All the other people caught under the code got caught out too but they weren't deregistered, the people that have been caught out again haven't been suspended indefinitely or had their careers ended.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
He was deregistered for drugs taking, he was deregistered for bringing the game into disrepute (I'm sure you' know the wrap sheet by now) brought on by the ridiculous levels of drug taking.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
If it was for bringing the game into disrepute then maybe the AFL should have clauses in his new contract about running from booze buses, getting arrested for posessions of drugs, being drunk and disorderly on a bench in southbank or something like that. They can use the blanket clause for that if they want. Taking drugs isn't reputable but everyone else that has been caught has not brought the game into disrepute because the AFL provides anonymity and a chance, or two, to rehabilitate. My only point is that they can't have one rule for one person and one for another. It is inconsistent with the rules they have.
Maybe my hatred for Demetriou is blinding my judgement but it is the way they make up rules, not only for Ben, to suit themselves because they can that p1sses me off. I still stand by my point though that it is unfair to treat him differently to everyone else because people actually know he is/was a drug addict.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
You couldn't think up enough clauses for the stupid antics Cousins could manage to get himself into. So they take a common sense approach and give him the benefit of the doubt that assume he won't get into league image destroying antics if he's not on drugs.
If you want to let him back you're left with two options then. He's an exceptional case who blew the old system out of the water so you create an exceptional set of conditions for him; or you punish the hundreds of players who haven't gone off the rails with a tougher testing regime.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The difference with cousins and every other anonymous drug taker, is that not only have rumours been flying around about him for years, he has also courted and lived up to the Premiership, Brownlow party boy, AFL poster boy, rock star, sporting hero stereotypes and other clichés of modern sport. He has been a sporting celebrity.
He has practically flaunted his lifestyle and flouted any regard for the standards the AFL and society expects from sports people like him. Whether you agree with this role model thing or not, we force the concept on ourselves.
He thought he was bulletproof and untouchable, so pushed it until if was in everyone's face, practically daring his club, or the AFL to do anything about it.
As I've said before, the only thing more disreputable than Cousin's attitude and behaviour, is the decision of the AFL to give him another crack. He's proven time and again he doesn't deserve it.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Of the two options mentioned by Shane, I would take the second one and not just to try and prove my point. If the AFL's drug testing was sufficient, Ben should have been caught out a long time ago. From what a lot of "pro-extra conditions" people in the media are saying, the conditions of extra drug testing isn't as onerous as what cousins and nixon make it out to be. They also say that he has nothing to worry about if he has nothing to hide. That being the case, having a more effective testing regime would not be a punishment for others.
I believe in the three strikes as I believe that everyone needs an opportunity to make amends if they have headed off down the wrong path but the AFL needs to catch them out early. If players knew that there was a very good chance of getting caught if they took drugs then it would be a pretty good deterrent for most. The ones that were totally clean would also be more satisfied that everyone was on a level playing field (or partying field). At least everyone would know what they are up against and possibly exceptional cases like the cousins one may not get to the level they did or the AFL could legitimately say by now that they had acknowledged the problem, try to assist him rehabilitate but he has used up all his chances.
If the AFL was fair dinkum about having a clean sport then they should test everyone a lot more. When Dale Lewis first said that drugs in the AFL were rampant, the AFL said it was BS. Even current players have said that they have never, or close to never, been tested. Aker said they test players that they know won't turn positive results (not that he is a credible witness).
Maybe it is in the AFL's best interest not to catch people out to protect their brand? Maybe they tread lightly to keep the players and the AFLPA happy, as they see testing for recreational drugs as an invasion of privacy. Maybe the AFL hate cousins because he got way out of hand and made it a bigger issue for the rest of the players and the AFL.
I believe that footy players are paid to play footy and what they do in their private life is their own business. No I don't believe in the whole "they role models so they have to be perfect" idea but acknowledge that I am probably in the minority. This is why it is hard for me to admit it but a more effective drug policy that resulted in people getting caught earlier would definitely be the best option rather than individual rules for individual players.
Over time the culture amongst the players would change so that there would be less drugs in the sport because people knew that they would get caught if they did them and those that did had a better chance to rehabilitate because it was picked up early. If they they didn't learn their lesson, player like them would be eradicated from the league.
Make no mistake, cousins is in the position he is because of his own actions but it is not right that the AFL move the goal posts for one player on the field. I think that it would be fair to realise that maybe people have slipped through the cracks of the current drug system and tighten them up but you can't change them for him and not everyone else if they believe that the drug policy is sufficient.
I would hope that if I were in his situation as was going off the rails that my mates and those close to me would try and get me back on the right path. If anything, the club must have known like everyone else and let him get away with it because they couldn't afford for him not to be playing. The AFL drug policy also isn't good enough if players can take drugs for 10 years and not get caught.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Why? Because the AFL set some ground rules for Benny-Boy to be able to be reregistered and our golden-haired pretty boy ticked off all of the AFL prescribed prerequisites. Unfortunately, the AFL weren't clever enough (which doesn't surprise me in the slightest, and it shouldn't surprise you) to specify that Benny-Boy was to turn up to his medical tests with the usual amount of human hair still growing on his body.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
What's this "was an addict" thing? Isn't it "is an addict" for life?
Ex-smokers often regard themselves as smokers who no longer smoke; alcoholics on the wagon are drinkers who no longer tipple. Rehabilitated drug addicts are drug-takers who, by the grace of God, no longer take drugs. (I'm yet to be convinced that BC is in this category).
Now understand that I'm being hard-headed realistic, not indiscriminately condemning everyone who strays off the straight and narrow.
But these guys are dead right - these billion-dollar businesses rely on their reputation, a fragile thing. Now if good old Bennyboy had come out and done a Ghandi, dedicating his precious life to preventing others falling into the same slough of despond that he suffered, his would be a face with whom they would be proud to be associated.
But he hasn't changed one iota. He's still the same arrogant, self-serving little turd that he always was. He wasn't in a drug hell - he was in a drug heaven, which he only (purportedly) gave up when his bosses became uncomfortable at the public attention it was getting.
He was forced into an admission of guilt, which he delivered belatedly, patently insincerely, and with the main aim of lining his own pockets. His visits to rehab centres were cursory, and on the second occasion he didn't even sign in at all, preferring instead to snort his way to oblivion with some horny blonde.
I personally doubt that he has changed a thing, and those bargepoles are wisely utilised.
Now, Dolphin, old pal, I challenge you to a Benny hate-off, because no-one hates him more than ME !
The administrator has disabled public write access.
I tried real hard but I can never drop the little prick on his head any earlier than a metre.
By the way, why is Caro now saying that Ben has admitted he has been an addict for the last ten years? I mean, he undoubtedly has been, but has Ben actually admitted to this anywhere? Out loud? In words? Rather than in meth and coke fuelled antics?
The administrator has disabled public write access.
When Robbie Williams gave up drugs and went on national radio, where questions asked about this were obviously expected to elicit the "Don't do drugs kids" message, instead he said "I love drugs. I've had the time of my life on drugs. I'd still do them, but I gave them up because they made me fat and I'm a vain bastard."
I see the same attitude from cousins.
I wouldn't class Williams as a true addict. Cousins either. It's a twisted sort of world where trying to pass yourself off as a drug addict and medicalise your crappie behaviour and attitude is somehow deemed a brave and noble thing to do.
If you can get people to buy it.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
What classifies a true addict, Drubbing, do you even know? Or do you just hate him that much that in your mind you can't even afford him the credit of addict status?
The administrator has disabled public write access.
