Rehab, Ben Cousins debate.

[tobbogonist]

Ben Cousins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Cousins), an Australian Rules Football player, has recently been banned from the sport due to drug abuse.

This man earns around $100,000.00 a year for playing football and he is one of the best in the game.

But does this make it right for the AFL, Westcoast Eagles, to pay for his Rehab and send him away to the states, giving him an oportunity that many drug abusers would never have and then try to obtain a salary cap (http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,21542694-23209,00.html)for it?

[monkeyman]

Yep. They are allowed to do it if they so choose. Life's not fair. Not for you, not for me, not for anyone. It would be better choice for them to donate more money towards drug education/treatment in general, but they're not obligated to.

[burjzyntski]

Only $100k/year?

There are some rehabs here in the states that cost $30k+/month.

[The.Mars.Volta]

first of all, cousins is such a good player and is such an idiot for throwing away all that talent.

i dont think the AFL should pay for it. he wanted to do the drug so he should pay the price for his stupididy.

im a Richmond supporter (unfortunatly) so i dont really care that they lost one of their best players.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

I don't think it's that unusual for an employer to cover the health care expenses of an employee.

[cool-bananas]

persoanlly i think they are too light with the three strikes and your out rule. I mean drugs are illegal so no strikes 1 offence your gone and have to work your way back into the team.

as for the question i dont see why they shouldnt pay for it that they pay for it but it is unfair but such is life so well deal with it