Unfortunately fonz you just don't get the whole picture until you have seen the "end user" result.
I don't mean to get stuck into you either, but Benny made choices of his own. He was gifted with certain physical abilities that earned him a major amount of money.
He chose, as an adult, to hang with the people who could get him the "recreational drugs" (I hate that saying) he wanted and needed.
He chose to use them against the rules of the law and the AFL.
He didn't actually get caught - he just hit rock bottom and cried poor - drug poor. He had thousands of kids wearing his number on their backs, not once have I heard him apologise to them. He got drug rehab treatment that only celebrities get.
All I've seen so far is a spoilt little rich kid who got away with taking drugs. And as far as I know taking the drugs he was taking are illegal in WA and all the other states. But no consequences for Benny.
All I have seen is a perspex gangster getting his own way and the AFL and his own shitful club bending over forward to assist him.
Again, I have no sympathy for him. I have sympathy for a hell of a lot of people before I can find space for that prat.
HAMMY!!!
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
Riewoldting
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2883
- Joined: Thu 05 May 2005 1:34am
- Location: Perth WA
Don't forget Iceman, it's not against the law to use drugs, only against AFL rules. Let's not revisit that debate 
I don't buy this whole "role model" bit. A role model is an adult figure who youngsters aspire to emulate an as example of positive behaviour.
So if Cousins sets a bad example, he is no longer an example of positive behaviour, and youngsters will no longer aspire to emulate him. Right?
I reckon everyone running this "role model" line wants to see Cousins hauled over the coals, stripped of his premiership medallion and Brownlow medal, sacked from the West Coast Eagles, banned from the AFL for life, made to issue a public apology, and compelled by a court to do community service in drug education for youth for a period not less than five years.
They reckon that's what is needed to send a message to kids that drugs are bad, mmmkay. To make an example of Cousins.
Unfortunately for those that hold that view, this will not happen. He has not committed any indictable offences, he's just a naughty boy who likes to get high. The justice system, the AFL and the West Coast Eagles do not view his indiscrepancies as being of a serious enough nature to condemn him, but many in society (and on this forum) do.
They are worried that this whole saga will send a message to kids that if you take drugs, you can get away with it.
But really, does it matter what you think? The only people that it makes a lick of difference to is the children who potentially have Cousins as a role model. Has anyone polled them to see what they think about Cousins?
Those children with a bit of nous will identify Cousins as a bit of a d**khead who gambled with drugs and lost. Doesn't make them more or less likely to use drugs.
Those children who experiment with drugs and get in the sh!t because "Cuz did it" are idiots and deserve to get in the sh!t. f*** em.
I don't buy this whole "role model" bit. A role model is an adult figure who youngsters aspire to emulate an as example of positive behaviour.
So if Cousins sets a bad example, he is no longer an example of positive behaviour, and youngsters will no longer aspire to emulate him. Right?
I reckon everyone running this "role model" line wants to see Cousins hauled over the coals, stripped of his premiership medallion and Brownlow medal, sacked from the West Coast Eagles, banned from the AFL for life, made to issue a public apology, and compelled by a court to do community service in drug education for youth for a period not less than five years.
They reckon that's what is needed to send a message to kids that drugs are bad, mmmkay. To make an example of Cousins.
Unfortunately for those that hold that view, this will not happen. He has not committed any indictable offences, he's just a naughty boy who likes to get high. The justice system, the AFL and the West Coast Eagles do not view his indiscrepancies as being of a serious enough nature to condemn him, but many in society (and on this forum) do.
They are worried that this whole saga will send a message to kids that if you take drugs, you can get away with it.
But really, does it matter what you think? The only people that it makes a lick of difference to is the children who potentially have Cousins as a role model. Has anyone polled them to see what they think about Cousins?
Those children with a bit of nous will identify Cousins as a bit of a d**khead who gambled with drugs and lost. Doesn't make them more or less likely to use drugs.
Those children who experiment with drugs and get in the sh!t because "Cuz did it" are idiots and deserve to get in the sh!t. f*** em.
"To be or not to be" - William Shakespeare
"To be is to do" - Immanuel Kant
"Do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra
-
meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7123
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 474 times
Agree 100% Riewoldting. And a further dimension is the issue of privacy.Riewoldting wrote:I reckon everyone running this "role model" line wants to see Cousins hauled over the coals, stripped of his premiership medallion and Brownlow medal, sacked from the West Coast Eagles, banned from the AFL for life, made to issue a public apology, and compelled by a court to do community service in drug education for youth for a period not less than five years.
They reckon that's what is needed to send a message to kids that drugs are bad, mmmkay. To make an example of Cousins.
Unfortunately for those that hold that view, this will not happen. He has not committed any indictable offences, he's just a naughty boy who likes to get high. The justice system, the AFL and the West Coast Eagles do not view his indiscrepancies as being of a serious enough nature to condemn him, but many in society (and on this forum) do.
Cousins was not detected using these drugs through the AFL's official testing regime for recreational drugs (which is, in itself IMO, an invasion of privacy). His problem simply became apparent to his club, his team mates, the public and the media (not necessarily in that order). He was then persuaded to do what he probably should have done a year or more previously: gone into rehab. The process and results of his rehab were kept private just as they should be.
He was then allowed to return immediately to AFL football, just as he should have been, because he had never been officially barred from playing in the first place. If any action of the type you describe above was actually taken against Cousins, to make an example of him, it would be a monumental injustice: there are a number of other current AFL players (20 isn't it?) who have been caught using these drugs by official tests. Cousins has never been caught, and yet people want to make an example of him, rather than one of the others. The AFL would be laughed out of any court in the world (perhaps even in Majorca) if they tried this on!!!
Already Cousins has been tried in the court of public opinion as a drug user solely on the basis of rumour and innuendo. I suppose this is why he has had himself tattooed with "Such is Life" (allegedly Ned Kelly's last words). I must admit my heart warmed to him a bit when I heard that.
I also recall that he was by far the most friendly Eagle to those poor little kids after the grand final last year. I don't agree that he is a spoilt rich boy: he seems like a bit of a lost soul to me.
But this is the sort of subject about which, if you get three people together in a room, you'll inevitably get four opinions.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
Meher Baba, I tend to agree with just about all of your comments, but I beg to differ in this.
There is a very real difference IMO between Cousins and the 20-odd other players who have tested positive.
As far as I know, none of these other players have failed to turn up to training, or turned up so wasted they couldn't lace their boots. Theoretically then, these are generally 'normal' guys who have taken something on a weekend during the off-season and got caught in random testing. Again, I suggest that 'rehabilitation' at this stage is really just a form of penalty for indulging in inappropriate behaviour.
Cousins was a habitual user that was blatantly too busy partying to perform his responsibilities as a player. Very different circumstances.
I totally agree that players have a right to privacy. Drug tests that the players have agreed to, and which detect some illicit use the night before is one thing. Failing to turn up to training or turning up incapable is another, and to my mind it is the same as being caught by the police. Once his extensive drug use is apparent to the team and the public at large he has blown any right to a 'quiet rehab and monitoring program'.
I think he should have been suspended at least for the whole of this season, if not a second season too. His drug use was far beyond an occasional indiscretion, yet I still don't buy the 'victim of addiction' BS. There is a big margin between occasional drug user and victim of addiction. In this margin the user concerned can't abdicate responsibility for their actions.
Cousins has tried to abdicate responsibility by suggesting the 'demon drugs' had him in their grip, and that he has gone off to rehab and beaten them. This is BS, as anyone who knows what a truly addicted drug user is can attest. Anyone who truly understands drug addiction would also know that you can't hit rock bottom, rehabilitate and then come back to play football at an elite standard within a few weeks. It's absurd.
IMO Cousins, the Eagles and the AFL have been party to a political maneuvre designed to look the goods to a casual observer and get Benny back on the park in time for finals. It has nothing to do with whether he apologises or not, but his lame 'statement' (not voluntary, remember, as the Eagles were already on record as saying that a public statement would be one of the conditions of his return) just proves that he still has no remorse for his actions and no respect for the footy community.
Benny is a symbol of the rampant corruption and political chess within the AFL, and he doesn't deserve my sympathy.
Again, if he had pulled his head in earlier and done the same training and season as everyone else perhaps he wouldn't have pulled his hammy. And he certainly wouldn't have done it if he had been suspended for the entire season which I suggest is what should have happened.
There is a very real difference IMO between Cousins and the 20-odd other players who have tested positive.
As far as I know, none of these other players have failed to turn up to training, or turned up so wasted they couldn't lace their boots. Theoretically then, these are generally 'normal' guys who have taken something on a weekend during the off-season and got caught in random testing. Again, I suggest that 'rehabilitation' at this stage is really just a form of penalty for indulging in inappropriate behaviour.
Cousins was a habitual user that was blatantly too busy partying to perform his responsibilities as a player. Very different circumstances.
I totally agree that players have a right to privacy. Drug tests that the players have agreed to, and which detect some illicit use the night before is one thing. Failing to turn up to training or turning up incapable is another, and to my mind it is the same as being caught by the police. Once his extensive drug use is apparent to the team and the public at large he has blown any right to a 'quiet rehab and monitoring program'.
I think he should have been suspended at least for the whole of this season, if not a second season too. His drug use was far beyond an occasional indiscretion, yet I still don't buy the 'victim of addiction' BS. There is a big margin between occasional drug user and victim of addiction. In this margin the user concerned can't abdicate responsibility for their actions.
Cousins has tried to abdicate responsibility by suggesting the 'demon drugs' had him in their grip, and that he has gone off to rehab and beaten them. This is BS, as anyone who knows what a truly addicted drug user is can attest. Anyone who truly understands drug addiction would also know that you can't hit rock bottom, rehabilitate and then come back to play football at an elite standard within a few weeks. It's absurd.
IMO Cousins, the Eagles and the AFL have been party to a political maneuvre designed to look the goods to a casual observer and get Benny back on the park in time for finals. It has nothing to do with whether he apologises or not, but his lame 'statement' (not voluntary, remember, as the Eagles were already on record as saying that a public statement would be one of the conditions of his return) just proves that he still has no remorse for his actions and no respect for the footy community.
Benny is a symbol of the rampant corruption and political chess within the AFL, and he doesn't deserve my sympathy.
Again, if he had pulled his head in earlier and done the same training and season as everyone else perhaps he wouldn't have pulled his hammy. And he certainly wouldn't have done it if he had been suspended for the entire season which I suggest is what should have happened.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
-
meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7123
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 474 times
Brewer
What you seem to be saying is that Cousins isn't an addict, he just takes drugs because he wants to, and therefore the rehabilitation was a stunt. Moreover, you are saying that, because he showed up at training zonked, he should be suspended - not by the Eagles, but by the AFL for some reason - for 2 years for being irresponsible. However, if he had been using more ice than Torvill and Dean in the off-season, but had shown up straight to all his training sessions, that all they would have needed to do was to give him a rap over the knuckles and allow him to get on with it.
And, moreover, because - according to you - the AFL and the Eagles were doing dodgy deals to get Cousins back on the field this year, this should be taken out on Cousins himself in the form of the longest suspension ever given to an AFL footballer.
None of it makes much sense to me, I'm afraid. I'll be interested in what others think.
What you seem to be saying is that Cousins isn't an addict, he just takes drugs because he wants to, and therefore the rehabilitation was a stunt. Moreover, you are saying that, because he showed up at training zonked, he should be suspended - not by the Eagles, but by the AFL for some reason - for 2 years for being irresponsible. However, if he had been using more ice than Torvill and Dean in the off-season, but had shown up straight to all his training sessions, that all they would have needed to do was to give him a rap over the knuckles and allow him to get on with it.
And, moreover, because - according to you - the AFL and the Eagles were doing dodgy deals to get Cousins back on the field this year, this should be taken out on Cousins himself in the form of the longest suspension ever given to an AFL footballer.
None of it makes much sense to me, I'm afraid. I'll be interested in what others think.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
I don't believe Cousins was an addict, no. I think he was an arrogant tosser that partied too hard.
The 'rehabilitation' was absolutely a stunt IMO, and not a very convincing one either.
If he had been able to turn up to his club commitments straight, then he would not have been rumbled, until he tested positive during an out-of-season illicit drugs test - in which case he would be entitled to the protections of the AFL's drug policy. Remember, the AFL's policy is about catching players in the very early stages of 'occasional' or 'recreational' drug use - and taking measures to discourage it and put the players on the right path, BEFORE they hurt themselves and BEFORE they disgrace the game.
The AFL's 'early detection' policy clearly failed when somebody of Ben's profile and reputation could take drugs so frequently and so systematically as to be common knowledge. He could no longer hide his drug use. His teammates knew it and so did the general public.
Remember that the AFL's drug policy is not about babysitting drug users. It is an extra measure they take, over and above most other sports, to try and detect and deter drug use in the very early stages. The AFL and the players should be commended for it, but protection should extend ONLY to those people who would otherwise remain undetected, were it not for the AFL testing.
If a user finds himself being arrested on drugs charges, he is entitled to no special protection. Similarly, if a user disgraces himself in public and it becomes clear that he is a heavy drug user, he should also not be entitled to any AFL 'protection'. His drug use is public knowledge, he has disgraced himself, his team and the league, and it is far too late for any 'softly softly catchee monkey' initiatives.
In those circumstances, the player concerned should immediately be stood down, and sure, rehabilitation should come into play. But the idea that the disgraced player can make a spectacular return later in the same season, in time for finals no less, is absolutely disgusting.
You can't have it both ways - if a drug problem is 'bad' enough to warrant specialist US rehab clinics, then a 1-season suspension should be but a minor detail for the poor addict concerned. Let the club promote a rookie, whatever, but the disgraced player should not be seen to be 'hurried back' into the side after little more than a few hail-marys.
The 'rehabilitation' was absolutely a stunt IMO, and not a very convincing one either.
If he had been able to turn up to his club commitments straight, then he would not have been rumbled, until he tested positive during an out-of-season illicit drugs test - in which case he would be entitled to the protections of the AFL's drug policy. Remember, the AFL's policy is about catching players in the very early stages of 'occasional' or 'recreational' drug use - and taking measures to discourage it and put the players on the right path, BEFORE they hurt themselves and BEFORE they disgrace the game.
The AFL's 'early detection' policy clearly failed when somebody of Ben's profile and reputation could take drugs so frequently and so systematically as to be common knowledge. He could no longer hide his drug use. His teammates knew it and so did the general public.
Remember that the AFL's drug policy is not about babysitting drug users. It is an extra measure they take, over and above most other sports, to try and detect and deter drug use in the very early stages. The AFL and the players should be commended for it, but protection should extend ONLY to those people who would otherwise remain undetected, were it not for the AFL testing.
If a user finds himself being arrested on drugs charges, he is entitled to no special protection. Similarly, if a user disgraces himself in public and it becomes clear that he is a heavy drug user, he should also not be entitled to any AFL 'protection'. His drug use is public knowledge, he has disgraced himself, his team and the league, and it is far too late for any 'softly softly catchee monkey' initiatives.
In those circumstances, the player concerned should immediately be stood down, and sure, rehabilitation should come into play. But the idea that the disgraced player can make a spectacular return later in the same season, in time for finals no less, is absolutely disgusting.
You can't have it both ways - if a drug problem is 'bad' enough to warrant specialist US rehab clinics, then a 1-season suspension should be but a minor detail for the poor addict concerned. Let the club promote a rookie, whatever, but the disgraced player should not be seen to be 'hurried back' into the side after little more than a few hail-marys.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
-
st.byron
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10598
- Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005 7:04pm
- Location: North
- Has thanked: 1011 times
- Been thanked: 1055 times
I agree with you Brewer. Cousins is an arrogant tosser who liked to party too hard and his lifestyle caught up with him. One of the home grown West Coast clique that includes Cousins, Kerr and Fletcher. Boys who've known nothing other than the relentlessly one-eyed West Australian media fawning over them since they were 18.
It's no wonder they develop over-sized heads.
Cousins has shown no remorse for his actions. If Riewoldting or anyone else thinks that kids have got the nous to realise that Cousins has been a bit of a d**khead and will consider him as such, you're dreaming my friends. They're kids and worship these guys.
Cousins has a rap sheet. Not of indictable offences, but of "incidents".
The very least he deserved was a one year ban. It's no surprise though that his miraculous redemption has been hailed by the Western media as a testament to his character. What bollocks. He has made no statement of his own accord and I'm sure continues to believe the deification of himself that goes on in W.A. It makes me want to puke.
Call it Karma, call it what you like, but his 'hammy' couldn't have happened to a more deserving player or club.
It's no wonder they develop over-sized heads.
Cousins has shown no remorse for his actions. If Riewoldting or anyone else thinks that kids have got the nous to realise that Cousins has been a bit of a d**khead and will consider him as such, you're dreaming my friends. They're kids and worship these guys.
Cousins has a rap sheet. Not of indictable offences, but of "incidents".
The very least he deserved was a one year ban. It's no surprise though that his miraculous redemption has been hailed by the Western media as a testament to his character. What bollocks. He has made no statement of his own accord and I'm sure continues to believe the deification of himself that goes on in W.A. It makes me want to puke.
Call it Karma, call it what you like, but his 'hammy' couldn't have happened to a more deserving player or club.