Why not Cousins?

[ShockOfHair]

After all that buildup. Unbelievable.

[Cardinal]

Oh my God, Cuz's hamstrings - GONE !!

I give up. Now I understand why everyone was worried. Then again at least the Tigers will remain solvent for another year.

[Xie Shan]

Jeez hopalong just a mention of a burial and the roos always spring to mind!

That was actually quite clever!

[connolly]

......bring on the season proper - so we have something decent and interesting to comment on!

Jeez hopalong just a mention of a burial and the roos always spring to mind!

[Cardinal]

Plenty of how Cousins is going in the fantasy footy to discuss yet

[AnnieH]

......bring on the season proper - so we have something decent and interesting to comment on!

... like the bushrats???

[Kanga]

......bring on the season proper - so we have something decent and interesting to comment on!

[Wardy]

I thought cousins was already drafted, so this thread was dead.


And Buried.



Maybe we need some more soil.

Good one Scott perhaps its time to close it and move on - plant a nice rose - it will either grow flowers or just thorns!

[ScottH]

I thought cousins was already drafted, so this thread was dead.


And Buried.



Maybe we need some more soil.

[Wardy]

... that are often open to "interpretation".
Just ask the maggots.

indeed!

[AnnieH]

Ah Connolly you didnt dissapoint and no doubt you will keep going until the cow's come home - it is one of thos emotive issues where not everyone will agree. But you have to admit the AFL have rules have a distinct grey area.

... that are often open to "interpretation".
Just ask the maggots.

[Wardy]

Well yes.

1. Cousins was not addicted to a recreational drug. Methamphetimine is a prohibited performance enhancing species of drug listed by WADA.

2. Cousins was addicted to methamphetamine during the playing season. This can be gleaned from the "evidence" of the filthy pharmacist who coached the little rip snorter to two grand finals.

3. This issue in regard to Cousins is not about out of season positives to recreational drugs, despite the spin that the crazy kids in charge of the game put on it.

4. There is no evidence that the little scallywag played with the assistance of methamphetimine due to the complete inadequacy of the AFL in season game day testing regime and that methamphetimine is generally undetectable after twenty four hours from ingestion. Of course the main defender of this pathetic testing system is B Gale esq. who as a player, whilst studying for a law degree, played for a complete season with a team mate who went from mediocre to elite, rucked all day and generally moved around the ground like Clark Kent in his underpants. And the sharp as a whip law student didn't suspect a thing apparently.

So should Cousins be treated differently in regard to testing for performance enhancing drugs? If you care about the integrity and credibility of the code - yes indeed

Ah Connolly you didnt dissapoint and no doubt you will keep going until the cow's come home - it is one of those emotive issues where not everyone will agree. But you have to admit the AFL have rules that have a distinct grey area.

[Wardy]

But maybe they're not. Maybe they've all gone into rehab and are now "reformed" "ex"-junkies.

Difference is ... IMO, the size of the ego's of those involved.

Some people want the world to know their business, and some people don't.

Why else make a doco about your "recovery"?

But you cant catagorically confirm that those players on their 2nd strike have "reformed" because no one knows who they are - they still have one more throw of the dice before being outed.

Every team has its fair share of blokes with ego's the size of the sun - Cousins certainly hasnt helped himself being a prat, but rules really seem flawed.

If the AFL are supposed to be going for Zero tolerance on any drug, then why have the 3 strike rule ? it seems contradictory.

Also The AFL would have endorsed the Doco, because they have set the ground rules & conditions for Cousins to come back - everything is being controlled by the AFL because the AFL brand is at the centre of it. There is no way they wouldnt have endorsed it.

[connolly]

Very good points Wardy. I'm sure someone will argue you about them though.

Well yes.

1. Cousins was not addicted to a recreational drug. Methamphetimine is a prohibited performance enhancing species of drug listed by WADA.

2. Cousins was addicted to methamphetamine during the playing season. This can be gleaned from the "evidence" of the filthy pharmacist who coached the little rip snorter to two grand finals.

3. This issue in regard to Cousins is not about out of season positives to recreational drugs, despite the spin that the crazy kids in charge of the game put on it.

4. There is no evidence that the little scallywag played with the assistance of methamphetimine due to the complete inadequacy of the AFL in season game day testing regime and that methamphetimine is generally undetectable after twenty four hours from ingestion. Of course the main defender of this pathetic testing system is B Gale esq. who as a player, whilst studying for a law degree, played for a complete season with a team mate who went from mediocre to elite, rucked all day and generally moved around the ground like Clark Kent in his underpants. And the sharp as a whip law student didn't suspect a thing apparently.

So should Cousins be treated differently in regard to testing for performance enhancing drugs? If you care about the integrity and credibility of the code - yes indeed

[AnnieH]

I would say the other 6 who are on their second strike are probably more protected than Cousins because they are still doing the gear and have got away with it thus far.

But maybe they're not. Maybe they've all gone into rehab and are now "reformed" "ex"-junkies.

Difference is ... IMO, the size of the ego's of those involved.

Some people want the world to know their business, and some people don't.

Why else make a doco about your "recovery"?