If you want to talk about Ben Cousins, post it here (mega merged thread) [Archive] - RWO

Wardy

24th April 2007, 08:33 AM

It will be interesting to see what the reaction is when he returns, will the club fawn all over him like they have done in the past ?, will it all be swept under the carpet in true "dont mention the war" style? The fact remains that he had this problem for a very long time, and yet the WC admin knowingly chose to hide it.

It really does beg the question, how many WC players were actually juiced up last year ? - If any players were tested, then how many times were they tested? will we ever know?

Its high time that the AFL developed a back bone. I'm not a fan of the NRL, but I will give them this, when something major occurs, they come down on a club like a tonne of bricks. About time the AFL did the same.

Legs Akimbo

24th April 2007, 08:52 AM

...well, returneth from lying in the Californian sun for a few weeks sipping pina coladas by the pool.

http://news.realfooty.com.au/cousins-could-be-home-by-weekend/20072424-96h.html

Personally, I think if he plays at any time in the next 4 weeks, makes a mockery of his so called 'rehab'.

Wardy

24th April 2007, 09:06 AM

Damien

24th April 2007, 09:36 AM

I saw Howard visiting some drug rehab the other day, and most of the people in their for Ice addictions had been there for 6 months and were still recovering.

Must be one hell of a centre in the states if 6 weeks is enough.

Yze_Magic

24th April 2007, 10:04 AM

Bag him all you want, he is one of the best 4 or 5 players in the game

My top 5

Chris Judd
Daniel Kerr
Jonathan Brown
Ben Cousins
Matthew Pavlich

hammo

24th April 2007, 10:20 AM

Suspend Cousins for the rest of the season and deduct points from the Eagles for bringing the game into disrepute.

Wait for the Cousins apologists to emerge saying he needs football to aid his recovery, give his life some structure and all that other bleeding heart crap.

Claret

24th April 2007, 10:29 AM

Bag him all you want, he is one of the best 4 or 5 players in the game

I don't think you'll find any arguments here.

tara

24th April 2007, 10:37 AM

Cousins is living in denial if he thinks his short stint at rehab is all he needs. A good friend spent just over 5 months getting over it. He's still clean 2 years later what odds on Ben being @@@@@@ up again in the next twelve, pretty short I reckon.

Damien

24th April 2007, 03:30 PM

Bag him all you want, he is one of the best 4 or 5 players in the game

My top 5

Chris Judd
Daniel Kerr
Jonathan Brown
Ben Cousins
Matthew Pavlich

Wouldn't mind you pointing out in this thread where his talent on the football field was brought into question?

goswannie14

24th April 2007, 04:02 PM

573v30

24th April 2007, 04:26 PM

I'm sure the Eagles faithful will probably do a lap of honour to celebrate his "recovery" from "rehab" once he returns. :rolleyes:

hammo

24th April 2007, 04:48 PM

I'm sure the Eagles faithful will probably do a lap of honour to celebrate his "recovery" from "rehab" once he returns. :rolleyes:
Let alone the welcome home party his teammates with throw him :rolleyes:

573v30

24th April 2007, 04:50 PM

Let alone the welcome home party his teammates with throw him :rolleyes: Will it be at Bachelor's (Chick's) place? :D

swansrock4eva

24th April 2007, 04:51 PM

I have a number of friends who work in rehab. 3-4 weeks is not a rehab program, it is a fashionable way for US stars etc to say "I've been in rehab, so I'm OK now."

Unless Cousins remains away from the bad influences of Perth, within months he will be back in the same boat.
Pretty much. I really hope he gets it back on track, but how much so far is tokenism and how much is the real deal one has to wonder...

swantastic

24th April 2007, 05:02 PM

I have a number of friends who work in rehab. 3-4 weeks is not a rehab program, it is a fashionable way for US stars etc to say "I've been in rehab, so I'm OK now."

Unless Cousins remains away from the bad influences of Perth, within months he will be back in the same boat.We can only hope,but still the AFL and WT will do nothing about it.:mad:

NMWBloods

24th April 2007, 06:32 PM

Why would you hope for that?

swantastic

24th April 2007, 07:15 PM

Why would you hope for that?I hate the wet toast elligirls with a passion and nothing would make me more happier, except for another premiership.

NMWBloods

24th April 2007, 08:08 PM

I hate the wet toast elligirls with a passion and nothing would make me more happier, except for another premiership.So after a flag, the next thing you hope for most is for Cousins to relapse...?

goswannie14

24th April 2007, 08:11 PM

I hate the wet toast elligirls with a passion and nothing would make me more happier, except for another premiership.
Hate the Illegals if you want to, I do. But don't wish drug addiction on anyone, its brings you down to the Illegals level.

swantastic

24th April 2007, 08:31 PM

So after a flag, the next thing you hope for most is for Cousins to relapse...?Don't overanalyze things so much,i just hate wet toast.

Hate the Illegals if you want to, I do. But don't wish drug addiction on anyone, its brings you down to the Illegals level.Not drug addiction just a fall from grace.

goswannie14

24th April 2007, 08:32 PM

Don't overanalyze things so much,i just hate wet toast.

Not drug addiction just a fall from grace.Don't you have to have grace to fall from it?:confused:

swantastic

24th April 2007, 08:35 PM

Don't you have to have grace to fall from it?:confused:OK the pedestal the WT put him on.

Industrial Fan

25th April 2007, 08:05 AM

Will it be at Bachelor's (Chick's) place? :DThen they wont be doing ice - only seven fingers of scotch.

BBBBH

26th April 2007, 06:17 PM

how many bitter swans fans are on here? get off his back Mod edit: Personal attack, hes a human being...have some compassion.

Chow-Chicker

27th April 2007, 01:02 AM

how many bitter swans fans are on here? get off his back Edited by mods in original, hes a human being...have some compassion.
We are not bitter Swans fans....WE ARE HUMAN BEINGS!

BBBBH

27th April 2007, 12:28 PM

We are not bitter Swans fans....WE ARE HUMAN BEINGS!

you're funny.

premiers05

28th April 2007, 09:05 AM

We are not bitter Swans fans....WE ARE HUMAN BEINGS!

Does ANYONE associated with the AFL have kids? What kind of message to kids does it send that someone gets addicted to ICE, does 6 or so weeks in rehab then comes back and NOTHING has changed. Not only that they are lauded as all the more a hero for 'beating' it. My 15 year old mates talk together and say it must be bull@@@@@@ that ICE is not really that bad and if you do get hooked it is really easy to get off. I am really disgusted with all the AFL and journos who say what a great guy he is.:mad:

swantastic

29th April 2007, 06:36 PM

Benny is back in Oz tomorrow and the AFL said today that he has to have regular drug tests, and has to apologize publicly.The AFL has also given WC an ultimatum that if any player stuffs up again they will be fined and could(what a joke)face loosing points.

Albert Park

1st May 2007, 01:34 AM

Must be one hell of a centre in the states if 6 weeks is enough.[/QUOTE]

And they can make the blind beggar dance ; the crippled beggar see
Come watch the miracles!

Do they think that anyone believes this crock of @@@@

humphrey bear

1st May 2007, 08:43 AM

I am no doctor but playing footy might be the best rehilabation he can get.

Surely doing some out patient treatment in conjunction with having something like footy to focus on and prepare for has got to be healthier and more beneficial than spending your whole time at a rehab facility with nothing to do or concentrate on.

Footy at any level be it WAFL or AFL may be exacxtly what he needs.

NMWBloods

1st May 2007, 09:58 AM

Cousins hasn't been reinstated in the WC team yet nor has he finished his rehabilitation.

Wardy

1st May 2007, 02:49 PM

Well after the Sunday love in with the AFL and the WC hollow apology to the footy nation - it still shows that the AFL are gutless.

I dont care which club it is (and yes ours included), a situation like this should not be just swept under the carpet. WC have had it too good for too long and even after all the off field goings on, they still only get a "dont do that again or we COULD deduct some points, or inflict a fine "etc.

I had high hopes of Mike Fitzpatrick (he's far more intelligent that the fat controller) making the hard decision and giving the West Coast what they really deserved - the deduction of premiership points now - that would hurt them the most. Wouldnt it have been a show of strength, leadership and show the world they mean business when it comes to situations like this?

As for Cousins, you can only hope that he gets over his addiction, but at the same time, I reckon he should sit out the rest of the year - only a lengthy period of time away from the game he loves so dearly (apparently) will make him fully realise what he has done to himself, his family and his club. 4-6 weeks isn't enough - thats just a bit of a blip on lifes radar.

NMWBloods

1st May 2007, 02:53 PM

A deduction of premiership points seems rather over the top.
The existing three strike drug policy is for suspensions of 6-12 weeks, so I think it should be in line with that.

Wardy

1st May 2007, 03:12 PM

A deduction of premiership points seems rather over the top.
The existing three strike drug policy is for suspensions of 6-12 weeks, so I think it should be in line with that.

It may be , too you , over the top, but it would send out a pretty good warning to the footy world. The NRL took all of Canterbury Bankstowns points for breaching the salary cap and other misdemeanors - I didnt say all points should be deducted, but I reckon at least 8-12 - equivalent of 3 games and I guess the three strikes.

As for the drug deal - the 6-12 week suspension is too lenient.

Lucky Knickers

1st May 2007, 03:25 PM

(he's far more intelligent that the fat controller)

I was quite impressed with Demetriou on OTC last night - he certainly chewed up Mike Sheahan and left him bleeding on the floor over WADA drug testing. I think he's very clever and a very deft media performer.

Wardy

1st May 2007, 03:33 PM

I was quite impressed with Demetriou on OTC last night - he certainly chewed up Mike Sheahan and left him bleeding on the floor over WADA drug testing. I think he's very clever and a very deft media performer.

Good, about time - but Fitzpatrick is a better player in the business world than Andy boy will ever be. The fact is that they still let WC get away with it - it hasnt effected the bottom line, nor their premiership points - the whole love in meeting seemed futile.

humphrey bear

1st May 2007, 04:35 PM

I was quite impressed with Demetriou on OTC last night -

You are extremely easily impressed.

I thought the boys on the couch were interviewing Howard or Rudd the way Vlad managed to avoid answering any question and continually spewing out propoganda vaguely related to the topic as hand.

NMWBloods

1st May 2007, 07:19 PM

I thought Demetriou was a pain on OtC - played it just like a politician.

As for premiership points, I don't think this is the same as a major salary cap breach.

DeadlyAkkuret

2nd May 2007, 02:57 AM

I thought Demetriou was a pain on OtC - played it just like a politician.

As for premiership points, I don't think this is the same as a major salary cap breach.

I disagree. The WCE have tarnished the image of the game countless times over the past 12 months, and have recieved the minimal punishment. I'd respect them more if they'd breached the salary cap instead.

Wardy

2nd May 2007, 09:09 AM

I disagree. The WCE have tarnished the image of the game countless times over the past 12 months, and have recieved the minimal punishment. I'd respect them more if they'd breached the salary cap instead.

Add to that the breaching a salary cap is not actually breaking any rule of law. But the likes of the WC family have been breaking the law left right and centre. I wonder if Benny boy will name his supplier to the police because surely they would have to take some kind of interest in this matter.

Industrial Fan

2nd May 2007, 09:15 AM

Add to that the breaching a salary cap is not actually breaking any rule of law. But the likes of the WC family have been breaking the law left right and centre. I wonder if Benny boy will name his supplier to the police because surely they would have to take some kind of interest in this matter.Why?

They're weagles fans!?!

Wardy

2nd May 2007, 09:18 AM

Why?

They're weagles fans!?!

of course - what was I thinking!;)

swantastic

2nd May 2007, 10:19 AM

Cousins may apologize today,but he said he wont publicly admit to taking drugs as it could lead to a police investigation.

Wardy

2nd May 2007, 10:24 AM

Cousins may apologize today,but he said he wont publicly admit to taking drugs as it could lead to a police investigation.

thats a bit of a contradiction isnt it - then why did he go into rehab then if it wasnt drugs, which his Dad announced he had a problem with? its all a bit of a farce now.

AnnieH

2nd May 2007, 12:32 PM

that was a big read ... bloody west coast criminals.
if the afl administration had any balls whatsoever, they'd be the nrl administration!
it's times like this i wished the nrl administration fairy stepped in and came down on them like a tonne of proverbials. it makes the afl a laughing stock and sends out a very poor message to the littlies.
gimme that, gimme that, gimme gimme gimme that thing.

NMWBloods

2nd May 2007, 12:37 PM

Add to that the breaching a salary cap is not actually breaking any rule of law.
I don't know why you'd lose premiership points because a few players break the law. I don't see the link. In that case a fine is more appropriate.

Premiership points should be related to on-field benefits, which a breached salary cap would give. West Coast does not have an on-field benefit.

Lucky Knickers

2nd May 2007, 12:38 PM

Oh please! Sheahans stupid question about "corporate governance" and where the AFLs responsibilities in relation to breaches by AWADA was pathetic and Demetriou showed what a class media player he is by pushing back and making Mike look as stupid as his question whilst he had his head down and "fiddled" with his clipboard. Notice Walls was too scared to ask a question? Sheahan calls himself a journalist!

NMWBloods

2nd May 2007, 12:48 PM

I think the questions were not really challenging or insightful enough, but Demetriou played the role of the bullying politician to perfection.

It was interesting when Healy asked about the 3 strike rule and Demetriou said it wasn't relevant, and Healy came back with of course it's relevant. I can't see how Demetriou can say it's not.

Chow-Chicker

2nd May 2007, 01:04 PM

thats a bit of a contradiction isnt it - then why did he go into rehab then if it wasnt drugs, which his Dad announced he had a problem with? its all a bit of a farce now.
Exactly!

Wardy

2nd May 2007, 01:09 PM

I don't know why you'd lose premiership points because a few players break the law. I don't see the link. In that case a fine is more appropriate.

Premiership points should be related to on-field benefits, which a breached salary cap would give. West Coast does not have an on-field benefit.

Hm well since Cousins has had this drug problem, which WC management knew about in July last year, they chose to ignore, then I would have thought that he was more than likely on the juice whilst on the field. But then we aren't all going to agree on this one Bloods (well you and I arent anyway;) )

NMWBloods

2nd May 2007, 01:24 PM

Hm well since Cousins has had this drug problem, which WC management knew about in July last year, they chose to ignore, then I would have thought that he was more than likely on the juice whilst on the field. But then we aren't all going to agree on this one Bloods (well you and I arent anyway;) )
Which is fine - we don't need to agree! :)

Cousins hasn't played a game this year, so it's not relevant to premiership points in 2007.

Wardy

2nd May 2007, 01:38 PM

Which is fine - we don't need to agree! :)

Cousins hasn't played a game this year, so it's not relevant to premiership points in 2007.

thats fair - I do feel though that those of us over in the east have had enough of the crap WC deliver - the fact that they keep winning only makes it worse :p Hit em where it hurts. (I know thats mean - but hey it is West Coast we are talking about!);)

In the beginning I did feel a bit sorry for Cousins, I just dont now (not that he'd give a fig!)

Chow-Chicker

2nd May 2007, 03:21 PM

thats fair - I do feel though that those of us over in the east have had enough of the crap WC deliver - the fact that they keep winning only makes it worse :p Hit em where it hurts. (I know thats mean - but hey it is West Coast we are talking about!);)

In the beginning I did feel a bit sorry for Cousins, I just dont now (not that he'd give a fig!)

Well WC didn't force Cousins' habit on him. I believe the club should not be punished, but the individual does. His contract should be torn up and re-done with strict conditions and with a significant pay reduction. This should be a lesson to any footballer. You would probably find that clubs will be inserting specific conditions related to inappropriate behaviour from now on.

As for feeling sorry for him....na, do you feel sorry for Lawrence Angwin?

Wardy

2nd May 2007, 03:27 PM

Well WC didn't force Cousins' habit on him. I believe the club should not be punished, but the individual does. His contract should be torn up and re-done with strict conditions and with a significant pay reduction. This should be a lesson to any footballer. You would probably find that clubs will be inserting specific conditions related to inappropriate behaviour from now on.

As for feeling sorry for him....na, do you feel sorry for Lawrence Angwin?

The club still chose to hide the problem, so they too are accountable - anyway what happens happens I guess - it wont be the outcome that most would want though.

swantastic

2nd May 2007, 03:55 PM

Well WC didn't force Cousins' habit on him. I believe the club should not be punished, but the individual does. His contract should be torn up and re-done with strict conditions and with a significant pay reduction. This should be a lesson to any footballer. You would probably find that clubs will be inserting specific conditions related to inappropriate behaviour from now on.

As for feeling sorry for him....na, do you feel sorry for Lawrence Angwin?Good point CC,Lawrence was a no name and he copped it too hard IMO but BBB gets off easy because he is a super player not very fair.:mad: WT should suspend him for the rest of the season to set an example like Fremantle did to Farmer altho Freo were a little lenient with that little turd.:mad:

tara

2nd May 2007, 05:17 PM

Good point CC,Lawrence was a no name and he copped it too hard IMO but BBB gets off easy because he is a super player not very fair.:mad: WT should suspend him for the rest of the season to set an example like Fremantle did to Farmer altho Freo were a little lenient with that little turd.:mad:

Swantastic Lawrence wasnt exactly a no name, however he ensured that he became one. The kid was drafted at no 7 by the Crows who thought they had a bargain given he could have gone at no 1. Recruiters regarded him as having the potential to be one of the all time greats. What Adelaide didnt know that the other recruiters did was he is a head case. They even wanted to investigate the possibility of compentsation from the AFL becuase they didnt have all the facts available to them when they drafted him.

Carlton took a punt given the draft penalties restricting the real talent from them. They hoped that Denis could work magic and transform him. Alot of his indiscretions were hidden/cleaned up so that the media didnt get a hold of them. The guy at one stage broke into Karl Normans (yes his stupid mate)
and stole various stuff like cds etc.:o One Carlton player even deliberately left a wallet lying around at PP in the rooms to see what happened. Yep he pinched that to and duly copped a flogging for it. The final straw at Carlton was when both he and Norman showed up to a recovery session after allegedly popping 17e's each and were so @@@@@@ up the players concerned for their immediate health alerted staff to the state they were in.

Still feel sorry for him?

swantastic

2nd May 2007, 05:22 PM

Swantastic Lawrence wasnt exactly a no name, however he ensured that he became one. The kid was drafted at no 7 by the Crows who thought they had a bargain given he could have gone at no 1. Recruiters regarded him as having the potential to be one of the all time greats. What Adelaide didnt know that the other recruiters did was he is a head case. They even wanted to investigate the possibility of compentsation from the AFL becuase they didnt have all the facts available to them when they drafted him.

Carlton took a punt given the draft penalties restricting the real talent from them. They hoped that Denis could work magic and transform him. Alot of his indiscretions were hidden/cleaned up so that the media didnt get a hold of them. The guy at one stage broke into Karl Normans (yes his stupid mate)
and stole various stuff like cds etc.:o One Carlton player even deliberately left a wallet lying around at PP in the rooms to see what happened. Yep he pinched that to and duly copped a flogging for it. The final straw at Carlton was when both he and Norman showed up to a recovery session after allegedly popping 17e's each and were so @@@@@@ up the players concerned for their immediate health alerted staff to the state they were in.

Still feel sorry for him?I forgot your a blues supporter oh well:p He was a no-name compared to Cuzz thats what i ment.

tara

2nd May 2007, 05:28 PM

I knew what you meant mate. I was just pointing out the kid had been seen to have the ability to be better than that turd Carey and given endless opportunites but blew it. Cannot feel sorry for him copping the axe becuase he didnt learn from his mistakes.

I hope for Cousins sake he does learn because if he doesnt its his life not just his career he is pissing away. That being said 4 weeks in "rehab" is only a token gesture.

swantastic

2nd May 2007, 05:51 PM

4 weeks in "rehab" is only a token gesture.A token gesture,its a f@#$#n disgrace now all the young kids yet to get hooked are saying"geez is that all it takes to get of the stuff,thats a piece of puss.Oh well what the hell lets give it a go:rolleyes:

NMWBloods

2nd May 2007, 05:57 PM

That being said 4 weeks in "rehab" is only a token gesture.
But he hasn't finished rehab - it was 4 weeks in the US, followed by continuing rehab back here.

Ruda Wakening

2nd May 2007, 05:57 PM

That being said 4 weeks in "rehab" is only a token gesture.

No it's not. It's perfectly normal.

Due to the individual nature of addiction, there is no prescribed treatment stay, although the vast majority of program participants stay 30-45 days.

And as Bloods said he is still undergoing rehab as an outpatient.

tara

2nd May 2007, 06:05 PM

No it's not. It's perfectly normal.

And as Bloods said he is still undergoing rehab as an outpatient.

I can only go on what I have experienced first hand with a friends addiction. Four weeks is generally the period that it takes to dry out - ie break the cycle and begin reprogramming the individuals perceptions. He has only just embarked upon his journey of rehab and given his celebrity status over in the West hes bound to have anynumber of people in his ear telling him how well he's done giving him a false sense of security.

Chow-Chicker

2nd May 2007, 07:43 PM

The club still chose to hide the problem, so they too are accountable
Understand what you say, but lets not forget that the AFL themselves went out of their way to protect the identity of players who were tested positive for drugs. So what penalty should the AFL impose on themselves?

573v30

2nd May 2007, 10:19 PM

The media will surely dissect Ben's public apology when he finally gives it. Any chance he'll admit that he's a tool? ;)

Wardy

3rd May 2007, 09:01 AM

The media will surely dissect Ben's public apology when he finally gives it. Any chance he'll admit that he's a tool? ;)

I doubt it - He will turn around and make out he's the victim here (yes I know put the claws away!)

Of course the media will pick his apology to peices, Im keen to see if it will be a long winded spiel - or a two line speech and no questions afterwards.

Seeing as one of the conditions imposed for his return is that he has to cut all ties with his underworld friends (which you would think that would include his supplier), will he have one of those monitor tracking devise things on his ankle ? I'm keen to see how they are going to enforce that condition.

573v30

3rd May 2007, 10:48 AM

Keeping Ben away from the dodgy characters will be a challenge for the Eagles and the AFL. These conditions set for Ben surely apply for the off-season and I'm assuming this isn't a short-term fix either.

Though it's possible for him to keep clean, I wouldn't be surprised that he'll get into some serious trouble before the 2008 season. If he does, everyone will want to know what the Eagles and the AFL are going to do about him. If the AFL and Eagles just gave him a fine, they fail miserably.

Albert Park

3rd May 2007, 03:54 PM

[QUOTE=573v30;303430]Keeping Ben away from the dodgy characters will be a challenge for the Eagles and the AFL. These conditions set for Ben surely apply for the off-season and I'm assuming this isn't a short-term fix either.

US FDA statistics and anecdotal evidence of addicts indicate only a 1 in 10 recovery rate from ice addiction. Rehab varies from six weeks to five months

But Ben has the leadership group of the Eagles and his "colourful" Perth friends to lean on. No doubt his coach will spring into action to protect him from a relapse just like he did in July last year when he admits that he knew about this player's "problem" and similar problems in a number of other Eagles players

I am reminded of a famous Abraham Lincoln story:

the Civil War was going badly for the Union because their Generals lacked aggression. Lincoln noticed that Ulysses Grant was winning battles in the western theater and doing it audaciously.

Lincoln asked his advisers if he should promote Grant to get more fight into the Union Army. He was told "No, the man's a dreadful drunk"

Lincoln is reputed to have quipped "Well, find out what brand he drinks and send all our Generals a barrel of it"

I wonder if in June when Worsfold found out what made Benny run and run and run he didn't think about Lincoln's half joking suggestion

The question looms large in my mind: Did they win the 2006 Premiership totally clean???:confused:

swantastic

3rd May 2007, 04:37 PM

The question looms large in my mind: Did they win the 2006 Premiership totally clean???Of course they didnt but prove they didnt that's the hard part.:mad:

Wardy

3rd May 2007, 04:41 PM

Well the AFL's Mr Anderson has said that we should all stop talking about it, Bens been through enough - he's obviously unwell (well gee who's fault is that?) and we should just move on - well the thing is if Ben hadnt takent the drugs in the first place, then none of this would have happened.

swantastic

8th May 2007, 11:36 PM

Interesting (http://www.saintsational.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29853)

Wardy

9th May 2007, 08:07 AM

Interesting (http://www.saintsational.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29853)

That does make for interesting reading, if there is any truth in it remains to be seen what comes of it. I had a thought the other night (well you know it happens occassionally) It hit me during the game that perhaps the AFL's reluctance to take a harder line may stem from the fact that Hungry Jacks is a major sponsor of the AFL, not forgetting, that they just happen to be Weagles main sponsor too. The AFL may be walking on thin ice (sorry) and dont want to upset the sponsor any further and risk losing those valuable sponsorship dollars. It could be my mind working overtime, but ...............

swantastic

10th May 2007, 06:20 PM

One in four taking illegal drugs at workThey must be talking about the toasters.

swantastic

17th May 2007, 06:20 AM

Some one pointed out to me yesterday that since Benny has been back Kerr has had some very average games,last week he was kept statless for the second half against the cats,well done Lingy.

BBBBH

18th May 2007, 02:11 PM

Some one pointed out to me yesterday that since Benny has been back Kerr has had some very average games,last week he was kept statless for the second half against the cats,well done Lingy.

is that relevant to how kerr plays???

Norris Lurker

17th June 2007, 07:38 PM

Source - Herald-Sun (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21918143%255E20322,00.html)

"TROUBLED Eagle Ben Cousins has set his sights on 1000 days without alcohol or drug use."

If today is day 1, day 1000 will be Friday 12th March 2010.
Day 1001 will quite likely be pre-season cup grand final day. If West Coast win, look out....

ScottH

17th June 2007, 07:46 PM

I beleive he's using an advent style calendar, to help count down the days.

I wonder what special treat will be behind number 1?

573v30

17th June 2007, 09:31 PM

Sounds like a good betting idea for the TAB. Bet to see if he can go 1000 days drug free or bet the day number he'll go back to his drug habit ways.

I reckon he'll go back on the whacky stuff by day 210. :D

Carolyn

17th June 2007, 09:41 PM

I personally don't think he'll last even a week!

Layby

19th June 2007, 09:11 AM

I personally don't think he'll last even a week!

Based on your intimate knowledge of the man, no doubt

stellation

19th June 2007, 10:14 AM

Kind of dissapointing, I thought he was cool. :(

Industrial Fan

19th June 2007, 10:55 AM

Based on your intimate knowledge of the man, no doubtI dont know him, but I've seen the hats he wears, and I'd say h wouldn't last a week too.

AnnieH

19th June 2007, 02:21 PM

I dont know him, but I've seen the hats he wears, and I'd say h wouldn't last a week too.

like mmg, i don't know him either, but i've seen the collar-less shirts he wears, and i'd say he wouldn't last a week too.

Bloody Hell

8th September 2007, 10:06 AM

What a @@@@ing martyr...maybe he should be hung.

satchmopugdog

8th September 2007, 05:33 PM

There goes his shirtless modelling career.

573v30

8th September 2007, 09:06 PM

Hanging around undesirable characters again... :rolleyes:

Chow-Chicker

9th September 2007, 09:39 AM

It should actually read as "SUCH A WASTE OF LIFE"

nat

9th September 2007, 05:55 PM

Massive and tacky.

BBBBH

9th September 2007, 08:20 PM

bah, who cares? he is a fantastic footballer and he must be respected for the way he plays. i couldnt care less what he gets inked onto his body.

feel sorry for the guy though, all that hard work only to fall short. the irony.

Sanecow

9th September 2007, 09:11 PM

Hall's tatt is the ugliest thing I've ever seen permanently etched on a human body so I won't bag Cousins.

Robbo

9th September 2007, 09:16 PM

He could of at least got it in a font which is readable.

I hate tatoos though. They llok good when you're young but when you're old they look shiite.

But "such is life" is a good motto to have. It's very true and on top of that Ned Kelly was a gun.

NMWBloods

9th September 2007, 09:23 PM

But "such is life" is a good motto to have. It's very true and on top of that Ned Kelly was a gun.'Had' not 'was'! And I think he had two not one!

ScottH

9th September 2007, 09:24 PM

'Had' not 'was'!PK

ScottH

9th September 2007, 09:25 PM

He could of at least got it in a font which is readable.Maybe it was legible to him at the time.

goswannie14

9th September 2007, 10:24 PM

Maybe it was legible to him at the time.Now that raises some interesting thoughts doesn't it?

Xie Shan

9th September 2007, 11:54 PM

Massive and tacky.

No tackier than Des Headland's! I mean, your child's face?! Imagine when the kid grows up and has to see herself whenever she looks at her dad! The idea of it just...freaks me out. Cousins' one is tacky, no doubt about that.

The Boot

10th September 2007, 06:43 PM

It seemed to be (and I only had a very quick glance at it) in that GOTHIC Sydney Morning Herald font, similar to that used by the Bra criminal ABBERTON's "MY BROTHERS KEEPER" strung around his neck.

Boy that was mouthful .. but I'll press on ..

Tadgh has the ink in a similar style of font - virtually same-sized letters ... running down his obliques (that's near the six-pack, guys!) saying "FATHER".

Of course, TK's has way more meaning than Ned "Ben" Cousins - unless you count paying homage to an "error of judgement" something you want to remember yourself by.

Lucky Knickers

10th September 2007, 08:15 PM

Hall's tatt is the ugliest thing I've ever seen permanently etched on a human body so I won't bag Cousins.
YES YES and YES - St kilda and then turned into a BIG UGLY Spida that looks like a crab sort of thing. Yukko - just a big mess - you'd think he'd watch Miami Inc.

Layby

11th September 2007, 03:03 PM

Massive and tacky.

I had that problem once, short course of antibiotics, much better.

dread and might

11th September 2007, 07:09 PM

YES YES and YES - St kilda and then turned into a BIG UGLY Spida that looks like a crab sort of thing. Yukko - just a big mess - you'd think he'd watch Miami Inc.
i thought it was a redback which was then covered up

Sanecow

11th September 2007, 07:16 PM

i thought it was a redback which was then covered up

It used to be a teeny tiny pair of boxing gloves.

dread and might

12th September 2007, 11:22 AM

It used to be a teeny tiny pair of boxing gloves.
Oh:o

AnnieH

12th September 2007, 11:34 AM

It should actually read as "SUCH A WASTE OF LIFE"

Stay tuned, it probably will ... once gravity takes hold.

Nolie

15th September 2007, 01:55 AM

Cousins: not such a life - such a knob!

shayne

1st October 2007, 12:29 AM

Best mate just sent me a message saying he will be in the media again tomorrow. I will leave it at that for now but use your imagination.

Industrial Fan

1st October 2007, 12:51 AM

He's been given the lead role in a Midsummer Nights Dream?

TheGrimReaper

1st October 2007, 07:45 AM

He will announce that he is the first ever gay player in the AFL? And will be wearing pink shorts to prove it next season? :confused: :eek:

shayne

1st October 2007, 11:45 AM

It has just been brought up on BF but not naming any names. Maybe we should trade for him.

Allymay

1st October 2007, 06:29 PM

Best mate just sent me a message saying he will be in the media again tomorrow. I will leave it at that for now but use your imagination.

I wonder if this will still happen considering today's events. Cousins and Mainwaring were best mates and used to go on surfing trips together.

PerthSwannie

1st October 2007, 09:21 PM

Just got it on Ch7. Cousins was with Mainy last night but left an hour or so before he died.

cruiser

1st October 2007, 09:23 PM

Just got it on Ch7. Cousins was with Mainy last night but left an hour or so before he died. Oh dear .....

PerthSwannie

2nd October 2007, 02:22 AM

Not a flattering headline http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22515434-661,00.html Chris Mainwaring's tragic end after weekend bender

Sanecow

2nd October 2007, 11:55 AM

Not a flattering headline http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22515434-661,00.html Chris Mainwaring's tragic end after weekend bender

I sent Liz over to the Herald Sun to edit it down a bit.

Triple B

2nd October 2007, 03:59 PM

This message has been deleted by NMWBloods. Reason: Please keep speculation on this matter off the boards

Because??

Speculation is just that, speculation.

EDIT: I have not seen the post in question, I have no idea what was written, but the principle of not being able to speculate on a forum makes no sense.

Robbo

2nd October 2007, 04:26 PM

If we can't speculate, then what can we talk about?

Most of the posts on this site are speculation.

AnnieH

2nd October 2007, 04:26 PM

Party poopers.

AnnieH

2nd October 2007, 05:33 PM

Once again, I'm playing the messenger.

Swantastic reckons that Bad Boy Benny's days are very numbered at Subi.

He'll be up for trades.

(Where would we be without the trade rumours ... how many weeks left before trade week?? I'm just loving all the speculation.)

hammo

2nd October 2007, 05:38 PM

AnnieH

2nd October 2007, 05:45 PM

BigFooty, SEN or Swantastic - I really don't know which one is the more reliable :rolleyes:

For sure, none of the above.
Rumours are fun.

Could be the announcement they didn't make that they were going to make!!!:)

Traditionally, it's granny, then rumour-mill, then trade-week, then xmas, the pre-season and then season 2008. We just started a lot earlier this year.

Sanecow

2nd October 2007, 05:47 PM

Swantastic told me he reckons Barry Hall has done his knee.

AnnieH

2nd October 2007, 05:49 PM

Swantastic told me he reckons Barry Hall has done his knee.

That's ok. We're not gunna miss Barry.

(Thanks to whomever merged the threads.)

cruiser

2nd October 2007, 07:56 PM

If we can't speculate, then what can we talk about?

Most of the posts on this site are speculation. Would one of the moderators please care to enlighten us about an RWO posting rule concerning speculation?

liz

2nd October 2007, 08:32 PM

Would one of the moderators please care to enlighten us about an RWO posting rule concerning speculation?

There is no RWO rule against speculation per se. A better description of the reason for editing that particular post might have been a request to keep baseless and potentially libellous speculation off RWO.

Happier?

NMWBloods

2nd October 2007, 08:52 PM

Yes - I was in a hurry when I edited the post. It was potentially libellous speculation about drug usage.

cruiser

2nd October 2007, 11:41 PM

There is no RWO rule against speculation per se. A better description of the reason for editing that particular post might have been a request to keep baseless and potentially libellous speculation off RWO.

Happier? Yes, of course.

perthgirl

14th October 2007, 10:04 PM

So now that Cousins wasn't traded, does that mean that soon we will hear that he will retire, again?

Bas

16th October 2007, 03:09 PM

And take up line dancing! :D

Robbo

16th October 2007, 04:44 PM

Cousins seen being questioned by Police today.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/16/2061193.htm?section=justin

Could be for a broken tail light but we'll see.

Chow-Chicker

17th October 2007, 08:51 AM

No need to speculate anymore. He has been charged with possessing a prohibited drug. He faces court today. Looks like his career may be over due to the strict conditions of his contract since his exile and rehab earlier this year. And good riddance.

Norris Lurker

17th October 2007, 02:24 PM

Oops! 1,000 hours maybe.

reigning premier

17th October 2007, 02:59 PM

I personally don't think he'll last even a week!

Based on your intimate knowledge of the man, no doubt

Think Carolyn won that bet....

Industrial Fan

17th October 2007, 03:18 PM

He didn't even have a collarless shirt on this time!?!

NMWBloods

17th October 2007, 03:22 PM

How ridiculous is his tattoo - will be a shocker in 10-20 years!

Jewels

17th October 2007, 03:22 PM

He didn't even have a collarless shirt on this time!?!

I wish he did. The man has one hell of a good body but that tattoo is one freaking ugly mother......

AnnieH

17th October 2007, 03:24 PM

Think Carolyn won that bet....

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

What a sin to cover that body with that ugly tatt.

Industrial Fan

17th October 2007, 03:27 PM

How ridiculous is his tattoo - will be a shocker in 10-20 years!he should have got "khe sera sera" instead.

Jewels

17th October 2007, 03:34 PM

he should have got "khe sera sera" instead.

Very good, would have been far more appropriate.

Sanecow

17th October 2007, 04:34 PM

"I believe they're drugs-free from an illicit drugs point of view at the minute apart from one obviously player who was caught yesterday (and) we don't know whether he was taking the drugs or not.''

Source (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22601339-11088,00.html)

From an illicit drugs point of view? :rolleyes:

Layby

17th October 2007, 04:36 PM

I had a panadol yesterday, shhhh

pocketrocket

17th October 2007, 04:51 PM

haha, pretty funny quote, should have just stated drug free, now looks a pretty guilty party there. maybe referring to daniel kerr and alcohol, trying to distinguish between the two, but still silly statement to make.

TheGrimReaper

18th October 2007, 08:09 AM

That vow didn't last long? :cool:

ernie koala

18th October 2007, 11:25 AM

I see legs waving around in the air with the head firmly entrenched in the sand. Should be the Eagles new logo

ROK Lobster

19th October 2007, 07:54 AM

Damien

19th October 2007, 08:01 AM

Refusing the drug test would have been the main reason and I am very certain the West Coast and their lawyers were comfortable that his revised contract allowed them to get rid of him.

ScottH

19th October 2007, 08:03 AM

It is beginning to sound like that. He's obviously been a marked man for a while, as are most known drug users.

It would be a huge ask for the club to turn around and re instate him.
I think the problem is that regardless of his guilt or innocence, he brings poor publicity for the club and the game, even if it is a media beat up.

If he is off the stuff, then why is he headed back to rehab?
Is that to satisfy the club?
Is it to delay his court appearance, so further evidence can come to light?
It certainly won't defer the media frenzy surrounding him and the issue.

Chow-Chicker

19th October 2007, 08:47 AM

Sacked for being targeted by the police to promote their new laws and being in possession of a sedative without a prescription. Hardly the spectular bust that it was purported to be. Should the charges be dropped or Cousins found by the Court not to have committed an offence, should he be reinstated? Should he have ever been sacked? Probably not - the charges are obviously a beat up. Cousins is the victim in all this.

You conveniently left out that he refused to undertake a drug test. You also conveniently left out that the other occupants are charged with carrying cocaine, cannibis and god knows what else. Hardly the company you want to be found in if you're trying to "beat the habit".

goswannie14

19th October 2007, 08:50 AM

stellation

19th October 2007, 09:05 AM

Refusing the drug test would have been the main reason and I am very certain the West Coast and their lawyers were comfortable that his revised contract allowed them to get rid of him.
You are allowed to refuse the drug test, I wonder if the Eagles do have a clause in his contract relating to taking drug tests whether that is applicable to Eagles initiated drug tests or any old drug test.

Chow-Chicker

19th October 2007, 09:06 AM

I think you have got the Chick story mixed up with the Cousins story. They were 2 seperate incidents.
Yes, poorly worded. He has moved in with Chick who's passengers were charged with carrying cocaine and cannibis on the same day. Hardly company you want to be keeping with.

Wardy

19th October 2007, 09:26 AM

ROK Lobster

19th October 2007, 09:27 AM

Why dont you go and represent him Rok, you know you want to.
I'm not sure he could afford me.

stellation

19th October 2007, 09:32 AM

I'm not sure he could afford me.
4 bottles of home brew, questionable quality of said home brew not being an issue? He could swing that.

Damien

19th October 2007, 09:50 AM

I think you have got the Chick story mixed up with the Cousins story. They were 2 seperate incidents.

The interesting thing with that, according to a few accounts both cars left the same place and that is why the sting occured.

The whole truth will come out in January I guess.

Damien

19th October 2007, 09:53 AM

The other thing with him being sacked is, we just don't know what the contract said.

Quite possibly one condition was "you must live with your parents while you are playing for the West Coast eagles" - so reports suggested he moved in with Chick last week could have possibly been enough? who knows.

cruiser

19th October 2007, 10:33 AM

You conveniently left out that he refused to undertake a drug test. You also conveniently left out that the other occupants are charged with carrying cocaine, cannibis and god knows what else. Hardly the company you want to be found in if you're trying to "beat the habit". Exactly. Why did he refuse? And does anyone really think that the drug carrying passenger was keeping it all for themself. And why would Cousins need diazepam? And what were they all doing at 10.30 in the morning? And do you really think that the cops arrested him because of one diazepam pill? etc etc The apologists and the deniers on RWO and elsewhere need to get real.

hammo

19th October 2007, 10:50 AM

Exactly. Why did he refuse? And does anyone really think that the drug carrying passenger was keeping it all for themself. And why would Cousins need diazepam? And what were they all doing at 10.30 in the morning? And do you really think that the cops arrested him because of one diazepam pill? etc etc The apologists and the deniers on RWO and elsewhere need to get real.

That's all very well but let's see if the charges stand up in court. You've alluded to a lot there without coming up with any proof.

Chow-Chicker

19th October 2007, 10:55 AM

That's all very well but let's see if the charges stand up in court. You've alluded to a lot there without coming up with any proof.
We will never prove in court that the apologists and deniers on RWO and elsewhere need to get real.

hammo

19th October 2007, 11:11 AM

We will never prove in court that the apologists and deniers on RWO and elsewhere need to get real.

There is a big difference between being an "apologist" and questioning whether the charges will stand up in court. It's not unheard of ifor cops to go after high profile individuals to make a name for themselves.

I've never defended Cousins' drug taking nor have I said his sacking was wrong so I am hardly an "apologist or denier" in regards to Ben Cousins.

All I'm saying is that the case against him here hardly seems water tight.

Chow-Chicker

19th October 2007, 11:14 AM

ernie koala

19th October 2007, 11:35 AM

He has moved in with Chick

Then they both decided they needed more room and a better ambience....so they moved into a strip joint. :cool:

AnnieH

19th October 2007, 12:03 PM

There is a big difference between being an "apologist" and questioning whether the charges will stand up in court. It's not unheard of ifor cops to go after high profile individuals to make a name for themselves.

I've never defended Cousins' drug taking nor have I said his sacking was wrong so I am hardly an "apologist or denier" in regards to Ben Cousins.

All I'm saying is that the case against him here hardly seems water tight.

On the "evidence" the media has presented thus far (valium/refusing the blood test), his charges will be dropped to a misdemeanour ... you don't need to be a QC to know that the police are kidding themselves if they think there's going to be a conviction out of this.

My question is, what was benny-boy still doing in the country this week? I recall something being reported when Mainey died that benny was supposed to leave for the US two days after the funeral.

EDIT: Found an article (I should have been a jurno) ... Plan change that cost Cousins career (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22610501-5012432,00.html)

At the end of the day, you have to feel sorry for Benny's stupidity.

Zlatorog

19th October 2007, 01:24 PM

Is all this talking about Cousins still necessary? What's teh point and what RWO'ers really want out of this? Is the purpose of this post just an attempt to get sympathy for Cousins and get him to join the Swans? Why somebody doesn't set up a poll and see how others feel about it.

Personally, I don't like him, but I wouldn't be suprised if the Swans wouldn't try draft him if AFL permits it.

Sanecow

19th October 2007, 01:33 PM

And why would Cousins need diazepam?

PRESCRIBED FOR: Diazepam is used for the short-term relief of symptoms related to anxiety disorders. Diazepam is also used for the treatment of agitation, tremors, delirium, seizures, and hallucinations as a result of alcohol withdrawal.

Shock, horror.

Industrial Fan

19th October 2007, 01:35 PM

PRESCRIBED FOR: Diazepam is used for the short-term relief of symptoms related to anxiety disorders. Diazepam is also used for the treatment of agitation, tremors, delirium, seizures, and hallucinations as a result of alcohol withdrawal.
Anyone know where I can get some? That sounds like me.

Sanecow

19th October 2007, 01:39 PM

Probably not - the charges are obviously a beat up. Cousins is the victim in all this.

I don't know if you are tongue-in-cheek or not, but the presence of a video camera smells shonky. And who were the "two female passengers"?

Bazman

19th October 2007, 02:15 PM

cruiser

19th October 2007, 02:28 PM

Charges to be dropped on Monday according to Vega fm, so question is should the Swans try and lure him to Sydney for further rehabilitation?
Lets face it we need him or dont we need the baggage that comes with him? personnally i'd like to see him running around in the Red and White. I'd like to see him carve up the West coke eagles mid-field.

If we want him Email the club.
Only the drug charge has been dropped. The charge relating to his refusal to submit to a drug test remains - and why wouldn't it.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22613343-5001021,00.html

I find it staggeringly incomprehensible that some people here would want to see him playing for us.

Layby

19th October 2007, 02:31 PM

Hey Cruiser,

Would you be happy to submit to a drug test if you were just driving in a car ?

The opportunity to harass minorities is enormous with that leglislation.

cruiser

19th October 2007, 02:40 PM

Hey Cruiser,

Would you be happy to submit to a drug test if you were just driving in a car ?

The opportunity to harass minorities is enormous with that leglislation. If I was pulled over and asked I would do it. I don't put myself above the law.

Was he 'just driving' or 'driving erratically'? Was he under surveillance and as a result, did the police have sufficient evidence to pull him over to search his vehicle and request that he submit to a test?

I always thought that the diazepam charge was tenuous.

Sanecow

19th October 2007, 02:41 PM

With a possibility of drink spiking ("A staggering one in four people recently surveyed claimed to be victims of sneaky drink spikers." (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22480686-662,00.html)), his career in the balance if he failed a test and police trying to Punk him, he took the smart option.

hammo

19th October 2007, 02:51 PM

Only the drug charge has been dropped. The charge relating to his refusal to submit to a drug test remains - and why wouldn't it.

It's a new law which came into effect about 2 weeks ago and has never been tested in court. An interesting test case, I wonder how determined the WA police are to make such a high profile case the first one. My guess is not very.

Matty10

19th October 2007, 02:52 PM

I doubt that there is any way that the AFL would allow Cousins to come to the Swans - but this whole issue smacks of political correctness and public pressure forcing an issue.

The Federal Government, for political mileage, is putting heat on the AFL (and therefore their sponsors), who in turn are putting it on the Eagles.

Cousins wasn't at work when the issue came up anyway (it seems ridiculous to me that someone's legal problems should immediately cause their employer to sack them).

At the very least (without knowing all the facts - and who could at this point) it seems that the Eagles jumped the gun.

To be honest if I was pulled over (not by your regular Police Officers, but by the Drug/Crime squad) at 10:30am because they said I was driving erratically (I assume giving them probable cause to search the car etc) I would be a bit hesitant.

Shouldn't the Eagles have waited until he was found guilty - perhaps they should have suspended him again until the issue was resolved instead of sacking him.

The Eagles (and the world) knows that Cousins has a drug problem - so what is new? If his drug problem was so great and so well known - surely they would expect that a relapse was possible if not probable. He was already planning to go back to rehab, but then his close friend dies and he postpones the trip to attend the funeral etc - it is still planned.

The whole issue seems beyond the bounds of what the AFL should be trying to do in running a football competition.

Footballers play football - anything outside that world shouldn't be an issue for the AFL.

Unless the illegal drugs are a performance enhancer then I don't think the AFL should even be testing for them - they are not the police and should not try and be the moral moderators of the world either.

TheGrimReaper

19th October 2007, 02:55 PM

There were other terms and conditions that Cousins broke, so the Eagles had every right to sack him. I think it might have something to do with the people that he was seeing.

hammo

19th October 2007, 03:16 PM

OK now its going to get interesting.

I don't see any reason why Cousins couldn't play in the AFL next year.

What a farce.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/comments/0,22023,22613344-661,00.html

Sanecow

19th October 2007, 03:31 PM

Cousins has never tested positive for illicit drugs.

From another report:

as many as three drug tests a week kept coming back clean.

There's no reason to think that he is not successfully undergoing rehabilitation. My apologies to Ben for doubting him on the back of poor police work and media speculation.

AnnieH

19th October 2007, 03:35 PM

OK now its going to get interesting.

I don't see any reason why Cousins couldn't play in the AFL next year.

What a farce.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/comments/0,22023,22613344-661,00.html

Yahhhhh for the media and whoever else is involved keeping the headlines away from the boring politicans. We've heard it all before ! Bring it on ...what's next kissing cousins ! Posted by: Margaret Lewfatt of Melbourne 2:13pm today
Comment 7 of 15

Funny.:)

Damien

19th October 2007, 05:49 PM

Traces of ecstasy and cocaine found on a $20 note in the car, along with three other available drugs, one prohibited.

West Coast did the right thing IMO

Source (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22613382-2,00.html)

AnnieH

19th October 2007, 06:12 PM

So disgraced ex-west coast fallen star ben cousins needs viagra????
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

There's a whole new thread if I ever saw one.:)

Damien

19th October 2007, 06:14 PM

So disgraced ex-west coast fallen star ben cousins needs viagra????
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

There's a whole new thread if I ever saw one.:)

Not suggesting it was the reason in the slightest however, I used to manage a guy that swore by ecstasy and Viagra together....I actually had to give him a warning for promoting it with his mates at work :eek:

Not my cup of tea, but it seems to be an in thing for some out there.

RED RAG

19th October 2007, 08:48 PM

Hey Cruiser,

Would you be happy to submit to a drug test if you were just driving in a car ?

The opportunity to harass minorities is enormous with that leglislation.

Yes I'd be quite happy. Maybe the they'd get some of dickheads that are driving around with it in their system. And how often does anyone get pulled up these days anyway with the miniscule amount of patrol cars on the road anyway.

goswannie14

20th October 2007, 10:40 AM

I don't know if you are tongue-in-cheek or not, but the presence of a video camera smells shonky. And who were the "two female passengers"?
From what I heard on ABC radio, Cousins had visited a house that was under observation by the squad (I don't knw what it is called), Daniel Chick also visited the same house. That is why both cars were followed, stopped and searched, and why both serches happened realtively closely together in time and location.

That would explain a police video. However I also heard a claim that a reporter just happened to be there when the search happened and taped it on his phone. I don't know that this is very credible, it would appear more likely that the press were also following Cousins car.

goswannie14

20th October 2007, 10:42 AM

Hey Cruiser,

Would you be happy to submit to a drug test if you were just driving in a car ?

The opportunity to harass minorities is enormous with that leglislation.If he was driving in Victoria he would have no choice but to submit, it is no different to being breath tested. Random drugs tests are common in Victoria.

TheGrimReaper

20th October 2007, 10:50 AM

I'm thinking that the police tipped the media off, knowing that they had a fair idea that Cousins was going to be nabbed. How else was the media there so quickly for the incident?

Layby

20th October 2007, 11:02 AM

If he was driving in Victoria he would have no choice but to submit, it is no different to being breath tested. Random drugs tests are common in Victoria.

I am not saying it does not happen, and not necessarily saying i disagree with random setups on the side of the road to randomly test passers by.

My concern is targeted 'random' testing where someone is followed then 'random' tested.

I just think it gives police too much opportunity to harass individuals or minority goups.

Just my opinion

goswannie14

20th October 2007, 11:21 AM

I am not saying it does not happen, and not necessarily saying i disagree with random setups on the side of the road to randomly test passers by.

My concern is targeted 'random' testing where someone is followed then 'random' tested.

I just think it gives police too much opportunity to harass individuals or minority goups.

Just my opinion
That's fair enough. I think however in this instance the reason Cousins was pulled up was because of what I said earlier.

From what I heard on ABC radio, Cousins had visited a house that was under observation by the squad (I don't knw what it is called), Daniel Chick also visited the same house. That is why both cars were followed, stopped and searched, and why both serches happened realtively closely together in time and location.

Matty10

20th October 2007, 11:51 AM

That's fair enough. I think however in this instance the reason Cousins was pulled up was because of what I said earlier.

Wasn't it reported that the police pulled him over because he was driving erratically - or was that just another case of the media creating the news rather than reporting it?

goswannie14

20th October 2007, 11:57 AM

Wasn't it reported that the police pulled him over because he was driving erratically - or was that just another case of the media creating the news rather than reporting it? I did hear that too. Could it be a combination of both? Although, given the squad that pulled him up, the trailling because of where he had been seems to be more likely IMO.

Damien

20th October 2007, 12:04 PM

I'm thinking that the police tipped the media off, knowing that they had a fair idea that Cousins was going to be nabbed. How else was the media there so quickly for the incident?

By the time the cameras started rolling, he had already been moved to the backseat of his car, I am pretty confident it was the public that tipped the media off.

Some people had already posted the "rumour" that Cousins was having his car searched on boards before the media even got wind of it.

goswannie14

20th October 2007, 12:05 PM

Some people had already posted the "rumour" that Cousins was having his car searched on boards before the media even got wind of it.My wife told me about it off a parenting chat site before I read it here. Evidently it was near a number of offices so there were "rubber-neckers" everywhere.

Damien

20th October 2007, 12:06 PM

I did hear that too. Could it be a combination of both? Although, given the squad that pulled him up, the trailling because of where he had been seems to be more likely IMO.

Yes. Seems to be that Cousins and Chick were together at a location being monitored, which makes total sense considering both were taken to the police station at the same time.

TheGrimReaper

20th October 2007, 12:40 PM

By the time the cameras started rolling, he had already been moved to the backseat of his car, I am pretty confident it was the public that tipped the media off.

Some people had already posted the "rumour" that Cousins was having his car searched on boards before the media even got wind of it.

I wouldn't be surprised either way.

ScottH

20th October 2007, 02:41 PM

AnnieH

22nd October 2007, 11:06 AM

I heard on the weekend that they found $20K cash in disgraced ex-west coast eagles fallen star ben cousins' car.
He'd just stopped at the ATM.

Industrial Fan

22nd October 2007, 01:36 PM

goswannie14

22nd October 2007, 01:53 PM

I heard on the weekend that they found $20K cash in disgraced ex-west coast eagles fallen star ben cousins' car.
He'd just stopped at the ATM.I think you'll find it was $20.00 Annie.;)

AnnieH

22nd October 2007, 03:02 PM

I think you'll find it was $20.00 Annie.;)

That was the alledged $20 that allegedly had traces of an alleged illegal substance on it (or so the alleged rumour goes).

573v30

22nd October 2007, 04:01 PM

Well, he gets $50 after the drug charge was dropped.

Source (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22627379-11088,00.html)
I hope he doesn't roll it up.

AnnieH

22nd October 2007, 04:08 PM

... take your fifty in damages benny and sit down and shut up - no more legal recourse.

Personally, I would have gone for the millions.

Maybe he just doesn't want it invesigated any further.

robbieando

22nd October 2007, 05:21 PM

... take your fifty in damages benny and sit down and shut up - no more legal recourse.

He was awarded costs from a "Criminal" case, because that all his lawyer asked for. Hardly a big deal in my view and hardly the last we'll hear of this matter because we still have the second charge to come and if successful in getting a not-guilty verdict in that matter he'll be award a far larger costs payout (basically the cost Ben has involved in fighting the charge in Court, legal fees and costs of witness).

If he wants to take "Civil Action" against the WA Police Service (which has been mooted), then he has PLENTY of legal recourse left. So maybe you should work out the difference between Criminal Jurisdiction and Civil Jurisdiction before deciding that Ben has no legal recourse left available to him.

Because he certainly has the second charge which he is contesting and can appeal if found guilty under the "Criminal Jurisdiction". Then there is Civil Action he can take against the WA Police Force for the way they handled the first drugs charge (and again access to the appeal process if damages aren't found in his favour) in the "Civil Jurisdiction"

BeeEmmAre

22nd October 2007, 05:59 PM

He was awarded costs from a "Criminal" case, because that all his lawyer asked for. Hardly a big deal in my view and hardly the last we'll hear of this matter because we still have the second charge to come and if successful in getting a not-guilty verdict in that matter he'll be award a far larger costs payout (basically the cost Ben has involved in fighting the charge in Court, legal fees and costs of witness).

If he wants to take "Civil Action" against the WA Police Service (which has been mooted), then he has PLENTY of legal recourse left. So maybe you should work out the difference between Criminal Jurisdiction and Civil Jurisdiction before deciding that Ben has no legal recourse left available to him.

Because he certainly has the second charge which he is contesting and can appeal if found guilty under the "Criminal Jurisdiction". Then there is Civil Action he can take against the WA Police Force for the way they handled the first drugs charge (and again access to the appeal process if damages aren't found in his favour) in the "Civil Jurisdiction"

But would he want all that has been hidden brought out in the open?

robbieando

22nd October 2007, 08:46 PM

But would he want all that has been hidden brought out in the open?

What has been hidden though?? He has admitted to his drug problem and any civil action would be brought against the WA Police Service for their handling of his arrest and getting his drug possession charge so very wrong in such a very public manner.

Most of what's known already would hurt him if it wasn't public already in a civil action and therefore you wouldn't hear discussion about a civil action from the Cousins camp.

What hasn't come out yet (basically what drugs he has used in the past, how long he has used for, has he started using again since returning from rehab, how he got his drugs and who from his inner-circle also uses drugs, questions that HAVEN'T been answered but people either know pretty much the answer or can make a fair guess) wouldn't have an impact on this sort of civil action because it doesn't go anyway to explain why the WA Police involved acted the way they did.

BeeEmmAre

22nd October 2007, 10:36 PM

What has been hidden though??

We don't know, that's the point.

He has admitted to his drug problem and any civil action would be brought against the WA Police Service for their handling of his arrest and getting his drug possession charge so very wrong in such a very public manner.
Most of what's known already would hurt him if it wasn't public already in a civil action and therefore you wouldn't hear discussion about a civil action from the Cousins camp.
What hasn't come out yet (basically what drugs he has used in the past, how long he has used for, has he started using again since returning from rehab, how he got his drugs and who from his inner-circle also uses drugs, questions that HAVEN'T been answered but people either know pretty much the answer or can make a fair guess) wouldn't have an impact on this sort of civil action because it doesn't go anyway to explain why the WA Police involved acted the way they did.

That's fair, but there was also talk of suing the Eagles and the AFL for wrongful dismissal, in which case we'd find out about the 'repeated and serious breaches of his contract' which had him sacked in the first place.
I don't know if there's anything to hide, but if there is, legal action would most likely bring it all out in the open.
If everything has been revealed, he'll probably go ahead because he's got nothing more to lose.
If there are still skeletons, he'll probably want them kept quiet in case he wants to try to get on another list.

robbieando

22nd October 2007, 11:08 PM

We don't know, that's the point.

But from a legal standpoint, in a civil action against the WA Police Service in the handling of their arrest of him on a drug charge in such a public manner, I doubt what hasn't come out would be of much use to explain why the WA Police handled the case in such a poor manner in the end.

That's fair, but there was also talk of suing the Eagles and the AFL for wrongful dismissal, in which case we'd find out about the 'repeated and serious breaches of his contract' which had him sacked in the first place.

If that's the case, then that would be a seperate civil action and then I would doubt he would want to go ahead with it because as you have pointed out, it would make everything public and looking from afar the Eagles had "just cause" to end his contract and the AFL had nothing to do with that other than to block him from being picked up by another club on the cheap, which would be unfair on West Coast.

I don't know if there's anything to hide, but if there is, legal action would most likely bring it all out in the open.

Correct, but only if he is asked certain questions and he answers them. Same if West Coast answer their knowledge about his useage timeframe, habit and so forth.

If everything has been revealed, he'll probably go ahead because he's got nothing more to lose.

Certainly.

If there are still skeletons, he'll probably want them kept quiet in case he wants to try to get on another list.

Regardless he'll want to keep them quiet. As for playing again, I doubt any club would take the risk on him regardless of his talent.

Personally, if he is going to take Civil Action, it will be against the WA Police Service only and for legal cost and "future earnings" lost because of the media involvement that cost him his playing career. I doubt he'll take Civil Action against the Eagles and the AFL because his playing contract was pretty much water tight and the Eagles could of cut it up over the smallest issue.

ROK Lobster

22nd October 2007, 11:30 PM

If that's the case, then that would be a seperate civil action and then I would doubt he would want to go ahead with it because as you have pointed out, it would make everything public and looking from afar the Eagles had "just cause" to end his contract and the AFL had nothing to do with that other than to block him from being picked up by another club on the cheap, which would be unfair on West Coast.Do the rules of evidence apply in the Industrial Relations Tribunal? Is "just cause" a defence to unfair dismissal or are you envisaging a common law act for breach of contract? And what do you think about an action for restraint of trade under the Trade Practices Act? I would be also interested to hear if you consider that the club owe Cousins a duty of care. There are those on RWO who consider that they do not but I would consider that to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. What's your opinion Robbie?

Chow-Chicker

23rd October 2007, 12:39 AM

Do the rules of evidence apply in the Industrial Relations Tribunal? Is "just cause" a defence to unfair dismissal or are you envisaging a common law act for breach of contract? And what do you think about an action for restraint of trade under the Trade Practices Act? I would be also interested to hear if you consider that the club owe Cousins a duty of care. There are those on RWO who consider that they do not but I would consider that to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. What's your opinion Robbie?

Here we go again.

Duty of Care under what law? Please provide the link or the actual Act in which you are referring. And please define what duty of care is owed to Cousins - is it new employment? Is it rehabilitation? Is it to provide him with legal representation? Is it to ensure that he doesn't damage the club's or the AFL's name through public stupidity?

@@@@ing amazing how so much effort goes into defending this idiot after all the bull@@@@ he gets himself into time and again.

Try these for size;

Punch on with Daniel Kerr, Cousins gets pushed down stairs and breaks arm.

Refuses to cooperate with police investigations in relation to a mob shooting in perth.

Does a runner from a booze bus, leaving girlfriend behind.

Gets absolutely @@@@ faced at crown and is photographed passed out in the street.

Father admits he is a drug addict, goes to America for rehab.

Was at Mainwaring's house hours before he died of a drug overdose.

Pulled over for driving erratically, refuses to take a driver assessment.

Numerous times the Eagles have warned that he is on his "last warning". If he was a second string player he would've been gone years ago. He is yet to suffer any consequences for his stupid actions other than his contract being terminated.

Duty of care? Hahahaha

573v30

23rd October 2007, 01:34 AM

Agree. No point keeping such a bad influence in the club when the chances of Cousins getting into more trouble are quite high.

Layby

23rd October 2007, 09:28 AM

It amazes me how ignorant people really are about the workings of the legal system. Yet somehow they feel they are qualified to comment, too many legal shows on the television i think.

ScottH

23rd October 2007, 09:55 AM

AnnieH

23rd October 2007, 10:27 AM

NMWBloods

23rd October 2007, 10:30 AM

Joe Blow on an every-day employment contract gets three written warnings from his boss before he gets the sack - it's part of the terms and conditions of his contract. He gets his three warnings, then gets the sack. The company owe him nothing.That's incorrect. The 'typical' employment contract simply requires 4-weeks notice from either employer or employee - no requirement for warnings or reasons. Term contracts, which the AFL players are under, are not the same though.

NMWBloods

23rd October 2007, 10:31 AM

AnnieH

23rd October 2007, 10:37 AM

That's incorrect. The 'typical' employment contract simply requires 4-weeks notice from either employer or employee - no requirement for warnings or reasons. Term contracts, which the AFL players are under, are not the same though.

Please don't jump down my throat and say "that's incorrect". The one you describe is more of a "white collar" contract. The one I described was more of a blue collar one.

Different employment terms and conditions apply for different industries - they're not all the same.

I realise that AFL term contracts are not the same as Joe Blows - my point was that there is a contract involved nonetheless, that he had to abide by. He didn't, so he got the sack.

NMWBloods

23rd October 2007, 10:38 AM

Please don't jump down my throat and say "that's incorrect". The one you describe is more of a "white collar" contract. The one I described was more of a blue collar one.

Different employment terms and conditions apply for different industries - they're not all the same.

I realise that AFL term contracts are not the same as Joe Blows - my point was that there is a contract involved nonetheless.
I'm not jumping down your throat. I am saying that based on a comment a friend of mine made. He is an IR solicitor and said that is a common misperception of most employment contracts.

ROK Lobster

23rd October 2007, 10:43 AM

I realise that AFL term contracts are not the same as Joe Blows - my point was that there is a contract involved nonetheless, that he had to abide by. He didn't, so he got the sack.
At what point does the club or the AFL cease to owe Cousins a duty of care?

AnnieH

23rd October 2007, 10:47 AM

At what point does the club or the AFL cease to owe Cousins a duty of care?

The minute they sacked him (delisted/deregistered).

Have you ever been fired from a job? What duty of care did the company firing you have after they fired you?

Layby

23rd October 2007, 10:49 AM

The minute they sacked him (delisted/deregistered).

Have you ever been fired from a job? What duty of care did the company firing you have after they fired you?

I think you should wait for that episode before commenting

Layby

23rd October 2007, 10:50 AM

I'm not jumping down your throat. I am saying that based on a comment a friend of mine made. He is an IR solicitor and said that is a common misperception of most employment contracts.

Bully (with a lawyer friend)

AnnieH

23rd October 2007, 10:56 AM

I think you should wait for that episode before commenting

I can't wait that long.

Please tell me what duty of care a company owes you once you've been fired - and which company in particular gives it? I want to go and work for them.

Layby

23rd October 2007, 10:56 AM

I can't wait that long.

Please tell me what duty of care a company owes you once you've been fired - and which company in particular gives it? I want to go and work for them.

Not my job to educate you, keep bumbling along

AnnieH

23rd October 2007, 10:57 AM

Not my job to educate you, keep bumbling along

A non-answer - once again.

NMWBloods

23rd October 2007, 11:09 AM

Bully (with a lawyer friend)
The two go hand-in-hand really. Watch out or I'll sue you for defamation though!

ROK Lobster

23rd October 2007, 11:13 AM

I can't wait that long.

Please tell me what duty of care a company owes you once you've been fired - and which company in particular gives it? I want to go and work for them.You clearly have little idea what you are talking about. Anyones whose actions or omissions may affect another owes that other person a duty of care. Clearly, WC's decission to sack Cousins has potential to affect him. They therefore owe him a duty of care and have an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure that their actions do not cause him loss or damage. This has nothing to do with their contractual relationship. That is the law. They owe him a duty of care. Just as I owe you a duty of care not to do anything that might cause you harm, such as driving negligently (eg over the speed limit). Cousins' actions do not waive his right to a duty of care - that he has acted, in some people's opinions, poorly is irrelevant - just as I cannot run you over simply because I consider you to be a moron. Benny's actions, or your actions, are not a defence for the tortfeasor, except to the extent that Ben's or your negligence has directly caused the loss suffered.

BTW - I have never been sacked, and futhermore, I don't think that you would get a job anywhere I have worked.

ScottH

23rd October 2007, 11:46 AM

FYI

Employers Duty of Care - WA (http://redandwhiteonline.com/DutyofCare/DofC_Empr.pdf)

Employees Duty of Care - WA (http://redandwhiteonline.com/DutyofCare/DofC_Empe.pdf)

Wardy

23rd October 2007, 11:53 AM

FYI

Employers Duty of Care - WA (http://redandwhiteonline.com/DutyofCare/DofC_Empr.pdf)

Employees Duty of Care - WA (http://redandwhiteonline.com/DutyofCare/DofC_Empe.pdf)

there are another 70 or so pages but these were the summary's that I could pull out - its riveting reading!;) thanks Scott for putting it on.

However the Cousins case will be an interesting one, but if the WC duty of Care is going to come into it, then it might be an idea to put their D & O insurers on notice - the legal fraternity will be salivating over this one.

AnnieH

23rd October 2007, 12:02 PM

BTW - I have never been sacked, and futhermore, I don't think that you would get a job anywhere I have worked.

I wouldn't even apply for a job for a company that you worked at.
If you're this sanctimonious behind a computer keyboard, I couldn't imagine how unbearable it would be to work next to you.

NOT my idea of a fun day.

Wardy

23rd October 2007, 12:03 PM

Come on - lets keep this civil please - it is turning into a slanging match again - at the end of the day its not worth the angst!

Layby

23rd October 2007, 12:04 PM

The whole of Canberra sighs in relief

Jewels

23rd October 2007, 12:10 PM

Come on - lets keep this civil please - it is turning into a slanging match again - at the end of the day its not worth the angst!

The most sensible post in days!

ROK Lobster

23rd October 2007, 12:13 PM

I wouldn't even apply for a job for a company that you worked at.
If you're this sanctimonious behind a computer keyboard, I couldn't imagine how unbearable it would be to work next to you.

NOT my idea of a fun day.You carry on with no idea of what you are talking about, generally agressively, then get upset when you are corrected. If you don't like it, either shut up or piss off.

AnnieH

23rd October 2007, 12:20 PM

You carry on with no idea of what you are talking about, generally agressively, then get upset when you are corrected. If you don't like it, either shut up or piss off.

make me.

Wardy

23rd October 2007, 12:32 PM

Christ - I give up!

Chow-Chicker

23rd October 2007, 01:00 PM

It amazes me how ignorant people really are about the workings of the legal system. Yet somehow they feel they are qualified to comment, too many legal shows on the television i think.
Text removed : Abusive, insulting language

Please provide some useful contributions about your expertise in law and provide the reference to your assertions about duty of care. I shall laugh in your face as you attempt to do so. I know specific legislation that discusses a duty of care and none of it relates to the matter in which Ben Cousins finds himself in.

Chow-Chicker

23rd October 2007, 01:03 PM

At what point does the club or the AFL cease to owe Cousins a duty of care?

You have yet to outline what the duty of care is owed. It is very difficult to prove whether anyone has breached a duty of care unles you stipulate what that duty of care IS.

ROK Lobster

23rd October 2007, 01:06 PM

Text removed

Please provide some useful contributions about your expertise in law and provide the reference to your assertions about duty of care. I shall laugh in your face as you attempt to do so. I know specific legislation that discusses a duty of care and none of it relates to the matter in which Ben Cousins finds himself in.I cannot speak for Layby but I would consider it likely that the club and the AFL would owe Cousins a common law duty of care in addition to any statutory obligation. This is the duty of care which I was talking about. Please provide evidence of the WA legislature's intention to cover the field in this regard before you start laughing, or the joke may be on you.

ROK Lobster

23rd October 2007, 01:09 PM

You have yet to outline what the duty of care is owed. It is very difficult to prove whether anyone has breached a duty of care unles you stipulate what that duty of care IS.
I think I did in my longer post. I do not think that understand the concept. Have you read any of the case law? If not I suggest that Donoghue v Stevenson is an ideal starting point.

Big Al

23rd October 2007, 02:29 PM

I think I did in my longer post. I do not think that understand the concept. Have you read any of the case law? If not I suggest that Donoghue v Stevenson is an ideal starting point.

I won't pretend to understand the concept of "duty of care" as it relates to the law. However does duty of care work both ways? Would Cousins have a duty of care to the Eagles and the AFL. It could be argued that Cousins actions over the past year have done damage to the Eagles. By sacking him they are mitigating any further damage that he may cause.

Chow-Chicker

23rd October 2007, 03:06 PM

I cannot speak for Layby but I would consider it likely that the club and the AFL would owe Cousins a common law duty of care in addition to any statutory obligation. This is the duty of care which I was talking about. Please provide evidence of the WA legislature's intention to cover the field in this regard before you start laughing, or the joke may be on you.
I think Contract Law is the relevant Law in respect to Ben Cousins and West Coast Eagles. The "duty of care" is shared between the two parties to ensure the terms of the contract are met. When there is a breach of these terms and conditions, then action can be taken from either party.

We can pull out every piece of legislation in existence and claim there has been a breach of some duty of care somewhere. We could even take the Dennis Denuto defence and claim "it's in the vibe of it".

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the Human Rights Charter. Australia is in transition of implementing the Human Rights & Responsibilities Act into workplaces. It will commence in Victoria in January. Other States will follow suit. Now there is an interesting piece of law for everyone to digest.

NMWBloods

23rd October 2007, 03:10 PM

Legal opinion I have just received is that WC do owe a duty of care to Cousins but have not breached it.

ROK Lobster

23rd October 2007, 03:27 PM

I think Contract Law is the relevant Law in respect to Ben Cousins and West Coast Eagles. The "duty of care" is shared between the two parties to ensure the terms of the contract are met. When there is a breach of these terms and conditions, then action can be taken from either party.

We can pull out every piece of legislation in existence and claim there has been a breach of some duty of care somewhere. We could even take the Dennis Denuto defence and claim "it's in the vibe of it".

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the Human Rights Charter. Australia is in transition of implementing the Human Rights & Responsibilities Act into workplaces. It will commence in Victoria in January. Other States will follow suit. Now there is an interesting piece of law for everyone to digest.There is a broader duty of care, well outside contract or employment law. It is called the law of tort. Please read some case law. Perre v Apand is an Australian classic, with 4 or 5 excellent judgments from the bench of the HCA. What you have written above is rubbish.

Industrial Fan

23rd October 2007, 03:42 PM

Chow-Chicker

23rd October 2007, 04:03 PM

There is a broader duty of care, well outside contract or employment law. It is called the law of tort. Please read some case law. Perre v Apand is an Australian classic, with 4 or 5 excellent judgments from the bench of the HCA. What you have written above is rubbish.
Listen ROK, the only rubbish continually littered on here is your constant blithering about nothing. Please provide specific law or reference to your claim that the WCE have breach in regard to the termination of Ben Cousins contract. If you believe Ben Cousins doesn't have a duty of care himself to his club and the league then you have no idea about anything.

Now stop being Denuto by saying there is a "broader duty of care" and be specific.

NMWBloods

23rd October 2007, 04:03 PM

I hate law, but I'm quite good at forensics n' that.
Vacuuming up bits of fluff and matching broken toenails and ageing maggots would do my head in!

NMWBloods

23rd October 2007, 04:04 PM

Listen ROK, the only rubbish continually littered on here is your constant blithering about nothing. Please provide specific law or reference to your claim that the WCE have breach in regard to the termination of Ben Cousins contract.He has - he's provided two cases.

AnnieH

23rd October 2007, 04:06 PM

I think he means duty of care as in who's going to foot the rehab bills - I'm not sure. My eyes are beginning to glass over. I can't see what other "duty of care" there is.

Do you think the criminals are paying for Round II of his treatment, or would that be coming out of his own pocket? It should be coming out of his own pocket. If he can't afford it, come over to rehab in Sydney. No-one knows him here (as long as he keeps his shirt on) and I'm sure it'll be a cheaper option.

I would think that if the club were paying, that money would be better spent on the edumication of the other players.