If nothing else it gives the worst something to write/bleat about.

The AFL will want to make this as diffiuclt as possible for Cousins. They use a number of $1 billion to put a price tag on the value of the AFL brand in Australia and overseas.

This is the same AFL that have allowed ( over time ) clubs like Fitzroy to fall over / be merged. A club with 100 years tradition - 100 players / officials - a couple of thousand payed up members - many thousand supporters.

Given that they have let clubs fall over - why on earth would they risk the brand for one person ... regardless of who he is?

As shane ponited out before, this has little to do with Cousins' health and more to do with reinforcing the integrity and image of the AFL and its drug testing regime.

Given these are unique circumstances, the AFL can impose whatever regime on Cousins' they wish, and they are.

Cousins' gets a chance at playing again and Nixon, the dumb arse that his is, get to earn 5-10% of something again. For him to whinge 'poor Ben, that's such a tough regime' is blx. If Cousins is off the juice then there's nothing tough about it at all.

The only tough thing about it would be finding a way to beat it.

Maybe he can get a ticket in the music industry or modeling. He can do a duet with Amy Winehouse or walk the catwalk with Kate Moss.

As much as he should have nothing to hide, the AFL has once again made a totaling inconsistent ruling that contradicts all its previous rulings.

They were happy to say that their drug policy is sufficient but obviously they think that it isn't by having stricter conditions for Ben Cousins. I don't understand why they just didn't test him that much anyway under the current policy rather than make it a special condition. The difference being the 3 strikes though. They say that it is better for him as he has no chance to relapse but what if he does.

I am not sure that it would be best for him to be publicly humiliated by the whole world (via the newspapers and television) knowing that he had relapsed, lost his job and let down his family because of it. I am sure that there would be a better chance of rehab under the drug policy that everyone else uses. I know it is a very civil libertarian attitude and he would only have himself to blame but the AFL can't say its in his best interest to justify themselves when its not.

disclaimer - I have no medical knowledge so could be wrong but thats what I think anyway

Everyone else is given the presumption that they are not a drug addict. The first two strikes are warning bells that allow the AFL and the club to prevent the player going too far down the road of drug abuse.

Cousins is a drug addict. To allow him warnings would just be silly.

The AFLs only consistency is its inconsistency.

As for humiliating Ben, I think you should call 6PR, they'd listen.

If he falls over again, he's set himself up for it - it's his own fault. He's wanted this so badly, if he stuffs it up, he takes what's coming.

Apparently they haven't even done a hair analysis on him yet...

all he's been doingis p***ing in jars... now he's trying to p*** in our pockets.

It's hard to get when someone shaves their head. Which I assume was just to raise money for cancer kids or something honourable like that.

Can they ban the little turd from getting haircuts?

Christ! He may have to go Brazillian!

Has he shaved his head?

Every photo I've seen today (and they're everywhere I look) shows him with a full head. Or is that fool head?

Channel slime in news update have announced why a hair follicle hasnt been taken and then they show him with his very short haircut. Will be on at 6pm. About time the channel slime stop protecting him

There some footage of him being stalked the other day, here - http://cosmos.bcst.y...opup/?rn=240897&ch=&cl=10733149&src=y7sports (after the fat bloke in the ad)

That'd be a buzz cut?

another article said that he had waxed his body hair. I'm not sure if this included downstairs but not sure if I really want to know.

I'm confused by all this bleating about the testing being too severe. Does the bloke not normally pee 3 times a week? All he's being asked to do is collect it and hand it over.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24673289-2862,00.html

I found this part of the article interesting.



The Herald Sun believes the test could not be conducted because Cousins recently opted for a shaved haircut.

The rest of his body had been waxed to a length shorter than the 3cm required for hair testing to be considered accurate.

It is understood Cousins, his manager Ricky Nixon and a film documentary team arrived at the designated place and time to do the test, only to learn of the 3cm requirement.

An AFL letter to Cousins did not stipulate at least 3cm of hair was needed.

He knew. If he was serious about passing the hair test, he'd have made sure to be safe. In any case, his mates would have told him.

Benny's wriggled out of another one, and that should be grounds enough to ban him for good.

God I hate that little 5h1t.

Goodwill and technicalities rarely go well together.

There's only one question left - St Kilda or Brisbane...who is the stupider?

I bet the AFL wishes he was someone's else problem; that he would just disappear.

And then you have McHenry, a past chairman of the club, framing a case for his return to West Coast, some just don't and never will get it.