Hawthorn's Travis Tuck in action during the AFL Round 03 match between the North Melbourne Kangaroos and the Hawthorn Hawks at the Telstra Dome. Slattery Images
Once again the AFL’s handling of drug use among players is under the spotlight, with Hawthorn’s Travis Tuck yesterday becoming the first player to record three strikes under the league’s illicit drug policy. The final strike came after the 23 year-old was found unconscious on Friday night and treated for a suspected overdose.
A lengthy tribunal sitting last night found that Tuck’s drug use was not recreational, but a by-product of his clinical depression, which he’d been receiving treatment for. The tribunal handed him a 12-game suspension, with the ability to play VFL football after eight games.
As you would expect, yesterday’s news has put quite a bit of pressure on the AFL’s current policy.
Mick Malthouse had expressed concerns early in the day that clubs were not told enough and by the evening, Hawthorn chief Stuart Fox expressed his club’s disappointment over not being informed of Tuck’s issues earlier (it did not know of his clinical depression until after Friday night).
After stressing the club’s main priority was Tuck’s wellbeing, Fox said: “Whilst the club agrees that an illicit drugs policy is necessary, we are disappointed that we could not provide Travis with support after his first strike and just maybe we could have avoided this situation.”
The three strikes policy protects players on one strike, and informs only the club doctor after a second strike.
Of course, to those that suggest the club should know more earlier on, it’s quite easy to make the argument that the doctor is more capable than anyone else at a football club to support a player with these type of issues. Just how many other people really need to know?
If the player feels an obligation to tell anyone else at the club, then he’s within his rights to speak up. Otherwise, if it’s his choice, he should be able to confront his issues confidentially.
Now yes, you can understand clubs wanting to look after their own interests, and to have a clear picture of what their dealing with. However it seems like a bit of a stretch to say that with more people aware of his situation, Tuck would not have relapsed on Friday.
So maybe there’s only so much we can read into the immediate reactions of club figures.
The other criticism levelled at the illicit drug policy is that it’s “too soft” and should make way for a zero tolerance approach. In the past, this has been a contentious debate.
However too often, people have confused performance-enhancing drugs with recreational drugs. Or in-competition testing with out-of-competition testing. Or the system that existed when Ben Cousins entered the competition with the system of today.
And it’s led to some pretty uninformed comments.
Make no mistake, if the AFL have a player on their hands found to have taken performance-enhancing drugs, then the decision would be a no-brainer. The player would be kicked out of the game.
If the AFL found a player using a banned substance on the day of a game (in-competition), then you’d imagine there’d be a similar outcome.
But for those battling demons far removed from game day – as we saw with Cousins last week, and Tuck this week – the main goal of the AFL’s policy should be to support the player involved, not abandon them. And for sticking to that belief, despite a wave of criticism, the league should be applauded.
That said, none of this changes the fact Tuck is where he is right now. It would be naive to say the system can’t improve, or more cannot be done.
That means more debate on the topic, so long as it’s educated debate, should be welcomed.
Follow Michael on twitter @mdifabrizio
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
AFL articles
- More rugby league players to defect to the AFL? (160)
- Mobile madness: Optus decision bad news for codes (153)
- AFL divisions are the way of the future (106)
- Foxtel’s AFL coverage is nirvana for footy fans (89)
- AFL’s most hated club turns 120 years old (78)
- Israel Folau now ready for AFL (76)
- Optus ruling actually a good thing for AFL fans (52)
- Ling holds hope for club loyalty in AFL
- Andrew Krakouer given four weeks leave from Collingwood
- Giants inspired to prove doubters wrong (32)
- Malthouse not fazed by assistant issue
- Richo says look out for the Tigers in AFL
- AFL clubs’ leadership groups getting out of hand (15)
- Who’s to blame for the Majak Daw beat-up? (32)
- AFL clubs’ leadership groups getting out of hand (15)
- AFL divisions are the way of the future (107)
- Crows changing, but will this AFL preview change your life? (2)
- Is Heath Shaw the right leader for Collingwood? (11)
- Could a female coach succeed in the AFL? (36)
- Demons’ two captain Jacks the right leadership choice (5)
- Mobile madness: Optus decision bad news for codes (153)
Kurt said | September 1st 2010 @ 4:01am | Report comment
It’s a tough situation and I really feel for both the player and the Tuck family. As you say, there will be those who confuse (in some cases deliberately) the AFL’s performance enhancing and recreational drug policies. For those who do criticise the approach to non-performance enhancing drug use (as was the case here), I suppose the question is what else would have helped Travis Tuck in this case? If he’d been thrown out of the game at first positive test the consequences for an individual with a drug addiction related to clinical depression could have been far worse.
I can see the club’s perspective to an extent but as you say if the club doctor knew and the player was already receiving treatment for the drug addicition and depression what else could they have done?
I wish him all the best for a speedy recovery and hope to see him back in the brown and gold next year.
Tom said | September 1st 2010 @ 7:01am | Report comment
In the nrl u would be gone for 2 years. Why is the afl different?
Redb said | September 1st 2010 @ 7:36am | Report comment
So the NRL policy for recreational drug use is a two year ban?
Stormin Red said | September 1st 2010 @ 11:46am | Report comment
He wouldn’t be banned in the NRL but he would have been punished the first time. Turner got done a couple of years back at the Cowboys and had his contract torn up and suspended for a while by the NRL, on his first strike. It happened to somebody else around the same time and the same thing happened. I think he was picked up a couple of weeks later by another club but it seems naming and shaming the player has been a far more effective deterrent than the AFLs policy.
I am not going to pretend to know the ins and outs of the AFLs system but from an outsiders point of view they do seem to have a pretty secretive and soft stance on recreational drugs. The system appears to be made to protect the image of the game more than actually fixing the problem.
Redb said | September 1st 2010 @ 11:59am | Report comment
I would also be interested to know the number of tests the NRL does and what results it reports. It does test but how extensive is it? I will be impressed if they do more tests than the AFL per player.
The AFL started this testing in 2005, but the number of drug tests done each year has gone up significantly.
Again if the image of the game was of uber importance and WADA does not require these tests to be carried out, explain again why the AFL’s system is designed only to protect the image of the game.
For the record, I’m not convinced about 2 strikes v 3 strikes, its not a simple situation.
Brendan said | September 1st 2010 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Whats the point of how many tests the afl does if they can let a rampant drug user like ben cousins go undetected for so long?
Redb said | September 1st 2010 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
That’s exactly the point, Ben Cousins would be tested far more regularly these days. It’s not clear but it appears the West Coast Eagles allowed him to simply disappear on testing days.
Do you have the information on the NRL testing? It’s very relevant, do they test each player once, twice, three times a year? What are the result? Do they get published?
Is it a Clayton’s testing regime?
Mister Football said | September 1st 2010 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
The Australian reported on the NRL’s policy in December last year:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/nrl-yet-to-prove-its-in-house-drug-testing-system-is-one-of-the-best/story-e6frg7mf-1225811536274
Brendan said | September 1st 2010 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
Thanks for bringing up the nrl’s drug poicly. Im not sure what its relevance it is in regards to the public perception of drug testing?? Care to explain?
Mister Football said | September 1st 2010 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
Brendan
someone asked about the NRL policy above.
Ive mentioned a few times that the AFL and NRL are the only sporting comps in the world with an out of competition testing policy for recreational drugs.
Many do not appear to appreciate this basic point.
Stormin Red said | September 1st 2010 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
I don’t mean it to be NRL v AFL, there are more than enough of those arguments on The Roar already, just using it as a comparison because it is what I know more about. At the end of the day both codes are doing as much testing as they can and probably use mostly the same system it is how they punish players where there is a clear point of difference.
About protecting the AFLs image, everybody knows that having a player from your code caught doing drugs is a bad look. Whenever one code has a player caught the other codes supporters will inevitably hold it up as another reason why their game is better. The AFL has been very good at keeping a relatively clean image over the years. There are fewer reports of AFL players going off the rails than there are of NRL and the AFL would no doubt like to keep it this way. Hence the reason I say that the AFLs policy appears to want to hide these stories from the public. I just don’t buy the argument that they are protecting the players privacy. Any kid playing professional sport at the top level knows the scrutiny they will be under. Sport these days is a business and the AFL probably have the best business model of all the codes in Aus. I have no doubt the AFL would cut loose a player who was a blight on the game (Akermanis), rather than have them creating damaging headlines every other week. If the league was not concerned about their image they would be punishing the players publicly the first time they are caught, not hiding it from as many people as possible so that nobody leaks a potentially damaging story.
Redb said | September 1st 2010 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
Stormin Red,
Appreciate the view.
I think the critical difference is that the 3 strikes policy was brought in by the AFLPA (Players Assoc) for out of competition testing.
So as the first code in the world to introduce this policy it basicially got up the way the AFL PA would agree to it. The AFL has not forced this on the players, their own association introduced it. There was medical and drug expert evidence that 3 strikes was a better way to handle the situation. I really don’t know if I agree.
My first reaction to the Tuck case was the 3 strikes was too late, the bloke over-dosed, but as the story developed it appears far from that simple.
The NRL may well have introdcued the policy without much effective input from the RLPA , it appears a toothless body from all reports.
So the difference in perceived punishment may well result from the way the policy could be introduced and of course as I state further up the thread, there are some unknowns about he NRL policy around transparency and frequency that should be explored to see if its apples v apples.
2 strikes may well be a better way to go but I need to see more info IMO.
Mister Football said | September 1st 2010 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
Stormin Red
Both the AFL and the NRL are way ahead of every other sport in the world in this area – so any discussion on this issue needs to have that as a starting point.
For the AFL (and I imagine it was similar for the NRL), they needed to get the Players’ Assoc co-operation because you can’t force a testing regime on a sportsman that is over and above the minimum WADA standards.
The players chose to co-operate on the basis that it would be treated as a player welfare issue – this is the genesis of the 3 strike policy – so it’s quite in accurate to say it’s about the AFL hiding things for PR purposes, for these reasons:
1. they could have followed the lead of every other sport on Earth, and done zero out of competition testing; and
2. the AFL actually publicises the results of the testing – this is how we know that so many have already received a first or second strike – that of itself generates a lot of bad publicity.
True, good player welfare, and better behaved players is all good for corporate image, no question about it – but the three strikes policy is all about player welfare first and foremost.
So when you say above: “punish players” – it’s not what the policy is about:
First strike: tell player to pull head in
Second strike: proper medical help and treatment
Third strike: punishment
I can’t for the life of me see what is wrong with this three stage process that has player welfare at the heart of its objective.
Stormin Red said | September 1st 2010 @ 4:38pm | Report comment
At the end of the day, both codes should be commended for taking a proactive approach to this issue. As much as the players may not like it they are in the public spotlight and therefore will be seen as role models to some.
I think it is this proactive approach that has led to issues with both systems. Whenever you introduce a new program there are going to be teething problems. I personally lean towards a two strikes approach but I feel the player should be made public on the first strike. They should not lose their career because of a possible one off slip, after all these are young men and they are just doing what other young men do. People do make mistakes but I think the threat of being “outed” to the public is a big deterrent.
Sean said | September 1st 2010 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
So if this were your boy would you want to have the ability to help him outside the eye of the media or have it slandered across every publication whilst you tried to help him? I think you’d chose the former. You have a greater opp to fix the problem on the side out of public view. As we all saw with Cuz this is a difficult and often very complex issue. What the AFL have done here correctly is given the guy a path back to playing, that is his best hope of recovery. It gives him something big to focus on. Probably Rich doing this for Cuz saved this life, we’ll never be sure. Does this also protect the image of the AFL, of course. But the former is far more important.
Brendan said | September 1st 2010 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
Thank you Mr Football for clarifying. Im proud that the afl and nrl both are world leaders in regards to drug testing.
To continue along the same path, Australia must also be leading the world as one of the countries that hold its sports people so accountable in regards to their off field actions. Until sports are put back into the hands of fans and sports people instead of the”mums & dads” i doubt that will change.
Redb said | September 1st 2010 @ 7:33am | Report comment
MD,
Whilst you are right to call for educated debate, that counts out 99% of people on this issue.
It is very difficult to draw up a policy that handles all situations. For the rec drug users – the party animals amongst the players then a tougher policy is needed maybe even one strike. However, in Travis Tuck’s case he has been diagnosed with clinical depression. What is the best course in his case, a public a naming and shaming at first strike? I doubt it.
PastHisBest said | September 1st 2010 @ 9:01am | Report comment
So clcinical depression is the reason he’s ended up with a cocktail of ‘party’ drugs ion his system??? There’s plenty of people with depression that don’t whack it up their nose.
Mister Football said | September 1st 2010 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Either way, one and all are entitled to privacy and assistance in overcoming their problems.
Nick the second said | September 1st 2010 @ 10:38am | Report comment
I would have depression after realising that I ruined my career too.
Fez's are cool said | September 1st 2010 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
Drug or Alchol abuse are some of the symptoms of minor depresive disorder. Wether he is making it up or not depends on other signs, but that should be between him and his psych.
But if he had these problems, why does it take 3 strikes before its looked at?
The problem here stems from the 3 strike policy. In Defence, you get 1 strike and a “show cause” why you shouldn’t be fired, second strike and you are gone. I think the NRL policy is similar.
The AFL system seems to be a little bit soft.
macavity said | September 1st 2010 @ 8:08am | Report comment
because the AFL is soft on drugs.
Redb said | September 1st 2010 @ 8:20am | Report comment
explain, why is the AFL soft on drugs? Do you understand the issue?
Do you realise its the AFL Players Assoc that endorses and instigated the 3 strikes system. The AFL is under no WADA regulation to have a rec drug policy for in and out of competition testing.
There is a balance between punishment and rehabilitation.
Mister Football said | September 1st 2010 @ 9:33am | Report comment
No, quite clearly most commenting on this thread don’t understand that apart from the NRL, no other sports comp in the world tests out of competition for recreational drug use.
extreme13 said | September 1st 2010 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Drugs be they so called recreational or performance are Illegal, no ifs and no buts.
Illegal.
He gets paid big $$$$ and is shown around the country to hundreds of thousands of children a week as a role model even if he doesn’t want to be one.
The AFL are wrong, and you apologists are wrong.
He should be out for 2 years.
AFL and drugs are soft soft soft soft soft.
What is it going to take for the almighty AFL to pull its head out of the sand?
A death or two?
extreme13 said | September 1st 2010 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Adding another thing to this, you guys are saying rec drugs are ok because they are not performance enhancing, well doesn’t E and Cocaine contain Speed?
You give anyone speed and they’ll run around all day with out getting worn out, does that sound non performance to you?
Mals said | September 1st 2010 @ 8:09am | Report comment
A two strike policy on recreational drugs i can understand e.g. rugby union banning Sailor for 2 years for testing positive to cocaine was too harsh in my opinion. Having said that, 3 strikes seems one too many. How many 2nd chances do players need/deserve to clean up their act & be accountable?
DB said | September 1st 2010 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Did Sailors suspension come under WADA?
Ken said | September 1st 2010 @ 10:12am | Report comment
Sailor is a good example of too harsh. I remember a comment he made (near the end of his suspension) saying something along the lines of he would offer no excuses for his offence but if a young player had been hounded and punished as he was there might have been blood on their hands. So I agree huge bans and public shamings are not the right approach for a 1st offence.
3 strikes policy though? Maybe it’s the cynic in me but it does occur to me that the AFL’s policy also happens to be the one most likely to keep them out of the papers. I’m no expert though and wouldn’t try to claim I know the right answer to these types of problems. I do think the depression angle is a bit of a diversion though, not that it’s a lie only that it can’t be unusual for people with addictions to be considered clinically depressed. I wouldn’t consider it a factor that makes this case different. Anyway, best of luck to the bloke, hopefully he gets it together – sport can drag your name through the mud but it also gives great opportunities to redeem yourself.
Michael DiFabrizio said | September 1st 2010 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
But Sailor was caught in-competition, wasn’t he? Correct me if that’s not the case, but if it is you can’t compare that example to the three strikes policy, as the three strike system applies to players caught out of competition (ie, not before or during games).
Ken said | September 2nd 2010 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Not sure off the top of my head. Isn’t that semantics though anyway? Obviously it comes under different jurisdictions but it means little to the wider issue of how to deal with a sportsman that is regularly testing positive to non-performance enhancing illicit drugs
Michael DiFabrizio said | September 2nd 2010 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Fair point, but illicit drugs CAN be performance-enhancing if taken on the day of a game. Although, you could then make the point that if they take them before training it can help their performance in the long run too, so it’s not clear-cut. But there is an important difference between the two.
Had Tuck been caught on game day, he would face a max two-year ban, like Sailor.
Paul J said | September 1st 2010 @ 8:24am | Report comment
“the main goal of the AFL’s policy should be to support the player involved, not abandon them. And for sticking to that belief, despite a wave of criticism, the league should be applauded.”
The question is if the players are being supported enough with the current policy. As great as the AFL commission is, they are human and can make mistakes, i think their drug policy is one.
If a player is taking drugs, for fun or due to clinical depression, how is letting him get to a third strike before people are aware of his problems helping him?
The NRL’s drug policy (despite their dodgy leadership) is the way to go. The AFL stole their tribunal system; steal their drug policy as well. The NRL clubs CEO’s are told of the drug taking first strike and they can decide then and there to punish or give the player support, whatever they feel is best in the circumstances. Second strike and they go public.
Less chance of some poor buggar suffering from depression ending up unconscious on the street because no one knew he was taking drugs.
DB said | September 1st 2010 @ 9:56am | Report comment
They do support them, it’s just not made public. and it’s supported by the majority of experts on this matter.
http://aflpa.com.au/sites/all/files/Time%20for%20Sense_an%20open%20letter%20from%2021%20experts.pdf
Mister Football said | September 1st 2010 @ 8:30am | Report comment
People continue to fail to understand that we are talking about out-of-competition testing here, for recreational drugs – and it was the most stringent in the world until the NRL implemented a similar policy, with 2 strikes instead of 3.
Otherwise – NO OTHER SPORT IN THE WORLD tests for out of competition recreational drug use – when are people going to understand this??
The AFL’s approach to deal with it as a health issue is the correct way to go.
LC said | September 1st 2010 @ 8:48am | Report comment
I’m not doubting Tuck has depression, & I hope he does get the help he needs (whether it’s with the Hawks or outside the game completely) but if players are self medicating, and the AFL are going softer for this reason, what’s to stop the ‘party animals’ using this excuse in the future?
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
TomC said | September 1st 2010 @ 9:22am | Report comment
I imagine there’ll be people from other codes who’ll try and use this to take potshots at the AFL, but I’m not interested in that.
The tone on the ABC this morning suggested that this was a failure of AFL drugs policy, and that the club should have been informed after the second strike, but I’m really not sure thats the right course.
After all, a club armed with that information could choose to delist or trade that player discretely before they got a ban, which would not necessarily be in that player’s interests.
Mister Football said | September 1st 2010 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Caroline Wilson has an article on the front page of the Age this morning, and is arguing that the club not having a greater involvement after the second strike is a concern.
Chronology of events:
1st strike: AFL let Tuck know direclty that he’s tested positive – left to the individual to get his act together.
2nd strike: AFL let’s the club doctor know, who counsels Tuck and gets him some sort of treatment – but the rest of the club do not know.
3rd strike: where we are now, made public, out for 12 weeks, fines, etc.
The question mark is on that second strike – is it sufficient to only let the club doctor know? In my view, if the overwhelming objective is to treat it as a health issue, then to my eyes, that is the appropriate course of action – to leave it with the doctor and the individual.
Unfortunately, it hasn’t worked on this occasion, but that’s the nature of drug addictions, you can’t beat yourself over the head because you failed in curing an addict of his addiction.
TomC said | September 1st 2010 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Thanks Mr F. I’ve read the article now and its available here.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tucks-three-strikes-end-in-12game-ban-20100831-14fja.html
It’s possibly complicated a little in this case because the President of Hawthorn is such a major campaigner for depression issues. You’d expect the Hawks to do the right thing if they found one of their players had depression related drug issues.
Unfortunately I think for a lot of clubs there’d be a strong temptation to get rid of the problem rather than deal with it, and I think we need the same rule for everyone. Stuart Fox seems to be suggesting in the article that the framework could have been ‘altered’ in this case. I’m not sure the AFL should have discretion to change their procedures based on the player and the club. That would create a whole other set of problems, I feel.
Michael DiFabrizio said | September 1st 2010 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
Great comments, guys.
“Unfortunately I think for a lot of clubs there’d be a strong temptation to get rid of the problem rather than deal with it.” – This is a particularly good point. Allowing others at the club to know opens up a can of worms and one potential outcome is that clubs will look to trade away players on one/two strikes to other clubs, and those clubs wouldn’t know of the strikes against that player’s name. (Unless you have to inform them, which leads to even more people knowing about what is still a player welfare issue).
Even in the Tuck case, the question has to be asked how the media obtained Tuck’s strike situation on Monday. Did the leak come from someone at Hawthorn?
Gob Bluth said | September 1st 2010 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Redb, The Players Assoc backs it because it is soft on the issue.
Everyone knows this policy is all about protecting the AFL’s image. There is the usual hand wringing about “looking after players” and some solemn comments about naive young men and various problems but that i all a smokescreen.
The debate won’t move forward until we get rid of the types who scream “think of the families of the players” and then talk about they wish everyone a speedy recovery. The bloke doesn’t have an injury he just loves shoving stuff up his nose on weekends and the “depression” and humble pie only seems to be eaten once a pretty generous ppolicy is proven to not be enough.
Mister Football said | September 1st 2010 @ 10:54am | Report comment
The Players Assoc go into it voluntarily – they didn’t need to agree to anything.
But at least they agreed.
Apart from the NRL (who only followed the AFL’s lead recently), no other sport on Earth tests out of competition for recreational drug use.
Until people understand that basic point, they really shouldn’t comment.
Redb said | September 1st 2010 @ 11:37am | Report comment
God Bluth,
“Everyone knows this policy is all about protecting the AFL’s image”
Quite seriously, if the AFL is not obligded to have a rec drug policy under WADA why have any policy if this was the case.
Like it or not, all professional sports people of ALL codes in the world would have this problem. Many have chosen to not test at all.
Gob Bluth said | September 1st 2010 @ 6:43pm | Report comment
Okay Redb, fair enough. Just a question though, you seem pretty progressive on this issue so just wondering whether you extend it to the drug legislation debate in general society?
My question stems for the fact I hear people who aghast at the Greens policies on drugs which is all about harm minimisation, keeping people out of prison and the cementry but then backing the AFL policy which seems to be largely the same.
Any thoughts? Not baiting, just you seem intelligent enough to give me a reasonable answer.
Redb said | September 2nd 2010 @ 7:56am | Report comment
God Bluth,
One thing I do know is that my sum of knowledge on the subject pales into insiginificance compared to what I don’t know.
Like everybody else I label drug addicts as criminals to a point, but I’m not convinced we should not help these people get through their issues even if self inflicted. I’m especially cautious about judging a bloke diagnosed with clinical depression. To me he needs more help than punitive measures.
As for the Greens/AFL policy and your implied inconsistency, I come back to the point that the AFL Players Assoc instigated this policy in the first place. THe AFLPA was obviously aware rec drugs were being taken by some players (too much money too much time) saw it as a health risk to the players and beleived the 3 strikes policy was a way to tackle the issue.
I doubt there are many adults who have not at some time tried a rec drug (not heroine) at some time in their life. When it becomes a habit is where the problem begins, the 3 strikes policy is aimed at curbing that tendency.