So Cousins does a hammy
Mister Biggus
I wasnt going to watch the game, cause theres 20 Ben Cousins playing
for Richmond, and 10 Judds and 10 Fevs for Carlton.. but nothing else
on
The game was long long long long gone before that happened....
Good result, but blues dont get excited, there was no opposition. I
dont think Richmond were ready for this game.
Mister Biggus
that.
CDK
> PS - Richmonds season over already.. 9th?? They will be happy with
> that.
Would mean a new coach next year.
Now who could they possibly have in mind?????
CDK
Wotawonderfulworld
news:hgsms4p29kpg4iha6...@4ax.com:
> PS - Richmonds season over already.. 9th?? They will be happy with
> that.
Ah well, hat'll be the usual possy.
Carlton did play well.
Tiges... Er Same shit, same players, same crap.. (damn i love consistency)
Russell Wood
> All the hype.....and he does a Hammy..
You know what's bullshit? His contract being based on the team's
performance. If Richmond don't make the top 8 his contract is over.
I hope he picks up, plays well and fucks Richmond off at the end of this
season. Fucken cunts.
--
Russell Wood
<http://www.dynode.net/~rjw/>
Phil
Mister Biggus <_b0...@gmale.kom> posted:
>All the hype.....and he does a Hammy..
Why he went back on after 3/4 time is beyond me. If he was trying to
prove a point he has all season to do that not do your hammy in the
first game.
*shakes head*
--
Phil
To reply delete "NOTHANKS"
Russell Wood
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:59:53 +1100, in aus.sport.aussie-rules
> Mister Biggus <_b0...@gmale.kom> posted:
>
>>All the hype.....and he does a Hammy..
>
> Why he went back on after 3/4 time is beyond me. If he was trying to
> prove a point he has all season to do that not do your hammy in the
> first game.
I agree. Big risk with no gain at all. It's not like he could have won
them the game.
Greg
<busdr...@NOTHANKSgmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:59:53 +1100, in aus.sport.aussie-rules
>Mister Biggus <_b0...@gmale.kom> posted:
>
>>All the hype.....and he does a Hammy..
>
>Why he went back on after 3/4 time is beyond me. If he was trying to
>prove a point he has all season to do that not do your hammy in the
>first game.
>
>*shakes head*
He didnt go back on, he was sent back on, there is a difference
David Clayton
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:59:53 +1100, in aus.sport.aussie-rules Mister
> Biggus <_b0...@gmale.kom> posted:
>
>>All the hype.....and he does a Hammy..
>
> Why he went back on after 3/4 time is beyond me. If he was trying to prove
> a point he has all season to do that not do your hammy in the first game.
>
> *shakes head*
What?, an over 30 player with a worn out body because of years of
"chemical assistance" does another hamstring in the first AFL game after
badly injuring his hamstring in his previous AFL game???
Whoda thunk? - NOT!
Little difference if an ineffective player in an ineffective side gets
injured in Round 1 or a week or so later, all the injury proves is that
Richmond's short-term gamble has turned out to be very short-term, with
the nett result of a few thousand extra members being turned into many
thousand more people who now view themselves as suckers.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
gF
"David Clayton" <dcs...@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:pan.2009.03.27....@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com...
five things though David
1. Isn't any Cousins contract extension linked to you making the finals
2. You didn't give up any real drafts to get him
3. If you had your full mid-field available he does add an extra dimension of skill and ability
4. If it takes something like this to get people off their arse and buying memberships thats good regardless
5. don't spit on the coach!
Mister Biggus
We shall see.
Nowhere
strengthen the hamstrings as much as the quadriceps to prevent a strength
imbalance. On anecdote, I think that players should avoid sprint training in
a fatigued state.
For example, if a team is going to do weights and field training in the one
day, it is safer to do the field training before the weights rather than the
other way around. Although it hasn't been tested, I think that players at
high risk could have coaching to try to run with a shorter stride length,
which perhaps at the cost of a touch of speed can almost certainly protect
the hamstrings.
"gF" <no.n...@aaah.com> wrote in message
news:49cca328$0$5584$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Neil Green
"gF" <no.n...@aaah.com> wrote in message
news:49cca328$0$5584$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
Recruiting Cousins was a poor decision regardless of
how many memberships he sold.
Adding another 30 year old to a team with too many
already, and a 30 year old who hadn't played for 18
months and is a recovering drug addict was madness on
Richmond's part in my opinion.
It's good that someone gave him a break, I'm just glad
it wasn't my team.
Epigram
>>>> *shakes head*
>>> Whoda thunk? - NOT!
>>> -- Regards, David.
>> five things though David
Does Cousins, or "High Talker" Wallace for that matter, have any concept of mea culpa?
--
Toby.
Neil Green
"Epigram" <n...@this.id> wrote in message
news:33191.E...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I don't recall any coach saying "we've played like
shit, we've had a shocking season and it's all my
fault, I couldn't coach ivy up a wall", so in that
respect Wallace is no different to the rest of them.
As for Cousins he seems to be still the brash
archetypical alpha male that he's always been and I'm
not convinced he's come to terms with his own
shortcomings.
For his sake I hope he can stay of the juice when he
finishes footy, whenever that many be, but I have my
doubts.
Epigram
>>>>>> *shakes head*
>>>>> Whoda thunk? - NOT!
>>>>> -- Regards, David.
>>>> five things though David
>> --
>> Toby.
I don't know that any coach would say that publically. But probably there are a few that would feel that way, or might say something similar privately at times.
As for Cousins, I doubt any true reform will come until he is well and truly retired, and not within a phone call of an "underworld" or "criminally inclined" figure. I think it was a bad call for him to leave the Perth crimial drug culture pond for a move to the Melbourne drug culture sea.
At times I wonder if today's AFL player realises that he is being paid very, very good money to run around on a paddock with a few mates to entertain us mere mortals, and has lost any sense he once may have had that in exchange for this he must pay the price of being completely responsible for himself and to a lesser but no less worthy extent of being responsible to the young kids that idolise him for their mimicary.
This is not a barb pointed at Chris Judd's way, but I think he created doubt in my beliefs that AFL players are absolutely genuine in their charity work when he said to the effect "I don't want to be a role model" when being appointed captain of WCE.
(That being said, if we were all forced at gun-point to choose a religion or our family dies, I'd choose footy...)
--
Toby.
Neil Green
I agree with Judd.
My role model was and still is my father even though
he's long gone.
If kids need role models that they don't know then
we're in trouble, and it's completely unreasonable to
expect sportsmen to fill shoes they aren't qualified
and have no desire to fill.
Epigram
>>>>>>>> *shakes head*
>>>>>>> Whoda thunk? - NOT!
>>>>>>> -- Regards, David.
>>>>>> five things though David
>>>> --
>>>> Toby.
>> --
>> Toby.
And yet such people are expected to set an example not only to their team mates but to society. Maybe it is unfair, but it is the way it is.
Many young boys have grown up not knowing their father. It's only natural for them to seek it in other ways. If sport seeks to exploit that, then sport should be a positive influence, not a negative. There's no "sorry, I want all my money, and endorsments, and prestige and the freebie that come along, but I'm not going to Upper Whoop Whoop Junior Football club and pass on any tips or prove to them that I'm human. Not my kids, so I don't care- unless they're paying my way, I'm not interested."
Kids would love nothing better than to have a great dad and a terrific mum. But we just don't live in that fictional world of perfection. They have to make do with the next best thing that's available.
--
Toby.
Neil Green
It's not only unfair, it's a mirage that will never
have the positive effect that some seem to think that
it does.
For every young fella inspired to greatness by the
deeds of a sportsman there will be hundreds if not
thousands who will go their own way whatever that will
be, but I concede that public figures can have far
reaching effects that sometimes even they don't
realise.
For example, I don't think that the exploits of Gordon
Ramsey have made it any easier to recruit apprentice
chefs.
> Many young boys have grown up not knowing their
> father. It's only natural for them to seek it in
> other ways. If sport seeks to exploit that, then
> sport should be a positive influence, not a
> negative. There's no "sorry, I want all my money,
> and endorsments, and prestige and the freebie that
> come along, but I'm not going to Upper Whoop Whoop
> Junior Football club and pass on any tips or prove
> to them that I'm human. Not my kids, so I don't
> care- unless they're paying my way, I'm not
> interested."
>
Most footballers, and sportsmen and women in general,
are generous with their time just as most people are.
They are no different to the rest of society, and we
shouldn't expect that they are.
> Kids would love nothing better than to have a great
> dad and a terrific mum. But we just don't live in
> that fictional world of perfection. They have to
> make do with the next best thing that's available.
>
Hopefully they have one or the other if not both.
Many kids are left without positive male role models
thesedays, not only because of the high attrition rate
of marriages but also the dearth of male teachers.
Many kids spend their entire juvenile life in the
company of women and learn what they can of
responsible behaviour from a male perspective from
their fellow juveniles.
I have no solutions other than to positively
discriminate towards males in the teaching profession
and to reduce the threat of sexual harrassment charges
when they do enter it.
Rightly or wrongly many young men see teaching as an
underpaid, thankless job that carries the additional
risk of public vilification.
> --
>
> Toby.
Epigram
>>>>>>>>>> *shakes head*
>>>>>>>>> Whoda thunk? - NOT!
>>>>>>>>> -- Regards, David.
>>>>>>>> five things though David
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Toby.
>>>> --
>>>> Toby.
Celebrity is over-rated. If Gordon "Tourett's" Ramsay can make it easier to recruit apprentice chefs then Simon Cowell or Ian "Dick" Dicko can make it easier for wannabe singers to have a career, but they don't. Call me old fashioned, but once upon a time if someone was named school captain, they were expected to be leaders and lead by example. Later on in adult-hood, as Captain of Lower Whoop Whoop XIs or the Lower Whoop Whoop Football Club, they were expected to be ambassadors for the club and the town. Later still, if the became Captain of a footy league Club, they were expected to be ambassadors for the club's region. And so on and so on. Isn't the public entitled, as much as the AOC and the IOC are, that the Captains of the Australian Olympic Team to be ambassadors of Austalia? Further to that, it is expected that every member of that team be an ambassador.
Sure, many will fall short. And I know the value of having a larrikin in a team to keep up moral (aside for the when "larrikin" is over used and "fool" is under utilised.) But that's no excuse for ignorance for anyone wanting to be a sportsman or sportswoman or soldier (or any sanctioned military corps or poet or celebrity-in-general to accept that without a market that looks for heroes.
>> Many young boys have grown up not knowing their father. It's only
>> natural for them to seek it in other ways. If sport seeks to exploit
>> that, then sport should be a positive influence, not a negative. There's
>> no "sorry, I want all my money, and endorsments, and prestige and the
>> freebie that come along, but I'm not going to Upper Whoop Whoop Junior
>> Football club and pass on any tips or prove to them that I'm human. Not
>> my kids, so I don't care- unless they're paying my way, I'm not
>> interested."
> Most footballers, and sportsmen and women in general, are generous with
> their time just as most people are. They are no different to the rest of
> society, and we shouldn't expect that they are.
I can't help but disagree with your last statement. We as a public shouldn't place that burden of expectation on such people, but we do. For that we share a collective burden of responsibility. If I ever become a barrister (shudder), the public has the right to expect nothing but integrity from me, because it is the public I would be serving (a kind of private enterprise public servant, as it were.) A person may be nothing more than that, nor greater and no lesser than anyone else - the problem is that thoughout written history, no society has ever considered everyone to be equal- not even the fathers of the Constitution of the United States of America meant that all people are equal: they declared that "all men are created equal," which disqualified women and anyone not of european decent. Further it implied that any such equality existed only at birth- from that moment on things changed: by time of attaining legal man-hood, all men aren't equal (I declare that to be self evident.)
Of course we shouldn't expect that athletes in general, and footy player specifically shouldn't be any different than you and I. However we do. You and I are different, we have different ambitions, goals, motivations, viewpoints etc, etc. But the main thing we don't share with, say, footy players is not being in the public eye. Being public "property" has more than its fair share of issues, one being "expectation."
For all that, I agree with you that the vast majority of perceptionalised role models do a great deal of community service, and much more than you an I could ever do.
>> Kids would love nothing better than to have a great dad and a terrific
>> mum. But we just don't live in that fictional world of perfection. They
>> have to make do with the next best thing that's available.
> Hopefully they have one or the other if not both. Many kids are left
> without positive male role models thesedays, not only because of the high
> attrition rate of marriages but also the dearth of male teachers.
I'll address that shortly, as it's relevent.
> Many
> kids spend their entire juvenile life in the company of women and learn
> what they can of responsible behaviour from a male perspective from their
> fellow juveniles. I have no solutions other than to positively
> discriminate towards males in the teaching profession and to reduce the
> threat of sexual harrassment charges when they do enter it. Rightly or
> wrongly many young men see teaching as an underpaid, thankless job that
> carries the additional risk of public vilification.
Ok, firstly, governments have been very conservative on this issue, because the public has been extremely conservative, if not fundamentalist, about this issue.
It stems from a misplaced notion that all men are bastards, larrikins and womanisers. And if they are not, then they are either soft or are homosexual. This polarisation can be broken down to mean that those that are not bastards, larrikins and womanisers are potential perverts and all potential perverts are potential sexual preditors and all sexual preditors predate on children alone.
Clearly that's an illogical leap from male to child molestation, but nonetheless that is what an absurd number of "western culture" societies believe irrespective of the truth. It begs the question of why.
It would be easy and naïve to blame religion, or the feminist movement or gay rights. Personally, I blame parents who pick and choose to suit themselves from every quarter of society "conservative moralists" but not apply each groups doctrines in totality.
So, I'll ask you this. Would you prefer candidate A or B as a teacher if both are equally qualified and both are equally effective and proven teachers. A is a "white" female, B is a "non-white" immigrant, Muslim and homosexual male. A or B?
So, back to the darth of male teachers. Is it because they aren't competitive enough? Or such a profession isn't seen as being masculine? Or the pay is too low? Perhaps those that do wish to teach are being actively discouraged by this illogical perception that all males are paederasts (paedophiles) and don't wish to be put in any situation where an accusation can occur deeming that the accused is somehow indefensible even if they are completely innocent and there is no substance to the allegation. Or even going one step further, a "closetted" gay male doesn't want to be put into a situation where such a baseless accusation of being a paederast be made simply because the allegation's foundation is primarily as a result of the male being "outed."
I have evidence which (discretely, as I confess I have a bias due to knowledge of the induviduals adversely affected) will demonstate that the male/particularly gay male are seen as threats to children.
Case 1. A music teacher in a private school is dismissed because he didn't disclose that he is in fact gay. The school says that it is because it's only because that the man is gay and that the school is a Christian college it is exempt from the Discrimination (Sexual and Gender) Act. The former employee says he was sacked because one of the parents heard as a rumour that he was gay, and was in fear children being "converted" to being gay; further, the former employee had a petition presented to the school by the children and former children he taught that he should be reinstated. No surprise, that teacher no longer teaches in either private or public schools, as no court could apply any anti-discrimination legislation or accept evidence from children in the form of petition.
Who's the victim? The former teacher or the school or the children?
Case 2. A man boards alone for a Qantas international flight. He had prebooked his seat which no knowledge of who was going to sit near him. Once in his seat, an unaccompanied child was sat next to him by a female steward. Once the aircraft was airborne and passengers were allowed to leave their seats, the steward said to the man that he needed to change seats with another passanger. He asked which passanger, and was told that it was a female passanger nearby. He assumed at first the woman must be a parent or relative of the child. As he inquired who the woman was, he was then told that for the safety of the child a male passanger could not sit next to an unaccompanied child. He asked why not. He was told it was company policy. He aske why the child couldn't be moved instead, as he had prebooked the seat for a particular reason and had no idea an unacompanied child would be sitting next to him. He was told he would move or he would be forced to move under the guidence of a sky-marshall. So he moved. After the flight he complained to Qantas (and it was leaked to the media), and Qantas apologised by said the steward should not have told him the reason. The matter went before a magistrate and Qantas was ordered to review their policy and compensate the complainant.
Who's the victim? The passanger? The child? The steward? Qantas?
Case 3. A woman in her 60's working part time for a government organisation that provides practical in and out of home support for the aged and infirm in her community. Although the brief means that she could in theory be working with children as well as the very elderly, in practice she only had non-contact work with the elderly. The state govement had rolled out a "working with children" accreditation scheme that would mean anyone that works with or potentially works with children has to were a gazzetted card that has the person's ID and accrediation on the card. The woman in her sixties protested to her employer that she should have to have such a card, and was told that there are no exceptions, even though but the time the legislation could be actively used, she would have retired and be 70. Again she was told no exceptions, but if it had been a private or community organisation instead of a government agency, she wouldn't have had to wear the card. Getting the card, meant that she had to travel 1200km (yes, 1,200km) for a photograph to be taken and her card made up after her police clearance accrediation was approved at her own expense. She said that she felt violated and betrayed, and was going to forfeit her pay-out as well as some of her super rather than be forced to pay for a platic card she would never use, and only become a hazzard in her work (card around neck falls into machine accidently, and starts pulling her in, causing injury.) After consulting legal advice (two seperate solicitors, no less), she was advised to get the card as she could be charged with a serious offence and found guity before a magistrate (so no jury) and have a criminal record for the rest of her life, redering her ineligble or a low priority for many services available to the elderly as well as a significant fine. On a third consulation she was told to get the card, and wear it, BUT wear it UNDER her clothes so that it couldn't be seen, as this was the only loophole currently available to her and to coincide it with a "training request" so that she could be reimbirsed for her "costs" (well done, that man!!! hhmmhmmm, must be more humble....) This is what she decided to do.
Who is the victim? The woman? The government agency? None-existent children that the card is supposed trying to protect by some magical power?
These are clear indications that males are victimised routinely, with much of it being unreported. It is a result of our society not valuing males (by both other males and females) and the misperception that children are only vunerable at the hands of males whom they don't know. Women who are don't have children or whose children have died or left home or a combination of are also victimised. In fact more children are permenantly harmed by their mothers, followed by a distant second by fathers or other relatives with a gulf to third place with strangers. (Remember being taught at school "Stranger Danger?" - that's a lightbulb/Obama moment for me.)
So that brings us back to footy players. You may hate the idea of role models being footy players, just as Judd and other do (which is their perogative), but you must also accept that until WE as a society start being rational and objective about defining roles for each member, then we are stuck with the notion that atheletes and entertainers and politicitions and writers and even people famous for being nothing but famous MUST shoulder a disproportionate responsibilty for the positive well being of society. Hyperbole is over used and under valued, and we have a long, hard battle ahead of us to achieve a equalitarian society that is tolerant, peaceful, and wise.
I'm not a monachist, but I have great respect for our Queen. If the British Parliament hadn't been so pig-headed and force her grandfather to abdicate, then she wouldn't be in this position, and one she reluctely accepted. However, she have been the perfect role model in all that has done, never once flinching from her duty. She has done more as an induvidual and as a Head of State to promote peace and harmony, and to actively seek out wisdom and reward with integrity.
--
Toby.
Neil Green
I don't, so no, "we" don't.
Most of the role model bullshit is media hype and self
serving waffle from the industry to justify their
exhorbitant wages.
Collective fear and paranoia, it's the modern
epidemic.
>
> It would be easy and naïve to blame religion, or the
> feminist movement or gay rights. Personally, I
> blame parents who pick and choose to suit themselves
> from every quarter of society "conservative
> moralists" but not apply each groups doctrines in
> totality.
>
> So, I'll ask you this. Would you prefer candidate A
> or B as a teacher if both are equally qualified and
> both are equally effective and proven teachers. A
> is a "white" female, B is a "non-white" immigrant,
> Muslim and homosexual male. A or B?
>
Couldn't care less, but no two teachers are equally
effective so the argument is moot.
I would prefer the better teacher.
The examples you cite are generated by our collective
fear and repressed guilt which I mentioned earlier.
The same hysteria can be witnessed any time a
paedophile is released from prison, the same hysteria
has led to the proposal for mandatory internet filters
that will achieve zero and not protect a single child.
It hasn't been achieved before, and not through a lack
of trying, so it's hard to believe that it will be
achieved any time soon.
> I'm not a monachist, but I have great respect for
> our Queen.
I don't know her, so I don't respect her, but she
seems like a pleasant woman.
>If the British Parliament hadn't been so pig-headed
>and force her grandfather to abdicate, then she
>wouldn't be in this position, and one she reluctely
>accepted. However, she have been the perfect role
>model in all that has done, never once flinching from
>her duty. She has done more as an induvidual and as
>a Head of State to promote peace and harmony, and to
>actively seek out wisdom and reward with integrity.
>
Mandela comes to mind when I consider heads of state.
The Queen has carried out her assigned task with
dignity and grace, Mandela liberated an entire people,
also with dignity and grace.
> --
>
> Toby.
Epigram
Then petition to slash their wages by 90%. And if successfull, the quality of players will decrease, the fan base will wither and we be left with an AFL that is as much watched as that on Naru.
And the "we" refers to "us all." 1 vote of dissent isn't a majority in a group of 2 or more.
That's part of it. Throw in some "herding instict" and we start to answer some of the why. Though there has never been a thorough study and so there has not been a definitive answer.
>> It would be easy and naïve to blame religion, or the feminist movement
>> or gay rights. Personally, I blame parents who pick and choose to suit
>> themselves from every quarter of society "conservative moralists" but not
>> apply each groups doctrines in totality.
>> So, I'll ask you this. Would you prefer candidate A or B as a teacher if
>> both are equally qualified and both are equally effective and proven
>> teachers. A is a "white" female, B is a "non-white" immigrant, Muslim
>> and homosexual male. A or B?
> Couldn't care less, but no two teachers are equally effective so the
> argument is moot. I would prefer the better teacher.
That's easy to say, but in the real world it doesn't happen. People that say "I don't prejudge" or "I'm not prejudiced" have prejudices, and often only show it when the think no one else is observing. The rest are quite happy with their own prejudices, and happy to show it.
Still, the first step is for sportspeople, entertainers, politicians etc to accept that they are a role model.
>> I'm not a monachist, but I have great respect for our Queen.
> I don't know her, so I don't respect her, but she seems like a pleasant
> woman.
>> If the British Parliament hadn't been so pig-headed and force her
>> grandfather to abdicate, then she wouldn't be in this position, and one
>> she reluctely accepted. However, she have been the perfect role model in
>> all that has done, never once flinching from her duty. She has done more
>> as an induvidual and as a Head of State to promote peace and harmony, and
>> to actively seek out wisdom and reward with integrity.
> Mandela comes to mind when I consider heads of state. The Queen has
> carried out her assigned task with dignity and grace, Mandela liberated an
> entire people, also with dignity and grace.
I agree. There are people that are recognised as role models for all sorts of reasons, and usually the right reasons. Morgan Tvsangirai also comes to mind as a man fighting for liberation in a dignified and gracious way. His president is the opposite; a tyrant (and a bit like a certain AFL administrator *joking*)
--
Toby.
Neil Green
<snip>
>> I don't, so no, "we" don't. Most of the role model
>> bullshit is media hype
>> and self serving waffle from the industry to
>> justify their exhorbitant
>> wages.
>
> Then petition to slash their wages by 90%.
Why?
I said that their wages are exhorbitant, not that I
want them slashed.
>And if successfull, the quality of players will
>decrease, the fan base will wither and we be left
>with an AFL that is as much watched as that on Naru.
>
> And the "we" refers to "us all." 1 vote of dissent
> isn't a majority in a group of 2 or more.
I'm yet to see any quantitative research, so your "we"
is still flakey.
<snip>
>>> So, I'll ask you this. Would you prefer candidate
>>> A or B as a teacher if
>>> both are equally qualified and both are equally
>>> effective and proven
>>> teachers. A is a "white" female, B is a
>>> "non-white" immigrant, Muslim
>>> and homosexual male. A or B?
>
>> Couldn't care less, but no two teachers are equally
>> effective so the
>> argument is moot. I would prefer the better
>> teacher.
>
> That's easy to say, but in the real world it doesn't
> happen. People that say "I don't prejudge" or "I'm
> not prejudiced" have prejudices, and often only show
> it when the think no one else is observing. The
> rest are quite happy with their own prejudices, and
> happy to show it.
>
Again, big statement Toby.
I know quite a few people who I would consider non
prejudicial, but I agree that the majority of people,
if not by definition racist, are more comfortable
among their own tribe.
<snip>