Ben Cousins

[rod_rooster]

Your only here once.....

Poor Bugga has to be drug tested 3 times a week.....

How many Footysa'ers would pass this test....?

Speak up...

Depends what they are testing for.

[Dog_ger]

Everything....

Booze....

Unclean air.

Do you sit with smokers...?

Toothpaste overdose.....

[rod_rooster]

Is booze really going to be tested for? It is neither an illegal drug nor a banned substance. What give the AFL the right to do this? Same goes for cigarretes. Really the AFL want to be seen to be tough on this matter but they are going over the top IMHO.

It is being reported this morning that Cousins is unhappy with the conditions and may elect not to play if they aren't amended. I personally don't blame him. It's probably just not worth the hassle. Had to laugh at this line in an article i read this morning as well:

In detailing Cousins' comeback, the AFL revealed he did not have a hair test in the lead-up to Tuesday’s announcement.

The Herald Sun has learnt the AFL-appointed medical officer could not find hair long enough on Cousins needed for a satisfactory drugs test.

The procedures in place are clearly state of the art and foolproof How many players will be sporting shaved heads and be heading in for a back, crack and sack after hearing this

[Psyber]

The guy has been addicted to at least one addictive substance, denied it for a while, then later claimed to be recovered when he clearly wasn't.
People with addiction problems commonly move from one substance to another if they can't get their preferred option, and they lie...
So, the restriction has to apply to all addictive substances and all need to be rigorously checked if they are going to let him return as a player.
[I suspect someone vocal at St Kilda may be concerned about getting caught out too if the club takes on Benny and attracts attention to itself.]

[hearts on fire]

I hope Ben gets back and plays footy. I couldn't care who he played for, he is just a great footballer and a joy to watch.

I think the AFL have restricted him to much, they can test him all they want for drugs, but i think testing for alcohol and other things is taking it to far.

[rod_rooster]

The guy has been addicted to at least one addictive substance, denied it for a while, then later claimed to be recovered when he clearly wasn't.
People with addiction problems commonly move from one substance to another if they can't get their preferred option, and they lie...
So, the restriction has to apply to all addictive substances and all need to be rigorously checked if they are going to let him return as a player.
[I suspect someone vocal at St Kilda may be concerned about getting caught out too if the club takes on Benny and attracts attention to itself.]

Why should it apply to all addictive substances though? What is to say he will become addicted to alcohol or cigarettes? Who's right is it to decide if he can be a smoker of tobacco or not? A lot of people smoke and are addicted. It is not illegal and doesn't breach the laws of the game. Who gives the AFL the right to ban him smoking or having a few drinks? Sure test for illegal drugs or any performance enhancing drugs but other than that it's no-ones business. I've lost count of the number of AFL footballers i have seen smoking. Should they all be banned? Seriously the guy needs to be left alone a bit. If he breaks the rules then sure ban him but having a drink or smoking tobacco is not either against the law or against AFL rules and quite frankly is nobody else's business.

[Booney]

Just wondering, what is it he was found guilty of?

[Strawb]

I would pass a drug test easily my job requires me to be drug and booze free.

[Booney]

I'll go for a drug test.

Whatchya got?

[wycbloods]

Just wondering, what is it he was found guilty of?

Bringing the game into "disrepute" i believe. He has never tested positive to a banned substance whilst an AFL footballer.

[Booney]

Just wondering, what is it he was found guilty of?

Bringing the game into "disrepute" i believe. He has never tested positive to a banned substance whilst an AFL footballer.

I rest my case your honour.

[silicone skyline]

Just wondering, what is it he was found guilty of?

He confessed he was an addict Booney. He dobbed himself in. Guilty as charged.

[Booney]

No,wrong,not guilty. Ashamed,embarrased yes.

If I walk up to a copper tomorrow and I tell him I drove home Friday night from the pub with a skin full,can he take my licence off me or have me charged with drink driving? No he cant.

I think the AFL has been harsh on Cousins when he never tested positive to anything,yet there are 5 maybe 6 players who have reportedly tested positive once or more that are still in the system and have not paid any penalty.

Inconsistent IMO.

[rod_rooster]

No,wrong,not guilty. Ashamed,embarrased yes.

If I walk up to a copper tomorrow and I tell him I drove home Friday night from the pub with a skin full,can he take my licence off me or have me charged with drink driving? No he cant.

I think the AFL has been harsh on Cousins when he never tested positive to anything,yet there are 5 maybe 6 players who have reportedly tested positive once or more that are still in the system and have not paid any penalty.

Inconsistent IMO.

Well said Booney. The AFL appear to be punishing the guy for taking all the right steps to rehabilitate himself. I am not suggesting for a second that he should not be monitored for his own sake but the measures in place are over the top and disproportionate to what players who have actually been caught are subjected to IMHO. It just looks to me like the AFL don't actually give a stuff about the welfare of the players as long as they are appearing to care in a high profile case such as Cousins'.

[Psyber]

Why should it apply to all addictive substances though? What is to say he will become addicted to alcohol or cigarettes? Who's right is it to decide if he can be a smoker of tobacco or not? A lot of people smoke and are addicted. It is not illegal and doesn't breach the laws of the game. Who gives the AFL the right to ban him smoking or having a few drinks? Sure test for illegal drugs or any performance enhancing drugs but other than that it's no-ones business. I've lost count of the number of AFL footballers i have seen smoking. Should they all be banned? Seriously the guy needs to be left alone a bit. If he breaks the rules then sure ban him but having a drink or smoking tobacco is not either against the law or against AFL rules and quite frankly is nobody else's business.

As I said, and it is based on having worked as a consultant to drug and alcohol programmes, "People with addiction problems commonly move from one substance to another if they can't get their preferred option.."

He admitted to his addiction eventually, so it doesn't have to be proved by test. Any addictive personality is at high risk of drifting into an addictive pattern with any other addictive substance they indulge in. The problem is not addiction to one substance but addictive behaviour patterns. Multi-substance abuse and addiction is the common end result.

If we care about his successful recovery he needs to be encouraged strongly to avoid all addictive substances, not just illegal ones, and not to be told the legal ones are OK to abuse, because others in the team do. Returning to a sporting team environment increases his risk of relapse into addiction to something developing, even if it is "only" alcohol. His drifting back into an addictive path with any substance will also affect his club and the AFL, so they are justified in setting clear and comprehensive limits with all substances of potential abuse if they are to give him another go, and not create an environment that may push him toward relapse.

We are not talking about punishing a guy for something that can't be proved in a Court, but setting limits on a behaviour pattern that became obvous in other situations and which he eventually admitted so neither he nor his club, nor the AFL, are damaged.

[Hondo]

Why should it apply to all addictive substances though?

Who's saying it does? Have I missed something? I thought it was just illegal drugs that would lead him to be suspended again.

Booney, he's admitted he is/was an addict. In this situation, it's irrelevant whether he's ever been convicted by the police. If an employee in a zero-tolerance work place fails a proper test then he can't say "oh hang on the Police have never convicted me of anything". That's ridiculous.

[rod_rooster]

Why should it apply to all addictive substances though?

Who's saying it does? Have I missed something? I thought it was just illegal drugs that would lead him to be suspended again.

Sorry hondo i was just commenting on what has been implied by others in this thread. I personally have no idea exactly what he will be tested for.

[Psyber]

..Sorry hondo i was just commenting on what has been implied by others in this thread. I personally have no idea exactly what he will be tested for.

I am going on what others have said or implied, too, and on the fundamental principles of managing addictive behaviour patterns. I haven't read what he is actually going to be tested for.

[rod_rooster]

Why should it apply to all addictive substances though? What is to say he will become addicted to alcohol or cigarettes? Who's right is it to decide if he can be a smoker of tobacco or not? A lot of people smoke and are addicted. It is not illegal and doesn't breach the laws of the game. Who gives the AFL the right to ban him smoking or having a few drinks? Sure test for illegal drugs or any performance enhancing drugs but other than that it's no-ones business. I've lost count of the number of AFL footballers i have seen smoking. Should they all be banned? Seriously the guy needs to be left alone a bit. If he breaks the rules then sure ban him but having a drink or smoking tobacco is not either against the law or against AFL rules and quite frankly is nobody else's business.

As I said, and it is based on having worked as a consultant to drug and alcohol programmes, "People with addiction problems commonly move from one substance to another if they can't get their preferred option.."

He admitted to his addiction eventually, so it doesn't have to be proved by test. Any addictive personality is at high risk of drifting into an addictive pattern with any other addictive substance they indulge in. The problem is not addiction to one substance but addictive behaviour patterns. Multi-substance abuse and addiction is the common end result.

If we care about his successful recovery he needs to be encouraged strongly to avoid all addictive substances, not just illegal ones, and not to be told the legal ones are OK to abuse, because others in the team do. Returning to a sporting team environment increases his risk of relapse into addiction to something developing, even if it is "only" alcohol. His drifting back into an addictive path with any substance will also affect his club and the AFL, so they are justified in setting clear and comprehensive limits with all substances of potential abuse if they are to give him another go, and not create an environment that may push him toward relapse.

We are not talking about punishing a guy for something that can't be proved in a Court, but setting limits on a behaviour pattern that became obvous in other situations and which he eventually admitted so neither he nor his club, nor the AFL, are damaged.

I do not disagree with what you have said. I am only going by what has been suggested in this thread regarding the drugs tested for etc. and it worries me a lot. If for example they are testing for all drugs including alcohol and cigarettes why are they more concerned about Cousins than other players? Is the threat of banning him the best way to assist his recovery? What do the AFL do for other footballers who are chain smokers?

My issue is not so much with the conditions imposed on Cousins more so my issue is that the AFL are trying to make out they are doing this in the best interests of the player whilst turning a blind eye to other players. All the AFL cares about is it's image and not the players welfare. The Cousins situation just proves that IMHO.

[Hondo]

..Sorry hondo i was just commenting on what has been implied by others in this thread. I personally have no idea exactly what he will be tested for.

I am going on what others have said or implied, too, and on the fundamental principles of managing addictive behaviour patterns. I haven't read what he is actually going to be tested for.

OK, no dramas

I thought Dog_ger's post had been taken more seriously than was his intention