Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Posted: **Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:03 am**

If they are prescribed, then by definition, they are not illicit.
Any positive test would then then not fall within the AFL's Illicit Drugs Policy.

I know its a circular argument, but it is technically a safe argument

Posted: **Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:05 am**

GreekLunatic wrote:Does anyone get the feeling that bucks will coach us the year after next year. Didnt in his article he wrote that Collingwood shouldnt recruit Cousins. Maybe that why it happend. The club should not beat around the bush and tell us the real reason.

Speaking with Nathan on Wednesday, he told us he has media commitments next year. Then the year after he might look into starting coaching. I would say 2 to 3 years before he would be ready to coach us. Nathan is really missing the "lockerroom" feel of gameday, he doesn't get that with his media commitments.

Posted: **Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:08 am**

nulla wrote:I feel the Lions are the team to snare Cousins.

If this is the case it could confirm my theory that something was agreed to trade week that allowed us to get Corrie for a bargain.

You may have a case in point and if true , its a masterstroke by Collingwood again. I was mildly interested by Cuz but at the end of the day Collingwwod did their research and would know which way it had to go. Having a high profile player linked to Collingwood in this instance may have worked in our favour.

It is a relief Cuz is not with us and getting Corrie is a good get so far.

Posted: **Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:20 am**

I know its a circular argument, but it is technically a safe argument

I agree with you there..

Doesn't Ben need to show the AFL that he has beaten his drug habit to be listed again? Would they class it that drugs assisting Ben to break the habit means he is drug free and over his habit?

I know we are go in circles with this discussion but this may be an issue raised over the coming weeks and I find both sides of the arguement intriguing .

Posted: **Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:25 am**

fan4collingwood wrote:Nathan is really missing the "lockerroom" feel of gameday, he doesn't get that with his media commitments.

imagine a locker room of bruce, tim, olarenshaw and the ox.

Posted: **Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:26 am**

A sad day, chance to pinch some much needed quality.

Then again, I'm sure he have done our homework.

Posted: **Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:34 am**

Alec. J. Hidell wrote:If a person with a drug addiction was able to take their drug of preference legally, would it still be classified as an addiction?

For instance all illegal drugs have a legal equivalent, that can be obtained on prescription.

If this happened, couldn't the player honestly say to everyone, I am no longer taking illegal drugs?

Yes, and i doubt there'd be much the AFL could do to stop someone from being 'treated' with such drugs.

Posted: **Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:43 am**

magpieazza wrote:
nulla wrote:I feel the Lions are the team to snare Cousins.

If this is the case it could confirm my theory that something was agreed to trade week that allowed us to get Corrie for a bargain.
You may have a case in point and if true , its a masterstroke by Collingwood again. I was mildly interested by Cuz but at the end of the day Collingwwod did their research and would know which way it had to go. Having a high profile player linked to Collingwood in this instance may have worked in our favour.

It is a relief Cuz is not with us and getting Corrie is a good get so far.

And the other thing I have been thinking is Collingwood may have disclosed vital info to BL that took them and cost them a lot of time and effort and we were rewarded for that info.

Why tell the saints... payback time for Greening in my eyes

Posted: **Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:50 am**

Mick only wants good human beings in his team.

Even his quote re: the Australian IR team was hilarious, something like ... "Not only are they talented footballers, they are also good citizens."

Good citizens? Who gives a f*ck?

Posted: **Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:02 am**

I desperately wanted Benny at the Club. I thought he would be the difference between a top 4 possie (whether he played 50% or 100% of the season).

But I seriously have to respect the Club's decision. They obviously have done their due diligence and summed up the risk.

That was one thing that was slightly bugging me was there was going to be a risk factor whether it be big or small. Did we want to bring that into the club? Our foundations were already rocked the last couple of years, why bring more risk into the club?

We are desperate for a gun midfielder, but not desperate enough for one with risks associated to him.

I actually have to applaud the club here.

Posted: **Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:10 am**

Fair enough then

we can't be giving second chances to players who have a history of substance abuse and making bad decisions that effect their teammates and damage the club and have scaly mates to boot!

Posted: **Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:16 am**

frankiboy wrote:
The Collingwood Turtle wrote:
Culprit wrote:Cousins does not have AFL approval as yet so he may not be going to any club.
Culprit is on the money.

I knew 3 days ago we were going to pass on Cousins and the total reasons explained to me by the club as to why I now accept.

The story in the HUN is a great spin piece by the club to make us look good after the Dids/Heater debacle.
If that is the case, where's the retraction and or apology for this thread? Hmm, 3 days ago?

http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?t=46914

The Collingwood Turtle wrote:What a crock of shite this is ........

"The Herald Sun has learned the Collingwood board is not unanimous in the view that Cousins should be pursued. While a move to draft Cousins has not been put to a vote at board level, key officials at the club are aware the topic is a delicate one."

These people at board level are obviously concerned with the brand rather than winning a flag !

Instead of getting good blokes who can't play like Andrew Williams, Shane Woewodin and Chad Morrison how about acquiring some REAL talent like Cousins.

Now I'm really hoping the HUN is on the wrong tram but knowing some of the people on the board it comes as no surprise they're more worried damaging the "brand" rather than acquiring quality players.

How many times in our history have we overlooked opposition players to only rue being a kick away from a premiership because of a lack of true class. That's not bad luck, it's bad management.

I am sick of being second best or having the most fans.

Premierships are the ONLY barometer of success !

Ok, I apologise ..... happy ?

I subsequently was privy to more information and thus was able to form another view.

Unlike some I can't admit to mistakes and not get personal with people's opinions.

Posted: **Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:19 am**

good, he's a piece of shit

Posted: **Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:22 am**

sheesh, who's getting personal? Just doing some fault finding

Posted: **Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:28 am**

Arges Tuft wrote:
Alec. J. Hidell wrote:If a person with a drug addiction was able to take their drug of preference legally, would it still be classified as an addiction?

For instance all illegal drugs have a legal equivalent, that can be obtained on prescription.

If this happened, couldn't the player honestly say to everyone, I am no longer taking illegal drugs?
Yes, and i doubt there'd be much the AFL could do to stop someone from being 'treated' with such drugs.

I should thank you
It was your lead that caused me to inquire

Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Ben Cousins - He's back (now at Richmond) [Merged Threads]