Pubdate: Sun, 25 Mar 2007
Source: Age, The (Australia)
Copyright: 2007 The Age Company Ltd
Contact:  http://www.theage.com.au/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/5
Author: Michael Voss

DRUG POLICY WORKS DESPITE COUSINS' CAPE ADRIFT

My favourite character as a kid growing up was Superman.

I thought he was so cool. He could fly, had X-ray vision and a laser 
beam. You know the spiel. He could leap tall buildings in a single 
bound. He didn't even bleed. He was invincible. Only kryptonite could stop him.

We all know in day-to-day life Superman was mild-mannered reporter 
Clark Kent. His days were spent bumbling along, making mistakes, 
trying to live a normal life.

I reckon we want all our footballers to be superheroes. Invincible.

That's been Ben Cousins. Lightning fast; runs hard and keeps running 
long after others have stopped. And he could almost leap the football 
field in a single bound.

But he, too, seems to have been stopped by his own kryptonite.

It's been an amazing 10 days which has told us plenty about the world 
of AFL footy.

What has it proved? That Ben Cousins is human. He, too, makes mistakes.

And what have we learned? That maybe the AFL's behavioural education 
policies and strategies can be improved. That, just like in the rest 
of society, there are AFL footballers tempted by drugs. A few more 
than we realised.

Yet as much as some people are trumpeting doom and gloom for the AFL 
over the drugs issue, I still say we should be up on the chair 
applauding the AFL because we're still the only sport that has a 
special illicit drugs policy and tests players out of competition. 
Condemn it? Get stricter?

No, let's challenge other sports to meet our standards.

The collective sporting community has a chance to stand up and say 
that we don't want this for our younger generation.

If we really thought the AFL was immune to a problem that is rampant 
throughout the world then we were kidding ourselves.

But I'm the first to admit that I was surprised by confirmation that 
more than 20 players had tested positive in the past 12 to 18 months. 
That's important. And it's got to be our starting point.

Call me naive if you like, but I thought only three players had 
tested positive. That's the three players involved in the "can we 
name them - no we can't" issue with the media.

To learn that we had seven times that number of positive tests, 
without knowing how many players were involved, says to me that the 
AFL campaign is working.

But it can't be a secret figure trotted out once a year. It needs to 
be an ongoing message that in itself would help tackle the problem, 
reinforcing the risks to those who are thinking of going there.

The AFL has been a leader in the fight against behavioural issues 
among players. The education campaign around issues, including drugs 
in sport, alcohol, racial and religious vilification, gambling and 
how to treat women, has been fantastic.

But it can get better. The one common theme in all of this is 
behaviour. So instead of once-a-year sessions where experts address 
players at each club during the off-season, we need more follow-up.

Rather than five one-off sessions that leave an impression for 48 
hours, let's have five contact days spread out over the year, all 
based on behavioural change, and all reinforcing the message.

It's our responsibility as a code because we put our athletes in a 
situation where, for all sorts of different reasons, they are 
expected to live by standards above those of normal society. And if 
they step out of line they are crucified.

There is much debate about the right way to treat players who test 
positive but I've not heard anything yet to convince me that the 
three strikes policy isn'tstill the best way. Does it really help if 
their names become common knowledge the first time?

Ben Cousins hadn't tested positive to anything that we know of before 
his father admitted on Thursday that the 2005 Brownlow medallist had 
a drug problem, yet his name was splashed all over the media like 
nothing I've seen.

Would the Cousins situation have been different without all the 
publicity? It's impossible to say.

But I'm tipping that he'd got to the point where he had to do 
something about it long before it became such a public issue, and 
that he would have done it regardless.

I've never had a lot to do with "Cuz". I've enjoyed the odd chat with 
him at football functions and found him to be a great fella. And I've 
admired him enormously as a champion player. From all reports, he's a 
good person - not just a good footballer. He's a good person who has 
made a wrong choice.

As I've said all along on the drug issue, let's help him, not 
humiliate him. And let's get him back on the footy field so he can 
entertain the fans as he's done for the last 11 years.

He'll be back. You don't get to the truly elite level to which 
Cousins has reached without very special qualities. And now that he's 
hit rock bottom and set out on a rehabilitation program, he'll apply 
the same qualities to that - and he'll win. It'll be tough, but I'm 
expecting him to back playing AFL footy this year.

When he's ready, Cousins will slip into his telephone box, pull out 
his red cape, dust off the mothballs and step out as the footballing 
superman we know and love.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman