Is Ben a smartarse?

supersaints · Wed 26 Nov 2008 7:41am

I wonder if Bens smartarse attitude ultimately cost him his chance.
Shaving down prior to his hair sample was probably being a smartarse, again...alternatively he is still not clean.By doing what he did he would have raised further doubts. He always has that smug look on his face, even had it when he was arrested, chased by journalists etc.
While I think he would be a huge addition to our midfield, I think he blew his chance because while he keeps his smartarse attitude, people think he is still on drugs. Sadly he does not come across as being sincere. He should have being saying he was humbled and thankful of the chance to play again, not appearing as some smug smartarse..... then maybe clubs would be perusing him.

markp · Post: # 677539Post **markp** » Wed 26 Nov 2008 7:51am

I think much in the same mould as Shane Warne, he's been allowed to get away with murder from a very early age.

chook23 · Post: # 677541Post **chook23** » Wed 26 Nov 2008 7:59am

markp wrote:I think much in the same mould as Shane Warne, he's been allowed to get away with murder from a very early age.

that would discount all kids in this draft!!

Devilhead · Post: # 677567Post **Devilhead** » Wed 26 Nov 2008 8:53am

As I said in previous threads that fact he shaved down either makes him mind-numbingly ignorant or jaw-droppingly arrogant if he is neither of those then he has something to hide

That said he may well be able to tick all 3 boxes

The Fireman · Wed 26 Nov 2008 9:00am

probably, but what a fantastic player and what a terrible shame we didn't get him.

chook23 · Post: # 677570Post **chook23** » Wed 26 Nov 2008 9:02am

The Fireman wrote:probably, but what a fantastic player and what a terrible shame we didn't get him.

agree. Like so many members

The Fireman · Wed 26 Nov 2008 9:03am

chook23 wrote:
The Fireman wrote:probably, but what a fantastic player and what a terrible shame we didn't get him.
agree. Like so many members

It seems that members don't count anymore, in more ways than one.

Otiman · Post: # 677629Post **Otiman** » Wed 26 Nov 2008 9:54am

Without doubt he's a smartarse, but that's human nature for at least 10% of the population.

PLUGGER14 · Post: # 677636Post **PLUGGER14** » Wed 26 Nov 2008 10:00am

The Fireman wrote: It seems that members don't count anymore, in more ways than one.

On this issue (BC) I don't believe the members should count. It's a footy decision made by people with a hell of a lot more information than us.

Don't get me wrong I too wanted to see Ben in the RWB purely because of what I remember of him on the field.

Yes members are the lifeblood of any club but ultimatly we vote in the people who we believe can make the right decisions on our behalf.

No matter what decisions are made there will always be a faction who disagree.

chook23 · Post: # 677649Post **chook23** » Wed 26 Nov 2008 10:08am

PLUGGER14 wrote:
The Fireman wrote: It seems that members don't count anymore, in more ways than one.
On this issue (BC) I don't believe the members should count. It's a footy decision made by people with a hell of a lot more information than us.

Don't get me wrong I too wanted to see Ben in the RWB purely because of what I remember of him on the field.

Yes members are the lifeblood of any club but ultimatly we vote in the people who we believe can make the right decisions on our behalf.

No matter what decisions are made there will always be a faction who disagree.

footy decision based on age.... as the presser states

why did it need 5 mths

how much did that process cost

spin

No matter what decisions are made some will be right some will be wrong
regardless of factions.

Con Gorozidis · Wed 26 Nov 2008 10:20am

markp wrote:I think much in the same mould as Shane Warne, he's been allowed to get away with murder from a very early age.

yeah and wasnt shane a terrible player and didnt he do badly after his year ban for drugs.

lets go for a really really squaeky clean nice well bought up kid (who cant play footy for sh*t)

for farks sake. the crap i read on here.

Con Gorozidis · Wed 26 Nov 2008 10:23am

PLUGGER14 wrote:
The Fireman wrote: It seems that members don't count anymore, in more ways than one.
On this issue (BC) I don't believe the members should count. It's a footy decision made by people with a hell of a lot more information than us.

Don't get me wrong I too wanted to see Ben in the RWB purely because of what I remember of him on the field.

Yes members are the lifeblood of any club but ultimatly we vote in the people who we believe can make the right decisions on our behalf.

No matter what decisions are made there will always be a faction who disagree.

well the FOOTY department wanted him.

and why we did we come out publically and state we were going for him when it hadnt been agreed upon?? the fact this is a monumental stuff up and HIGHly unprofessional from the saints - the people defending the club are wrong wrong wrong wrong. the club has behaved disgracefully towards a fellow human being - and darn good player.

The Fireman · Wed 26 Nov 2008 10:27am

PLUGGER14 wrote:
The Fireman wrote: It seems that members don't count anymore, in more ways than one.
On this issue (BC) I don't believe the members should count. It's a footy decision made by people with a hell of a lot more information than us.

Don't get me wrong I too wanted to see Ben in the RWB purely because of what I remember of him on the field.

Yes members are the lifeblood of any club but ultimatly we vote in the people who we believe can make the right decisions on our behalf.

No matter what decisions are made there will always be a faction who disagree.

That comment is a bit over the top, there are a lot of members that have a fair bit of football club experience, from grass roots up that can have an educated opinion on such issues.
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if some onfield decisions were given to the members to decide on it would probably pay dividends

but I was talking more about the way we are being treated of late, seating issues etc. :

rodgerfox · Post: # 677771Post **rodgerfox** » Wed 26 Nov 2008 11:26am

On the shaved head thing - I'm no expert, but why does that matter?

Isn't it the root of the hair strand that they test?

Shaving your head wouldn't impact that at all, would it?

SENsei · Post: # 677774Post **SENsei** » Wed 26 Nov 2008 11:29am

RF,

They need 3cm of a strand of hair to test. That's my understanding.

BC waxed his body and shaved his head less than 3cm.

That in itself is either too stupid for words or trying to hide something.

I reckon it was this action that shot his chances at St Kilda.

rodgerfox · Post: # 677775Post **rodgerfox** » Wed 26 Nov 2008 11:32am

SENsaintsational wrote:RF,

They need 3cm of a strand of hair to test. That's my understanding.

BC waxed his body and shaved his head less than 3cm.

That in itself is either too stupid for words or trying to hide something.

I reckon it was this action that shot his chances at St Kilda.

I see.

Did he wax his pubes too?

SENsei · Post: # 677777Post **SENsei** » Wed 26 Nov 2008 11:33am

rodgerfox wrote:
SENsaintsational wrote:RF,

They need 3cm of a strand of hair to test. That's my understanding.

BC waxed his body and shaved his head less than 3cm.

That in itself is either too stupid for words or trying to hide something.

I reckon it was this action that shot his chances at St Kilda.
I see.

Did he wax his pubes too?

I read a quote that said he had not a strand of hair on his body....so yes, I think pubes were absent.

rodgerfox · Post: # 677780Post **rodgerfox** » Wed 26 Nov 2008 11:36am

SENsaintsational wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
SENsaintsational wrote:RF,

They need 3cm of a strand of hair to test. That's my understanding.

BC waxed his body and shaved his head less than 3cm.

That in itself is either too stupid for words or trying to hide something.

I reckon it was this action that shot his chances at St Kilda.
I see.

Did he wax his pubes too?

I read a quote that said he had not a strand of hair on his body....so yes, I think pubes were absent.

What about his date?

Surely he missed a hair somewhere!

desertsaint · Wed 26 Nov 2008 11:37am

All i can say is 'bugger'

can't second guess the board as they know more than me...but bugger!

SainterK · Post: # 677785Post **SainterK** » Wed 26 Nov 2008 11:38am

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

FortiusQuoFidelius · Wed 26 Nov 2008 11:42am

Con Gorozidis wrote:
for farks sake. the crap i read on here.

Yeah... and you're the one posting it!!!

SENsei · Post: # 677788Post **SENsei** » Wed 26 Nov 2008 11:42am

ohwhenthesaints! wrote: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.

If the hair test would prove conclusive, why in hell did he shave his head?

Would've put the matter beyond doubt.

Sounds very fishy to me.

SaintHomer · Wed 26 Nov 2008 11:47am

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

rodgerfox · Post: # 677797Post **rodgerfox** » Wed 26 Nov 2008 11:49am

SaintHomer wrote: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?

fonz_#15 · Post: # 677798Post **fonz_#15** » Wed 26 Nov 2008 11:50am

SENsaintsational wrote:
ohwhenthesaints! wrote: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