Serious question as all the Benny fans are squealing

Lots of talk about how onerous the conditions imposed on his return are.

Can someone explain the difference between what he has to do and what a current player has to do?

Is there any difference?

No chances.

No other player can be target tested up to three times per week at the discretion of the league.

No other player can have hair samples taken. They can shave this monkey up to 4 times in a season.

Those are the 2 that stood out for me. It may include more than that though.

Worth noting that no other player has 2 papers, 3 tv stations and so far 3 top AFL identities, plus his scumbag manager pimping hard for him to get picked up.

Nixon is a ****. Absolutely the worst thing you can do with an addict is pin all future hopes on 1 thing. Nixon has done that publicly and often, even forward blaming anyone who doesn't pick him up for Benny's ultimate demise. No way Cousins rehab Dr's (if they exist) would have approved of that approach.

Rehab is about demonstrating to addicts that they have all the life options of the non-addicted. Old 5% Rick has gone completely the other way. If ever there was proof that this man is somewhere under the crap on a car salesman's shoe in terms of character, his handling of Ben's situation in recent weeks has been it.

Is there actually anything that says a player can't be tested up to three times a week?

Nothing that I know of - don't reckon he'll be needing a toilet with all those bottles to be filled.

See the AFLPA's view: click

And Stephen Rielly's opinion in The Australian: click

It would be interesting to know what the current testing guidelines are, in any case AFLPA are a bit rich in their criticism when you are talking about a de-registered player. The AFL reserve the right to re-register him with any condition they see fit. Don't they?

Was he de-registered for bringing the game into disrepute or illicit drug use, I have forgotten?

disrepute.

So, as I see it, he may still be afforded three strikes under the drug policy but he won't get that far because he only gets one strike under the disrepute policy.

It's an issue of the integrity and image of the game, not about Ben's health.

After reading Stephen O'Rielly's column, the question is, why would any club take a risk when there are heaps of talented young kids out there waiting for their chance at fame?.

Illicit Drugs Policy - http://www.afl.com.a...es/Illicit%20Drugs%20Policy%20Feb%202007.pdf

I didn't see any specific mention of a limit on how many times a player could be tested.

I can't see a reference to limitations on testing, and you wouldn't want it in a policy of this type.

So does this policy still apply to Cousins with the imposed AFL conditions taking precedence over it?

I am just trying to pre empt how Gale and Nixon will prosecute this and whether in fact they can.

"Ben Cousins may abandon a planned comeback to AFL football because the new drug-testing regime is too tough"... (click)

Well that's interesting now isn't it?

This whole thing is full of hypocrisy. He certainly has it tough.

I assume they'll be arguing the point 'it's not fair said the engineer'. Then they'll throw in the odd reference to all the other players taking drugs and how officials should be tested too. Society will cop a bit a bashing and there will be plenty of mentions that Ben suffers from a health issue that he can only over come by getting everything his way.

The only problem I see with the conditions is whether Benny Boy suffers from stage fright or not.

I believe that the element on restriction in terms of the number of tests a player can be subjected too is that for all other players (without strikes) its random testing.

By law random means you can't target test a specific person over and over. With these conditions they are doing that with Kizon's, and rightly so.

All in all though, if you're truly worried about the guy, I mean about his future and the life he'll lead, the testing isn't the issue. It's whether this is what he should be doing (only he and his Dr's know this) and whether saying that his life is over if he doesn't get drafted is a smart strategy.

You're right about Ricky Nixon, he is not a smart as I thought he was. Or as sincere, I dunno.

The policy says "a random selection method will be used in the majority of cases"

Which means there is an option there for a non-random selection method.

Dolphin, there is a provision in the policy for target testing, so that may make it ok?

Stage fright?

I reckon by about the tenth or twelth time you'd be standing on your head doing it Cocktail styles cascading it between half a dozen different martini glasses.

Silver lining, it's free entertainment, who needs drugs?

Consider Benny's record:

. Multiple run-ins with the law
. Repeated flouting of club rules
. Alleged association with underworld figures
. Known and public association with drug dealers
. Overdose of cocaine resulting in hospitalisation
. Spells in drug rehabilitation centres
. Arrest for drug possession - dismissed on a technicality
. Sacked by club and AFL for bringing game into disrepute
. Drug addict by his own admission

With that on your record, in what other industry would you expect to get your ticket back and to be re-employed in the same job?

Benny's privileged to be getting a second chance at all.