McAlmanac wrote:BPBRB wrote:McAlmanac wrote:How can the AFL punish a bloke that they couldn't identify any misdemeanour with?
He's obviously going to be subject to intense drug testing scrutiny now, so everybody should just calm down and get on with life.
When it comes to role models, who has shown greater disrespect for standards in society - Ben Cousins or Stephen Milne and Leigh Montagna?
Despite the AFL stating that Cousins would be subjected to very strict drug tests on his comeback, it was announced on Foxtel's "On the Couch" that he was not tested after the game nor the next day?![]()
The AFL don't give a rat's as long as their image is not tarnished.
I agree that it was poor that he wasn't tested, but who seriously believes he would turn up to that one off his dial. The monitoring needs a less obvious approach than that.
As for the AFL showing a harder line - what option did they have? If they suspend him without a positive drug test, they're just going to get hammered in the courts.
Well no-one would believe that Cousins would be so stupid to turn up "off his dial" but that's not the point. The AFL spruked that is was going to be stringent in it's monitoring of Cousins and test him 3 to 4 times a week and the obvious would have been at least the following day but they failed to do even that.
He has since being back in WA been out "socialising" until the early hours and given he is not long out of re-hab and being in an environment that he could be tempted to "indulge" and fall off the wagon so to speak, it seems that eveyone including the AFL has been convinced that he has made a full recovery and will never transgress again?
A lot of this talk and conditions supposedly imposed on Cousins as part of his return to the game seems just to be lip service. IMO I think the AFL don't want to test him too often for fear of finding him in breach and that will not sit well with the image etc they would want to portray?