Cuz in the shit AGAIN.

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:03 pm

All of the charges have been dropped.

Now that leads to something interesting. He was sacked based on the fact he refused a blood test and other stuff blah blah blah.

Does he have grounds now to sue WCE and the AFL for unlawful dismissal?

Stocksy · Post by **Stocksy** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:40 pm

You would have to say his chances would be pretty good. Everything that has happened in LA cant be used as he was already sacked and no longer repesenting club or code...

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:44 pm

Stocksy wrote:You would have to say his chances would be pretty good. Everything that has happened in LA cant be used as he was already sacked and no longer repesenting club or code...

Was he still on the list though? Would that come into effect? Im no lawyer so I have no idea but while he was "sacked", its wasnt an out and out sacking as such. "His contract wasnt renewed" to borrow a phrase that was on here around July/August.

Pretty sure he was still on the list.

NB: Stocksy, you can change your sig as well now
http://www.bombertalk4.com/viewtopic.ph ... sc&start=0

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:15 pm

keri wrote:E4E, The same CANNOT be said for weed. Weed, in general, will not kill you if you get a type you aren't used to. It won't stop your damn heart if you have one milligram too much. I don't know any dopeheads (And I've been one myself, in the past) who will stab you for their next cone. And you might want to look into what you know about alcohol. It's a depressent, not a stimulant.

And I've just given up cigarettes. I can't say there are too many good things about them, and I can tell you from personal experience that giving them up is much, much harder than kicking the drugs. A whole ton harder.

I've said nothing about quiting the habit.

However, at the end of teh day, the government can make alcohol illegal is they want to, but choose not to, becuase they know people can't live without it. Cigarette's are even worse. I can live with Alcohol being legal, because you can control the amount you use, limiting the negative effects on your body. Cigarette's however have not one postitve thing about them. The only logical reason they are legal is becasue they know people will use them, get adicted and not be able to stop, because it is so hard. they tax it, and make a fat profit from the sales.

keri · Post by **keri** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:19 pm

Don't disagree with that, E4E. It's literally the hardest thing I've ever had to do. And you're right. There isn't a single redeeming feature about them, but the nature of cigarette harm versus harder drugs is that with some drugs, you don't get the chance to give up before it ruins your life. One bad trip is all it takes.

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:22 pm

keri wrote:Don't disagree with that, E4E. It's literally the hardest thing I've ever had to do. And you're right. There isn't a single redeeming feature about them, but the nature of cigarette harm versus harder drugs is that with some drugs, you don't get the chance to give up before it ruins your life. One bad trip is all it takes.

Pardon my cynicism Keri but there is a very "redeemable" feature with cigarettes, the same as alcohol.

The governments of the world collect billions of dollars in tax revenue from the sale of these legal drugs and will never give up such cash cows until something else comes along to take their place.

In the US, many state governments have successfully sued the tobacco companies and yet they are still in business and still making billions of dollars.

As long as the ledger is in favour of the govt's (tax revenue versus public health costs), the governments of the world will continue to allow the sale of cigarettes and alcohol whilst at the same time spending money in things such as "Quit" campaigns.

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:26 pm

Rossoneri wrote:All of the charges have been dropped.

Now that leads to something interesting. He was sacked based on the fact he refused a blood test and other stuff blah blah blah.

Does he have grounds now to sue WCE and the AFL for unlawful dismissal?

Not being a legal person, I couldn't say yes or no to your question Ross but I think WCE will argue that his refusal to submit to the test was yet another example of him putting himself ahead of he club and getting himself into the wrong situations with the wrong people. From what I have read on the net today, Cousins got off because the police failed to follow proper procedure, not because he was declared innocent.

And I doubt he could sue the AFL because they're not his employer.

Sismis · Post by **Sismis** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:14 pm

AFL and West Coast are stuffed.

From Wrongful dismissal, restriction of trade to outright defamation.

He will be allowed to play next year if any club will have him. If he doesn't play next year (or again) he can look forward to potentially millions for lost wages.

There are reasons people are supposed to be innocent untill proven guilty.

Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is waste of talent/space/oxygen, BUT in this country we still have SOME rights.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:28 pm

Sismis wrote:AFL and West Coast are stuffed.

From Wrongful dismissal, restriction of trade to outright defamation.

He will be allowed to play next year if any club will have him. If he doesn't play next year (or again) he can look forward to potentially millions for lost wages.

There are reasons people are supposed to be innocent untill proven guilty.

Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is waste of talent/space/oxygen, BUT in this country we still have SOME rights.

Why is it wrongful dismissal? I think we need to see what was in his revised contract before coming to that conclusion. If it states he must not make a public nuisance of himself, or get into a compromising sitiation with the law, then that's it. It doesn't mean charges have to stick or in fact be convicted.

NIFTY · Post by **NIFTY** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:33 pm

i was in perth earlier in the year saw cousins out at a night club in subiaco called the red sea, he was throwing the tongue with some troll...then he stood up on a table ripped his shirt off and skolled a pint, then ran up to the girl he was throwing the tongue with and threw a handful of pubes in her glass of what looked like vodka...WAS HYSTERICAL...i was on the floor crying!!!!

grassy1 · Post by **grassy1** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:36 pm

Spot on Ben.I'm curious though as to what the Conditions were for him to stay out of trouble,given the RIDICULOUS approval for him to frequent certain areas(he shouldn't touch with a BARGE POLE)as part of his Rehabilitation.

I'd also be keen to see him sue his old Boss and Mentoe,Trveor Nisbett.Uh-uh!

bomberdonnie · Post by **bomberdonnie** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:20 pm

NIFTY wrote:i was in perth earlier in the year saw cousins out at a night club in subiaco called the red sea, he was throwing the tongue with some troll...then he stood up on a table ripped his shirt off and skolled a pint, then ran up to the girl he was throwing the tongue with and threw a handful of pubes in her glass of what looked like vodka...WAS HYSTERICAL...i was on the floor crying!!!!

Sounds like a grade 7 social

The guy needs to grow up ffs!!

Post by **boncer34** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:51 pm

Essendon4eva wrote:
boncer34 wrote:
Essendon4eva wrote:Drugs are bad...unless we tax them!
Brilliant, Cousins is a moron. Lets ban all smokes and grog.
What has happened to Cousins has nothing to do with booze and cigarettes. Sorry you and others can't live without your cigarettes and booze.

No your right Cousins has nothing to do with smokes and booze so why bring it up in the first place?

Dont smoke and rarely drink. But go on make assumptions.

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:22 am

Read what you quoted again. You brought up the specifics. People were making jokes, so I made my own. Your statement also lead me to believe, you are very pro-booze/ciggies.

Sismis · Post by **Sismis** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:56 am

BenDoolan wrote:
Sismis wrote:AFL and West Coast are stuffed.

From Wrongful dismissal, restriction of trade to outright defamation.

He will be allowed to play next year if any club will have him. If he doesn't play next year (or again) he can look forward to potentially millions for lost wages.

There are reasons people are supposed to be innocent untill proven guilty.

Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is waste of talent/space/oxygen, BUT in this country we still have SOME rights.
Why is it wrongful dismissal? I think we need to see what was in his revised contract before coming to that conclusion. If it states he must not make a public nuisance of himself, or get into a compromising sitiation with the law, then that's it. It doesn't mean charges have to stick or in fact be convicted.

Driving you car home from a nightclub is in no way making a public nuisance. I think you will find the charges do have to stick if that is the reason they have sacked you.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:11 am

Sismis wrote:
BenDoolan wrote:
Sismis wrote:AFL and West Coast are stuffed.

From Wrongful dismissal, restriction of trade to outright defamation.

He will be allowed to play next year if any club will have him. If he doesn't play next year (or again) he can look forward to potentially millions for lost wages.

There are reasons people are supposed to be innocent untill proven guilty.

Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is waste of talent/space/oxygen, BUT in this country we still have SOME rights.
Why is it wrongful dismissal? I think we need to see what was in his revised contract before coming to that conclusion. If it states he must not make a public nuisance of himself, or get into a compromising sitiation with the law, then that's it. It doesn't mean charges have to stick or in fact be convicted.
Driving you car home from a nightclub is in no way making a public nuisance. I think you will find the charges do have to stick if that is the reason they have sacked you.

But driving your car under the influence is. He was suspected of doing so, but refused the driver assessment. He is within his right's to do so, but penalties apply if the police follow correct law enforcement procedures. This didn't occur. But that doesn't mean Ben Cousins is innocent of driving under the influence.

keri · Post by **keri** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:24 am

BD, he must be presumed so if he hasn't been found guility of the charge.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:42 am

keri wrote:BD, he must be presumed so if he hasn't been found guility of the charge.

Guilty of what? The charge was that he refused to take a driver assessment. The fact is, he did refuse.

keri · Post by **keri** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:16 am

From a legal position, how are the WCE going to prove that if the charges didn't even stick?

Sismis · Post by **Sismis** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:50 am

As you said Benny. He is within his rights to do so. It could be argued that he declined based on the request being unlawful (since it has turned out it was).

One point you raised earlier though is valid. We don't actually know what was stipulated in his revised contract. it could very state something along the lines of "anything THE CLUB deems as bringing adverse attention to the club" or something similar, in which case he may not have grounds for wrongful dismissal.

The AFL on the other hand is in a very difficult spot. They will find it very tough to get their "bringing the game into disrepute" claim through with Cousins having no charges to answer. They already tread a very fine line with restraint of trade laws.