Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

I have not read the article, but the link made in the quoted snippets does not make sense. The AFL are apparently referring to performance-enhancing drugs, then the article tries to link to Cousins, who's had difficulties with illicit, but not performance enhancing drugs.

Anyway, Cousins is not some special case. There are a number of players that have actually tested positive for drug use (some play for the Hawks), but are protected, rather than shunned by the AFL.

Then there's the recently highly sought after Daniel Kerr. Does anyone think one reason a deal didn't get done, was that some clubs may have been worried that he may have 1 or 2 strikes? Anyone know if the AFL would inform a club of this when trading? It's just crazy if not.

DaVe86 wrote:
Reckon Brisbane remain our biggest threat.


Wouldn't of happened with Leigh but Voss is a worry

I think Brisbane is the go as well... my tip is that Corrie was the Cousins sweetener.

AN_Inkling wrote: Then there's the recently highly sought after Daniel Kerr. Does anyone think one reason a deal didn't get done, was that some clubs may have been worried that he may have 1 or 2 strikes? Anyone know if the AFL would inform a club of this when trading? It's just crazy if not.

Atm, clubs aren't informed.

Not sure if that had anything to do with him not getting a deal done to leave WC. I was under the impression that he was always staying.

Here's a story that was told to me from someone who has an 'insight' into these things.

Suppose a club was really really interested in Cousins, in fact they were so interested they decided to do a few back ground checks. Those checks revealed that there was a possibility that all was not as it appeared on the surface, but the evidence was all pretty much circumstantial.
So the club says to Ben, "Hey Ben, we're really interested in you, but we would like to make sure you are, and have been drug free for a while, so would you voluntarily undergo drug testing via the 'hair follicle' method"
Ben does not give an answer and asks for a few days to confer with his Manager.

About a week goes by and the club asks Ben again
Ben still says nothing.

The Club reports the non-answer to its Board, and several members of the Board start to suggest the club should end all negotiations with Ben. Other members of the Board still want to deal with Ben.

The Football department of the club are keen to get Ben, but one assistant coach urges caution, because he got information from a newly appointed coach of another club, who was going to Ben's old club, that perhaps Ben was not as clean as it appears.

So this club is in a real quandary as to what they should do.
Ben has still not agreed to the hair follicle test and some in the club are now saying, the deal is dead, while others are saying its still on.

Like I said just a story that was told to me.

Worth the risk, IMO and I'll be disappointed if we don't get him.

Maybe this new coach planted this seed to his assistant coach friend in the hope that the interested party would pull out, leaving this new coach's club in a position to recruit this drug troubled superstar.......?

edit:

Read it the wrong way.

Maybe this new coach planted this seed to his assistant coach friend in the hope that the interested party would pull out, leaving this new coach's club in a position to recruit this drug troubled superstar.......?

And maybe the assistant coach got his mate who is now a journo to make an announcement making it look like he took the bait.

Then maybe the new coach feeling sorry for the team he thought he duded gave them a player for nicks that he thought everyone would believe was or is a dud...

burnsy17 wrote:Maybe this new coach planted this seed to his assistant coach friend in the hope that the interested party would pull out, leaving this new coach's club in a position to recruit this drug troubled superstar.......?

I considered that, except that the new coach's club has a pick before the other club anyway, so it would make no difference

Perhaps Cousins was seen on the grassy knoll Alec?

Well if what Alec. J. Hidell says is accurate, then there is only one reason why he would not agree to undertake a hair follicle test. That is fear of failure. Surely to be registered he would have to take the test soon anyway? Either way the Ben Cousins question is an incredibly difficult one by the powers that be at Collingwood.

Pass him over and if he kicks butt at another club we will look silly.
Pick him up and have him fail a drug test after a couple of months and we look silly.

Conversely pick him up and he turns it on for the pies and those that brought him to the club come up smelling like roses. Or pass him over and he fails a drug test at another club and we look smart.

Tough decision for the club to make and I can understand why they might be split on the issue. I wouldn't like to be making the decision myself because the wrong decision either way can impact the club big time. Again assuming Alec. J. Hidell's info is correct, then Ben is the only one who could make the decision easier by taking the test.

I don't think he will be at the pies next year.

It makes me wonder why Ben did not jump at the chance to have the test.

Then again I think back to the last lot of tests Ben refused and was still found not guilty.




I would like to see Ben at the Pies, but a lot of things are starting to point against it. So rather than be dissappointed with the fact he goes elsewhere I will now be thrilled with the opposite happening.

Arges Tuft wrote:

AN_Inkling wrote: Then there's the recently highly sought after Daniel Kerr. Does anyone think one reason a deal didn't get done, was that some clubs may have been worried that he may have 1 or 2 strikes? Anyone know if the AFL would inform a club of this when trading? It's just crazy if not.

Atm, clubs aren't informed.

If that is the case, it's beyond ridiculous.
I'm fully on board with the AFL's 3 strikes policy, especially as the illicit drugs testing is above and beyond what is necessary to protect the game's integrity.

However, clubs need to be formally informed, any such issue should certainly be disclosed during contract negotiations and trade talks, the same as any other medical condition (which is what the AFL say they are treating it as). I understand that clubs will usually know, and that players would usually be honest enough to inform them, but usually's not good enough.

Players that are traded during trade week often have some kind of off-field problem, which increases the likelihood of "a player with strikes" being up for trade. Imagine if we'd traded Didak and pick 11 for Kerr, only to later discover he was on two strikes and faced a lengthy suspension were he to return another positive test.

Arges Tuft wrote: Not sure if that had anything to do with him not getting a deal done to leave WC. I was under the impression that he was always staying.

That's my understanding too, just raising the possibility.

I think Alec is correct - and any good member would vote against Cuz coming to the Pies.

Pies had too much damage control in 08 and don't want worse in 09.

If he won't submit to the test then pass on him - cannot afford to take the chance.