Cousins was never picked up by the AFL’s official drug-testing procedures, but after his year-long ban the industry went through a dramatic transformation. Football afforded Cousins a second chance, it supported him as he recovered from his addiction in the same way it would have if he had tested positive.

The competition’s Illicit Drugs Policy (IDP), introduced in 2007, is all about identifying those in trouble and giving them assistance to deal with it.

Cousins has provided an unavoidable warning to all players and fans about the dangers and pitfalls of getting into a particular lifestyle and, in my opinion, that’s been a real positive.

While we’re talking about the IDP, I can understand why some players and athletes occasionally ask: Why us? Why are footballers and athletes subjected to random drug testing when other people – especially those in positions of authority and responsibility such as judges, doctors and teachers – don’t have to?

A few years back, powers were introduced in Victoria that enabled the testing of police officers, and that was a positive step.

I completely support drug testing for players, but it does sometimes make you wonder why it is only players and athletes who are tested and so heavily scrutinised.

The AFL is not the only industry that has to deal with drug use. It’s not uncommon to see stars in the entertainment industry, for example, struggle to deal with these issues.

As we mark the final week of Cousins’s amazing career, it’s important to remember that the AFL has made a deliberate decision to go down a path that leads to early identification and treatment.

I haven’t seen the documentary that will screen on television tonight, but I have heard people say it shows that footy was the thing that saved him.

I think if you asked players they would say that they are glad he was able to come back, that footy supported him in his recovery instead of tossing him out onto the street.

There will be a range of views, of course, but how could you say it was a bad thing that Cousins was given a chance to rehabilitate on the job, among people who respect him, while doing something that gave him purpose?

When Cousins announced his retirement last week, everyone was pretty impressed by how he decided to bow out. I think it proved once and for all that the AFL, and the broader football community, did the right thing.

In 2008, the AFLPA also played a pivotal role in arguing that Cousins should not be expelled from the game. When the debate was at its highest point, the players’ association said Cousins was in danger of being fed to the wolves at a time when football, and the community, should be supporting him.

There are some who would still say that he should have been expelled forever, but you would have to have a pretty hard heart to have watched that press conference last week and still thought that letting him play on was the wrong decision.

The IDP and the Cousins case means the players are now so much more aware of the dangers of drug use and the industry is better equipped than almost any other to deal with it.

The latest drug-testing results, released earlier this year, show that only a tiny fraction of players are testing positive, and the rate is coming down every year.

In 2005, 4 per cent of all tests were positive. Last year, that figure had dropped to 0.89 per cent, despite the fact the AFL had increased the amount of testing.

It’s still too high, but it’s definitely heading in the right direction.

Cousins has been an AFL champion, but he has also championed a much more important cause, and I applaud him for helping to make the AFL a better and much safer place, while being able to improve his health and wellbeing.

The hardest part is yet to come for Cousins, but he can be safe in the knowledge that the game he loves will always be there to support and look after him.

Drew Petrie is on the board of the AFL Players’ Association.

This article first appeared in The Age

I remember watching the movie as a teenager and thinking at the time that it looked like a pretty good job. I obviously always was into sport and it seemed like a great way to stay involved even when you had finished your career on the field.

So now I’m completing a Bachelor of Commerce in Sports Administration through Open Universities Australia. And it’s fair to say that my understanding of what managers do is now a bit more informed than it was when I first saw the movie.

I’m open-minded about whether it will definitely lead to a career as a player agent. But the point is that it gives you options when you leave the game.

Studying is something that an increasing number of players are doing. The most recent stats from the AFL Players’ Association shows more and more footballers are appreciating the benefits that study can bring.

The AFLPA supports these players through the provision of education and training grants. These grants assist players in pursuing a university course or other form of higher education.

So far this year 319 players have put in applications. This is an increase of more than 10 per cent from the same time last year. Then, 288 players were completing some kind of further education.

It’s not just about looking towards a career outside of footy. Studying can broaden some basic skills that help you on the field as well. The obvious one is discipline. You really have to be organised and focused on managing your own time if you are going to be able to juggle the competing demands of footy and further education.

I’m not alone in thinking this. A recent survey of elite athletes revealed that almost three-quarters of them thought that their on-field performance had been improved because they had studied or worked during their sporting careers.

And a massive 90 per cent said they had longer careers because of these off-field activities.

Everyone is different but I think you are always going to do better if you have a range of experiences. Footy can be a bit of a fish-bowl existence and I know that studying has really balanced out some of those pressures.

I won’t pretend it is easy to juggle study with the increasingly heavy demands of playing football at the highest level. The fact that most players’ training schedules are different every week makes it difficult to plan for studying. But once you have been into it for a while, it becomes easier.

But that’s just life, isn’t it. You have to be able to fit everything in. If you really want something and want to achieve it, then you make it work.

Luckily St Kilda has been really good in terms of understanding that personal and professional development is an important part of a player’s journey through footy. The coaching and support staff are very encouraging with off-field opportunities and education.

I know with exams they are very flexible and have in the past changed training times to fit in with uni.

The fact that Open Universities gives you the flexibility to do as many – or as few – subjects as you can has also been really helpful. You can defer at any time, and pick it up again when it suits.

I’ve just become an ambassador for Open Universities. Part of the role is to spread the word among the players about the benefits of study and how you can make it work for you.

At the same time I’m also doing a bit of work experience in an office for the Skilled Group, a labour-hire company. Yes, I’m 26 and have just stepped into my first office job!

My office co-workers have been very welcoming. I’m getting a kick out of dressing up in a suit every day, reading a lot, sitting in on meetings and doing projects.

It still takes a back seat to the main focus of my life – being part of a successful Saints outfit on the field – but my experiences studying and in the office environment are going to give me a much better perspective when I do finally hang up my boots.

Nick Dal Santo is a member of the AFLPA and an ambassador for Open Universities Australia.

This article first appeared in The Age

Although none of the decisions ultimately had an effect on which team won, the inevitable questions have followed: what if an incorrect decision was to decide a final or even the grand final?

What measures can we take to eliminate the possibility of such a thing happening? Do we need to add an extra goal umpire at either end?

Tom Hawkins may possibly beg to differ after last year’s grand final, but the main group of people invariably affected by bad umpiring decisions – apart from the umpires themselves – are the players.

I imagine that Geelong’s Shannon Byrnes, Essendon’s Jay Neagle and Carlton’s Jarrad Waite found their experiences pretty frustrating over the weekend.

I was happy to hear today that the league’s bosses are open-minded about the idea of employing technology to help the umpires with difficult decisions – and there are difficult decisions every week.

This is something spectators and commentators easily forget as they watch the slow-motion replay for the third time, while they shout at the TV or over the fence.

In normal speed, a faint toe on the ball or a slight graze of the post can be extremely difficult to pick up for everyone involved.

And that’s an important point because, generally, we have an excellent standard of umpiring in the AFL.

Everyone makes mistakes, so I’ve got a bit of sympathy for the umpires involved on the weekend – it must be a horrible feeling to look up at the screen and see that you have made the wrong call.

After talking to a few teammates and racking my own brain, I have to say I can’t really see any ”cons” regarding the introduction of technology to help the goal umpires make the correct call on the line-ball decisions.

The last point is important – I’m only talking about the instances that aren’t clear to the naked eye in real time.

We all saw how the recent World Cup in South Africa suffered because of some incorrect refereeing decisions – but the powers-that-be in soccer are very reluctant to upset tradition and embrace technology.

With AFL, fans understand that football is always changing and, as long as the change improves the situation or fixes a problem, then they will accept it.

One concern that has been voiced about the introduction of technology is that it would slow the game down while we await the decision.

From a players’ point of view, I don’t think we would mind the extra minute’s breather!

I think the supporters would be able to handle the extra suspense as well. It’s always amusing at the grand slams of tennis when the usually hushed and subdued crowd unites in a ”WOOOOOOOOOOOO” as they prepare for Hawkeye to give its decision. Imagine 90,000 people at the MCG doing the same.

Again, the technology option would work best if it was used only sparingly and only when there is genuine doubt in all umpires’ minds.

It has been a relatively bad round but let’s not forgot we are talking about only three instances – hardly an epidemic.

Our umpires would still have to concentrate and work as hard as they usually do, but knowing that they would never have to guess a decision would release some pressure on them and aid their overall performance.

We have the technology in place already too, so the operation could be carried out seemingly at very little extra cost.

A simple ear piece in the goal umpire’s ear, a special double-handed signal up to the ”third umpire” in the control deck, and the cost of embarrassment and humiliation could be spared as well.

With such an even competition these days and so much at stake it makes sense that we don’t take away the human element of our game, but complement it with the occasional use of technology to make sure we get as much as we possibly can correct; thus giving all of us less to whinge about and more to celebrate on Mondays.

Luke Ball is on the board of the AFL Players’ Association.

This article first appeared in The Age