Is Ben a smartarse?

[SENsei]

Ricky is quoted, that he passed the last six weeks worth of urine tests...

He also passed all of those whilst apparently regularly on the gear.

cos of course you know that for a fact

There were reports to that effect. Of course I don't know that for fact, that's why I put 'apparently' in my post.

'Apparently', back in Ken Judge's days he was warned of BC's behaviour...and early doors John Worsfold was warned of his drug use.

Yet he never tested positive....but has admitted to being a drug addict.

I'd don't think it's too hard to join to dots.


Andrew Johns also admitted being a drug addict whilst playing but did he test positive?

[SaintHomer]

he is... and i for one am happy with the boards decision last night (although it appears im in the minority).

i said in another thread that he may have been an acceptible risk, but im glad we didn't take it.

well done board

What was the risk?

can you honestly not see a risk in taking a 30 y.o selfconfessed drug addict with a history of hamstring injuries?

[SENsei]

Just to add, my major point is:

Why shave your head and wax your body so you cannot give a hair sample just prior to the AFL making a call on your football future?

What was there to gain in doing such a thing?

[rodgerfox]

he is... and i for one am happy with the boards decision last night (although it appears im in the minority).

i said in another thread that he may have been an acceptible risk, but im glad we didn't take it.

well done board

What was the risk?

can you honestly not see a risk in taking a 30 y.o selfconfessed drug addict with a history of hamstring injuries?

The drug addict part I can't see as a risk - it hasn't been an issue for him on-field in the past.

Certainly the 30yo bit could be a risk. The hammies I wouldn't say is a 'historical' thing.

If the 30yo thing and the hammy thing is a risk, why have we drafted other injury prone and old rejects?

[fonz_#15]

Just to add, my major point is:

Why shave your head and wax your body so you cannot give a hair sample just prior to the AFL making a call on your football future?

What was there to gain in doing such a thing?

very little, but i suppose i am in the minority when i say that i don't care if he is clean or not, i just wanted him in a st.kilda jumper.

[SaintHomer]

he is... and i for one am happy with the boards decision last night (although it appears im in the minority).

i said in another thread that he may have been an acceptible risk, but im glad we didn't take it.

well done board

What was the risk?

can you honestly not see a risk in taking a 30 y.o selfconfessed drug addict with a history of hamstring injuries?

The drug addict part I can't see as a risk - it hasn't been an issue for him on-field in the past.

Certainly the 30yo bit could be a risk. The hammies I wouldn't say is a 'historical' thing.

If the 30yo thing and the hammy thing is a risk, why have we drafted other injury prone and old rejects?

i would argue that the drug addict thing is definately a risk, and a major reason as to why he isn't still at the eagles. i agree it didn't appear to effect onfield, but it certainly did off it, and that led to his being let go.

the age is definately a risk, and hamstrings don't get any better in later years. might not be a huge risk, but still a risk no doubt.

other draftee's we have made have nothing to do with my post. i was saying that cousins was a risk.

i was surprised that you could ask what risk?

[evertonfc]

We should have taken Ben.

There's not much more to it than that. His chance of stuffing up again were probably around the 10% mark. Not a bad risk IMO - and if he did stuff up, sheesh, it would have hardly reflected as badly on us as it has on West Coast.

Jeld-Wen would have sold twice as many doors with the exposure we would have gotten.

Pathetic, really.

[Moccha]

Just to add, my major point is:

Why shave your head and wax your body so you cannot give a hair sample just prior to the AFL making a call on your football future?

What was there to gain in doing such a thing?

You mean, what was he got to hide?

[Moccha]

We should have taken Ben.

There's not much more to it than that. His chance of stuffing up again were probably around the 10% mark. Not a bad risk IMO - and if he did stuff up, sheesh, it would have hardly reflected as badly on us as it has on West Coast.

Jeld-Wen would have sold twice as many doors with the exposure we would have gotten.

Pathetic, really.

I think you're shooting from the hip.

Risk is risk. A 10% risk is no different to a 90% risk. The consequences arising from another transgression is huge

[chook23]

We should have taken Ben.

There's not much more to it than that. His chance of stuffing up again were probably around the 10% mark. Not a bad risk IMO - and if he did stuff up, sheesh, it would have hardly reflected as badly on us as it has on West Coast.

Jeld-Wen would have sold twice as many doors with the exposure we would have gotten.

Pathetic, really.

I think you're shooting from the hip.

Risk is risk. A 10% risk is no different to a 90% risk. The consequences arising from another transgression is huge

huge for Ben

I thought we should have picked Ben......

Given him a go.........

but the "Machine"...... Risk management/due diligence/what if sponsors ...
litagation world.............

won over

to be seen giving someone another genuine chance

but we didd not have the ticker to fight the "machine" IMO

upside

Appears more than not (Members) wanted him
Could have been plenty of good exposure for a bold Sponsor
Bold markrting dept etc......

BUT the what if gloom "machine " won out

If Ben did blow it HE would have been the loser


MACHINE
the analogy I am using is there use to be 100 kids playing in the schoolyard......1 may have/did hurt himself........but the "Machine" supported the benifits to the other 99

Now knowone plays in the schoolyard because the "Machine" supports the what if 1 gets hurt and the benifits to other 99 is forgotten

[BAM! (shhhh)]

We should have taken Ben.

There's not much more to it than that. His chance of stuffing up again were probably around the 10% mark. Not a bad risk IMO - and if he did stuff up, sheesh, it would have hardly reflected as badly on us as it has on West Coast.

Jeld-Wen would have sold twice as many doors with the exposure we would have gotten.

Pathetic, really.

I think you're shooting from the hip.

Risk is risk. A 10% risk is no different to a 90% risk. The consequences arising from another transgression is huge

Pretty disengenous - of course all risk isn't equal. J-walking is not of even similar risk to crossing the freeway. You can die both ways, but the chances of it happening are vastly different.

Personally, my biggest disagreement is that my view of the Cousins drafting being low risk is that the consequences aren't high (as far as I know there was no possible loss of premiership points etc. ala West Coast), at worst, you've lost the list spot for 12 months, and at best you've got a top flight midfielder for 2009. The price of a low draft pick is a no brainer.

[Devilhead]

We should have taken Ben.

There's not much more to it than that. His chance of stuffing up again were probably around the 10% mark. Not a bad risk IMO - and if he did stuff up, sheesh, it would have hardly reflected as badly on us as it has on West Coast.

Jeld-Wen would have sold twice as many doors with the exposure we would have gotten.

Pathetic, really.

I think you're shooting from the hip.

Risk is risk. A 10% risk is no different to a 90% risk. The consequences arising from another transgression is huge

Pretty disengenous - of course all risk isn't equal. J-walking is not of even similar risk to crossing the freeway. You can die both ways, but the chances of it happening are vastly different.

Personally, my biggest disagreement is that my view of the Cousins drafting being low risk is that the consequences aren't high (as far as I know there was no possible loss of premiership points etc. ala West Coast), at worst, you've lost the list spot for 12 months, and at best you've got a top flight midfielder for 2009. The price of a low draft pick is a no brainer.

No the worst is that we could lose our MAJOR sponsor which in this current climate could mean the death knell for the club

[chook23]

typical response of the ........

todays society brainwashed knowingly or unknowingly by the negative media "machine" mentality.

what if ................everything we do

too scared to do anything.....for it might happen brigade.

[Eastern]

Just to add, my major point is:

Why shave your head and wax your body so you cannot give a hair sample just prior to the AFL making a call on your football future?

What was there to gain in doing such a thing?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

Ultimately this decision might be right up there with some of the dumber decisions Benny has made

and lets not confuse dumb decisions with idiotic and/or criminal decisions !!

[SainterK]

Just to add, my major point is:

Why shave your head and wax your body so you cannot give a hair sample just prior to the AFL making a call on your football future?

What was there to gain in doing such a thing?

It's nearly as dumb as the AFL giving him the green light, without said hair test...

[St Fidelius]

We should have taken Ben.

There's not much more to it than that. His chance of stuffing up again were probably around the 10% mark. Not a bad risk IMO - and if he did stuff up, sheesh, it would have hardly reflected as badly on us as it has on West Coast.

Jeld-Wen would have sold twice as many doors with the exposure we would have gotten.

Pathetic, really.

So in your opinion his chance of stuffing up again would be around 10%...

How do you base that opinion??

Just my opinion, but I think your post is pathetic...

His "Not a bad Risk" ?????

Some players would no doubt have to take a pay cut to allow this 31 year old next year to play...RISK in player harmony

He never bothered to play this year when he had the opportunity to do so with Port Melbourne or a West Australian side WHY....

He knew he had to provide a hair sample weeks ago and shaved his body and cut the hair so short that he was unable to provide that sample RISK

The chance of losing premiership points is also another issue...

Every other Club bar Brisbane has now said NO....

and you consider Cousins to be a 10% risk....

This is a classic...

Jeld-Wen would have sold twice as many doors with the exposure we would have gotten.

They are the largest in the business, just how do you think they are going to sell twice as many doors???

Oh, I see...

Great I support the Saints and I just replace some doors

[Richter]

Just to add, my major point is:

Why shave your head and wax your body so you cannot give a hair sample just prior to the AFL making a call on your football future?

What was there to gain in doing such a thing?

It's nearly as dumb as the AFL giving him the green light, without said hair test...

He wasn't told by the AFL that he needed hair 3cm long even though he knew from other sources (Ricky Nixon) that this was necessary he thought it'd be a neat way of sticking two fingers up at the AFL - they couldn't use it as an excuse to ban him as they stuffed up in their obligation to tell him formally of this requirement.

Yes he's likely an arrogant SOB, but so was Eric Cantona for Manchester United in 1995 after karate-kicking a fan at a match...... when he came back aged 29 he went on to win two premierships with United and was named their player of the century by the fans.

I hardly blame him for wanting to give the AFL the old two fingers - how can any Saints fan not want to do this after Sirengate/Whispers in the sky etc.

-------------------------

In fact for mine the only thing that makes sense is that he was discarded because of the company he keeps. Potential for him to be photographed with half the hoods in Melbourne over the next 3-4 years. That may have been considered just too high a price to pay......

[saintly_safes]

Ben is a smart arse of the highest proportions but this time even the king might have outsmarted himself

[groupie1]

what do you think there was to gain by shaving down before a hair sample test? take a wild guess.




BEN COUSINS... The greatest St Kilda player that never was.