Didn't this guy have a kid a couple of years ago? Or did I imagine that?
Yep. Maybe even two.
There was press about what a settled, changed family man he was. Then he got arrested a few months later.
I’d say it’s not drugs with Benny it’s a genuine cry for help over mental health issues.
First thing he needs to do is to leave Perth. Even if Benny sneezes it’s front page news over there, so going to a place where he can have some level of anonymity would be a good start.
Secondly he needs to be somewhere where his issues can be addressed in the best possible way.
Finally, perhaps he just needs to be left alone by the media, the fans and the police.
I'd say it's not drugs with Benny it's a genuine cry for help over mental health issues.First thing he needs to do is to leave Perth. Even if Benny sneezes it’s front page news over there, so going to a place where he can have some level of anonymity would be a good start.
Secondly he needs to be somewhere where his issues can be addressed in the best possible way.
Finally, perhaps he just needs to be left alone by the media, the fans and the police.
If he keeps breaking into army bases and driving like a maniac, then the police aren’t going to leave him alone, understandably enough…
he’s dangerous to himself and others, police can’t leave him alone, and shouldn’t.
I agree that he needs to be kept off the roads. If he’s driving and is high as a kite, he could kill someone. Whilst he hasn’t harmed anyone other than himself thus far, that doesn’t mean he won’t in the future.
It was like OJ except at 40kph. Also I went to school with Chappy
Can you organise an autograph for me please?
Quoted PostI doubt anyone can know unless they've gone through it themselves. But I would question Peos's statement was more aimed around Cousins actions, which granted we can only take on limited info in his case.Quoted Postlegit question, was him getting picked up by Richmond or even just being in the AFL system again with all that spotlight. Did it do him more harm than good? Would it of been better just to get the help he needed and forget about his career or did Richmond help him at least try and get his like sorted?So many what if’s i suppose.
I doubt Richmond made things worse. All reports are that Richmond tried very hard with him and gave him plenty of leeway and support. He wasn’t in a good way.
And it got him out of Perth for a while, which was a good thing.
Cousins is the only person who can help Cousins, and sadly his history shows that of a person unwilling to do so.
I really think you have no understanding of how insidious crystal meth is,
On the original question I think it was a bad decision to allow him back into the AFL. Forget any image or personal opinion of drugs. I believe it sent the wrong message, in that I believe he showed no real intent to change whether it was his choice or the drugs who knows.
But the one thing he loved just as anything else was football, and IMO may have been the one thing that if truely taken away from him, may have made him go, ■■■■ maybe i do need to change.
reports of going out on a bender before his rehab stint in the US, shaving his head just before drug tests and all that ■■■■ again nothing really catastrophic in isolation, but to me it always smelt too much like he was saying what people wanted to hear, and doing what he thought people wanted him to do, rather than him wanting to stop. Again whether that was the drugs choice or his who knows, but IMO it was always a bad decision. and I’m pretty sure I and many said as soon as he finished fooball, he’d go straight back to drugs and would probably be dead within 5 years.
Thankfully that hasn’t happened, but so many can see at present that looks to be the only way it’ll stop. Whether he wants to get clean or not.
I still think that “documentary” was disgraceful.
blokes crook.
should leave him be.
Quoted PostQuoted PostI doubt anyone can know unless they've gone through it themselves. But I would question Peos's statement was more aimed around Cousins actions, which granted we can only take on limited info in his case.Quoted Postlegit question, was him getting picked up by Richmond or even just being in the AFL system again with all that spotlight. Did it do him more harm than good? Would it of been better just to get the help he needed and forget about his career or did Richmond help him at least try and get his like sorted?So many what if’s i suppose.
I doubt Richmond made things worse. All reports are that Richmond tried very hard with him and gave him plenty of leeway and support. He wasn’t in a good way.
And it got him out of Perth for a while, which was a good thing.
Cousins is the only person who can help Cousins, and sadly his history shows that of a person unwilling to do so.
I really think you have no understanding of how insidious crystal meth is,
On the original question I think it was a bad decision to allow him back into the AFL. Forget any image or personal opinion of drugs. I believe it sent the wrong message, in that I believe he showed no real intent to change whether it was his choice or the drugs who knows.
But the one thing he loved just as anything else was football, and IMO may have been the one thing that if truely taken away from him, may have made him go, ■■■■ maybe i do need to change.reports of going out on a bender before his rehab stint in the US, shaving his head just before drug tests and all that ■■■■ again nothing really catastrophic in isolation, but to me it always smelt too much like he was saying what people wanted to hear, and doing what he thought people wanted him to do, rather than him wanting to stop. Again whether that was the drugs choice or his who knows, but IMO it was always a bad decision. and I’m pretty sure I and many said as soon as he finished fooball, he’d go straight back to drugs and would probably be dead within 5 years.
Thankfully that hasn’t happened, but so many can see at present that looks to be the only way it’ll stop. Whether he wants to get clean or not.
Very informed post, on many levels.
Dunno how we missed this one. Maybe we didn’t. Flog.
Chris Judd claims confusion the reason for ‘tainted’ West Coast premiership label
Date
April 11, 2015
Daniel Cherny
Sports reporter
View more articles from Daniel Cherny
Follow Daniel on Twitter Email Daniel
West Coast premiership captain and now Carlton veteran Chris Judd says he believes people who brand the Eagles’ 2006 flag as “tainted” are confusing illicit drugs with performance-enhancing substances.
The recent run-ins with the law of 2006 premiership stars Ben Cousins and Daniel Kerr have led to renewed calls from some pundits who claim the drug issues that affected some members of the side are a permanent stain on the club’s triumph of nine years ago.
However Judd, 31, told 3AW on Saturday that he is disappointed when the tag is bandied about, believing that illicit drug use needed to be distinguished from doping. “I think what would taint a flag is performance-enhancing drugs, and people who say the flag is tainted are confusing the two issues,” Judd said.
West Coast defeated Carlton by 69 points in Perth to kick off round two on Friday night, with Judd the lone member of the Eagles’ third premiership-winning team to take the field at Domain Stadium. Sam Butler (adductor) and Beau Waters (retired) - the only two players from the side still on the Eagles’ list - both missed the game.
Advertisement
Judd said that while he disagreed with the notion of tainted success, he understands that such views are inevitable. “When you work in the industry long enough you realise that millions of people follow the game and they all have opinions on every issue in it.”
The dual Brownlow medallist also conveyed his lament at the plight of Cousins and Kerr. “I don’t think it was tainted, but certainly I think it’s very sad the situation some of my ex-teammates have found themselves in.”
So he admits they were on the juice during their premiership years?
haha
Not sure how he thinks it is different?
Speeding on the field, and speeding in the club after the game are different things. Premiership is tainted if they did the first, not the second.
Not sure how he thinks it is different?I'm 99% sure meth and amphetamines and most other stimulants were banned in the mid-00s.
But hey, the AFL reckons there was never any drug issue there, so I’m not sure what anyone is even talking about?