Cousins may abandon comeback
By AAP, 19 Nov 2008
- Tagged:
- AFL, Ben Cousins, Brownlow Medal, Eagles, St Kilda, St Kilda Saints, West Coast, West Coast Eagles
Ben Cousins may abandon a planned comeback to AFL football because the drug-testing regime announced on Tuesday by the AFL is too tough, his manager says.
Cousins’ manager Ricky Nixon is expected to tell the AFL Players’ Association the rules make it almost impossible for the former West Coast captain to resume his career, the Herald Sun newspaper reports.
It’s expected Nixon will use a meeting with the players’ association on Wednesday to call for drastic charges to the league’s drug-testing rules.
Cousins will decide his playing future over the next few days, Nixon said.
Sources close to the 2005 Brownlow Medallist are said to be furious Cousins has been singled out by the league after confessing to a drug problem when six players remain on the field with two strikes against their name under the AFL’s drug-testing program.
Cousins was sacked by West Coast late last year after being arrested by WA police in Perth and charged with possessing a prohibited drug and failing to comply with a requirement to undergo a driver assessment.
Both charges were withdrawn, but the Eagles maintained they were right to sack him, with those incidents the last of a series of misdemeanours involving Cousins.
Cousins must agree to urine testing up to three times a week, plus hair testing up to four times a year.
Any failure to stick to the conditions would result in Cousins, who was banned for 12 months in November last year for bringing the game into disrepute, being suspended indefinitely pending an investigation.
St Kilda have already declared their interest in Cousins and have made contact with the Brownlow Medallist, although they have yet to make a firm commitment to recruiting him.
Brisbane have also expressed an interest but are yet to meet with Cousins.
© AAP 2012Recommend this story.
Jim Beam Devil's Cut
As bourbon ages, a portion of liquid is lost from the barrel due to evaporation. This is known as the Angel's Share. When the bourbon is taken from the barrel, a certain amount is left trapped within the wood. It's that extracted liquid, and the rich flavours from deep within the barrel that are in Jim Beam's Devil's Cut.
Click here to learn more about Jim Beam's wicked new bourbon.
The Crowd Says (8) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- AFL, Ben Cousins, Brownlow Medal, Eagles, St Kilda, St Kilda Saints, West Coast, West Coast Eagles
November 19th 2008 @ 11:53am
Terry Kidd said | November 19th 2008 @ 11:53am | Report comment
If Cousins cannot agree to the required drug testing what does that say for his rehabilitation and commitment to play the game? However, a standard for one should also mean a standard for all and the other 5 or 6 players with 2 strikes against them should also have the same regime imposed on them.
Fair is fair.
November 19th 2008 @ 12:07pm
Redb said | November 19th 2008 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
I don’t think the AFL can afford for Cousins to slip up again. Cousins was banned for bringing the game into disrepute, fool on him, if it happened again, fool on the AFL, or something like that.
3 urine tests a week is not that onerous if he really wants to play.
Redb
November 19th 2008 @ 12:10pm
Terry Kidd said | November 19th 2008 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
Agreed, but any of the other 6 can do the same if they slip up again. Why not one in, all in?
November 19th 2008 @ 12:17pm
Redb said | November 19th 2008 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
TK,
The other 6 are not in the spotlight and have not been banned for bringing the game into disrepute. Anything to do with Cousins is magnified ten times in the media, the AFL is a bit gun shy IMO.
Redb
November 19th 2008 @ 12:25pm
Terry Kidd said | November 19th 2008 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
True, but only because the AFL has very badly fumbled the whole issue and stuffed their policy. Is Cousins being denied natural justice in that he is self confessed, has never tested positive (for whatever reason) by having a far stricter regime imposed on him while other ‘cheats’ who have tested positive twice are treated far more leniently?
Not saying anything is right or wrong, nor trying to judge any individuals, just saying that the AFL probably should have to apply its current policy to Cousins as it does to others, even if it be insufficient, they made their rules for all and should not be making another set for an individual.
If the policy sucks then change it and apply it to everyone.
November 19th 2008 @ 12:37pm
Michael C said | November 19th 2008 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
It’s interesting – Cousins was done for bringing the game into disrepute – - not for drugs. Much of his ‘disreputable’ behaviour was inclusive of public drunkeness, association with shadey characters, and running/swimming away from a breathaliser.
Perhaps there’s too much focus on the drugs – - and perhaps, as with many people, the drugs go hand in hand with the alcohol.
At anyrate, his ‘conditions’ appear totally structured around the drugs aspect. That’s the dodgey bit. But, for Cousins – - should he choose to accept the path open to him, and should he be drafted – then, head down, bumb up and he should come out of it very well progressed to being a recovered drug addict.
Terry – - remember, drug ‘cheats’ fall foul of the WADA match day testing. For illicit drugs (which includes a lot not covered off under WADA for performance enhancing) – - outside of competition, they are the only people who CAN be on 1 or 2 strikes. All WADA positive tests get the big whack straight off.
The whole Cousins and Andrew Johns scenarios just illustrated how useless it is to rely on WADA testing only. And, that any extra illicit policy is only as good as the ability to test as many as possible as often as possible………….a bit like a speed camera…………people still speed, and often it’s just the clumsy and unlucky who get caught.
btw – those players on 2 strikes are subject to target testing and rehab/health programs – - they aren’t playing happily without any consequences as yet – - but, it’s treating their situation as a health issue. Nobody (surely) deliberately puts their career within 1 strike of oblivion – but, when addiction strikes, normal though processes don’t apply.
November 19th 2008 @ 12:41pm
Redb said | November 19th 2008 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
TK,
Cousins did more damage to the image of the AFL in the northern states that people realise. He is carrying significant baggage for sure.
Redb
November 25th 2008 @ 2:08am
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | November 25th 2008 @ 2:08am | Report comment
I don’t know anything about the different drug testing protocols and authorities, but for me it matters not a jot. I did read length of hair has something to do with good sampling and he suddenly shaved his head and did the whole body wax treatment. Billy the Blackfella can see through that.
This bloke epitomises the “It’s good to be King, and up yours for the rent” swagger and expectation of star treatment, no matter what he does – and he has done plenty, on top of the junkie thing, and been allowed to get away with it time after time. The sook bleats for less onerous conditions and cites natural justice even after enjoying extraordinarily generous accommodation of his precious self for a couple of years now, but offers no dividend. Cut him loose – he’s not worthy, by any measure. How much time has been spent on him by Demetriou and his people that would have been better spent on more worthwhile matters?
I reckon Brisbane would be mad to take this self centred fool on. Spend the superstar money on several talented young players, tell them drugs, poor company and running from breath test units will earn them the sack and imbue them with the team values and responsibilities of which this bloke has never been aware.