in the wrong job. And just to be clear it's not only him...I say the same about anyone who behaves in a similar way...George Best, Gazza, Kate Moss, her DH ex etc etc etc.

Regards
JAS

The two highlighted quotes are my thoughts entirely, and well said. I'm often bemused by sporting "heroes" who use the media to further their careeers both on and off the field, and then complain they get no privacy. They want the best of both worlds and it simply isn't possible.

This is where Andrew Symonds disappoints me a little. He does commercials etc showing the Aussie public that he's one of the boys, a great bloke, etc, and yet he hates members of the public approaching him in public places. Work that one out.

[Q.]

I agree with what you say above Quichey. But we do have to face the reality that some people are simply nasty and selfish and can't be changed, either because the behaviour has been too entrenched for too long, or because there is a genetic factor.
In my public service days I also had to deal with a few sociopaths, and I think that is a fault in the wiring rather than the upbringing and training.

But, only a very tiny portion of the population could be 100% labelled as such.

[Q.]

Sorry Dog_ger but no way..the guy deserves nothing...especially after that shaving/waxing stunt...yeh that really sent out the right message of remorse and a willingness to toe the line.

If I'd ever been moronic enough to try illegal drugs and got caught I'd have been immediately kicked out of my career without benefits, reference or any right of appeal...zero tolerance...should be brought into every workplace imo. Doesn't stop it completely...nothing ever will cos there will always be dh's...but it makes a lot of people think twice.

Regards
JAS

I don't want to detract too much from the core argument of this thread, but that isn't a rational point of view. It is the basic right of an individual to have self-determination and what they do out of hours is nobody's business.

If you call for zero tolerance, how about zero tolerance to all drugs, that includes alcohol and nicotene. Wonder how many people will be left at your workplace then?

If alcohol and nicotine were illegal then I'm pretty sure there would have been zero tolerance of them too. I'm afraid the 'what I do outside of work is nobody elses business' arguement doesn't always apply. My actions outside work could have relevance to my career and, if necessary, could be scrutinised at will by my employers...but you accept that when you work for the military or government.

I believe that in Cousins case his actions outside work are also relevant. He chose a career that would knowingly put him in the spotlight and subject him to a certain amount of public/media scrutiny. The same applies to any sportsperson the same way it does to actors and popstars. You can't flaunt yourself in front of the cameras etc when it suits you and then expect the cleb obsessed public who lap up every article or appearance to back off so you can indulge your hedonistic lifestyle in private. IMHO if he can't accept responsability for the way he represents his sport on and off field and set an example to other players and his army of young fans then he's in the wrong job. And just to be clear it's not only him...I say the same about anyone who behaves in a similar way...George Best, Gazza, Kate Moss, her DH ex etc etc etc.

Regards
JAS

Of course our actions outside of work could impact on our actual work. My heavy drinking could impact on my performance. Mrs Y's poor diet could impact, Mr X's marital tension could impact, Mr Z staying up all night playing World of Warcraft could impact. These are all life choices that may or may not impact on our work. But let us be judged on how we actually perform at work regardless of what we do outside of it.

JAS, I went to task over your original statement of blanket testing in every workplace. Besides its implications on morale in the workplace, I don't see us solely as a commodity for profit. We aren't robots, most of us don't live to work.

Obviously the Cousin's saga throws a heap of other factors into the mix, some of which you have mentioned. We could easily turn this into a discussion about the bloodthirsty nature of tabloid media vs the vapid, attention-seeking celebrity culture.