Has the AFL’s three strikes policy been vindicated?
Columnist By Michael DiFabrizio, 1 Sep 2010 Michael DiFabrizio is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- AFL, Ben Cousins, Hawthorn Hawks, Illicit drugs policy, Mick Malthouse, Stuart Fox, Travis Tuck
Related coverage
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.
Recommend this story.
Follow Michael on twitter @mdifabrizio
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- AFL, Ben Cousins, Hawthorn Hawks, Illicit drugs policy, Mick Malthouse, Stuart Fox, Travis Tuck
September 1st 2010 @ 10:56am
JB said | September 1st 2010 @ 10:56am | Report comment
The AFL is soft on drugs no matter how much they deny it. And the main reason for their three strikes policy is to protect their own image. If players were named after first strike there would be 14 players revealed this year and that does not look good for the AFL having 14 drugs stories come out. So they hide the problem. If they were serious, after the first strike, the club would be told, the player suspended for the season, and him sent to rehab to get the help he needs. By ignoring the problem it allows the player to think they can get away with it, and carry on using. So the AFL is to blame for his drug use progressing this far, because they could have dealt with after the first strike.
And Hawthorn have a drug culture problem much like West Coast Coast did but refuse to accept it. Remember Hawthorn was the club named by Seven a few years ago whent he medical records were found, and 3 of their players names were raised.
September 1st 2010 @ 11:05am
Mister Football said | September 1st 2010 @ 11:05am | Report comment
You are wrong.
Apart from the NRL, who only recently introduced a similar policy, no other sports competition on Earth tests out of competition for recreational drugs – none.
So viewed from that perspective – how can the AFL be criticised for going beyond the norm in world sport in terms of drug testing?
It’s an argument based on ignorance and prejudice.
The Players Association did not have to agree to out of competition testing, but they did so on the condition that the matter rightly be treated as a health issue.
That’s a progressive stance, and it leaves every other sport in the World for dead on this matter.
September 1st 2010 @ 11:15am
Nick the second said | September 1st 2010 @ 11:15am | Report comment
You are wrong.
If we view these sportspeople as professionals, as they should be seen, then they very well should adhere to professional conduct regardless.
Police, Fire Fighters, Military, Elected Public Servants … if they where ever to be tested they would be out the door.
Stop mummy’ing these footballers, be professional or get a job where it doesnt require it. I dont care if Australia is the only place where they test for recreational drugs … everyone should be, heck they get paid enough.
September 1st 2010 @ 11:23am
Mister Football said | September 1st 2010 @ 11:23am | Report comment
Police, Fire Fighters, Military, Elected Public Servants … if they where ever to be tested they would be out the door.
that’s the point – they are not tested!!
I repeat – we are talking about out of competition testing for recreational drug use – something that only the AFL and the NRL do (although the latter does not release the results of its testing) – no other sports competition in the world does this form of testing.
September 1st 2010 @ 11:37am
Nick the second said | September 1st 2010 @ 11:37am | Report comment
good point, but hey military are tested on a frequent basis.
A point is, if your workplace told you dont do this, and you did it, you would expect reprimands. The AFL have told the footballers dont do this … more then three times, then you might get in trouble. No wonder footballers flaunt the rules.
‘yeah i get picked up once or twice, my team dont know about it and neither do the puclic’ – I can actually see these words float through thier heads.
September 1st 2010 @ 11:29am
Beast-A-Tron said | September 1st 2010 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Given the rate of drug abuse amongst Australians I’d say we’ll be facing a severe shortage in police, fire fighters, soldiers & politicians once your policies are implemented!
That’s probably about a third of the entire Australian workforce fired on the spot.
NTS for PM anyone? He’s got my vote!!!
September 1st 2010 @ 12:08pm
BigAl said | September 1st 2010 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
.
. . . not to mention a HUGE whack of the legal profession !
September 1st 2010 @ 12:23pm
Brendan said | September 1st 2010 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
And finance… Ever met a stock broker?
Its great that the afl has taken world leading measure in regards to recreational drugs becuase the way that sport if reported these days requires the atheletes to not only be exceptionally talented in their given field but also required to be saints off it.
Anyone witnessing the nrl events of 12 months ago would have thought they were running for PM judging by the reaction of the media and nrl detractors. Im curious as to the culture behind the drug policly as to wheter its really intended to stop drug use happening or if its the best way to maintain afls clean image? How can a rampant drug user like ben cousins go undetected for 10 years? Did he seem repentent on his tv show?
September 1st 2010 @ 1:48pm
Beast-A-Tron said | September 1st 2010 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
Brendan I have a theory.
As a highly fit athlete, who trains hard & drinks lots and lots of water, in addition to having a fast metabolism, the drugs would have only stayed in his urinary system for a relatively short period of time.
There are plenty of diuretics that aren’t banned, coffee for example is a diuretic and I’m pretty sure various energy drinks also are diuretics.
People talk about what ‘masking agent’ Ben used when probably all he did was drink a sh!tload of coffee & a few extra sauna sessions combined with high intensity training.
He sweated & pissed it out.
September 1st 2010 @ 12:36pm
JB said | September 1st 2010 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
@Mister Football. Well then criticise the other codes for not doing enough, don’t sit back and say the AFL therefore only needs to do the minimum. The AFL should do more, the other codes should then do even more to catch up.
In the NRL a player would be banned after any drug scandal. We’ve seen the difference in standards already this year. In my opinion the NRL has a much tougher stance on issues. Matthew Stoke got small suspension and then welcomed back with open arms after his drug charge. Two Newcastle Knights players were sent packing from the club.
In domestic violence cases, Greg Bird was sent packing from the NRL. Adelaide Crows’ Nathan Bock got an “indefinite suspension”, that lasted 1 game.
I think the AFL only cares about protectign it’s own image and not dealign with the real issues. Suspend players after first positive test, get them into rehab, and come back next season if they’re clean. This would mean the player gets the immediate help they need. They can serve time off from footy to focus on this rehab. And suspening players after positive is a deterrent to players knowing if they use drugs, they will face suspension.
September 1st 2010 @ 2:06pm
Mister Football said | September 1st 2010 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
JB
but the point is that the AFL (and NRL) are doing far more than the WADA minimum standards, and they are the only ones to be doing that anywhere in the World.
Also, I’ve just completed another post to Stormin Red above that goes over the player welfare elements – that’s what the 3 strikes policy is all about.
September 1st 2010 @ 3:49pm
JB said | September 1st 2010 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
The 3 strikes policy is about protecting the AFL’s image by keeping bad press out fo the headlines. I understand it’s also about protecting players privacy, but i’d assume the players health and well being is paramount and not whether or not the public knows they’ve tested positive. I think the AFL holds itself above what’s right for the players though.
September 1st 2010 @ 5:34pm
Mister Football said | September 1st 2010 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
The AFL publicises the results of its testing, which is bad press in its own right – so the theory about avoiding bad press falls in a heap.
The policy requires the collaboration of the Players Assoc, and it is all based on helping players who might have an addiction. The policy is about player welfare first and foremost.
September 1st 2010 @ 11:12am
DB said | September 1st 2010 @ 11:12am | Report comment
If the AFL is soft, than what does that make every other competition outside the NRL?
September 1st 2010 @ 11:54am
AndyRoo said | September 1st 2010 @ 11:54am | Report comment
Association football only does the miniumum it has to I think, probably largely for cost reasons but that’s fine by me.
I have yet too see a good reason for naming and shaming or even testing for recreational drugs. Just seems PR bs to me. If they show up off their face at a community function they should obviously be sacked that day, otherwise I really don’t care.
Not an AFL fan but I support them telling the media to get nicked in this matter.
September 1st 2010 @ 1:28pm
dasilva said | September 1st 2010 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
Yeah I kind of agree. The idea of testing players for recreational drugs outside your workplace seems like an invasion of privacy to me and I wouldn’t accept that type of condition at a workplace (even testing within your workplace is unacceptable unless you are in a position where impaired behaviour could harm lives). What people do in their own time is there business. If anything the AFL drug testing policy is quite harsh.
September 1st 2010 @ 1:30pm
Redb said | September 1st 2010 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
dasilva,
This policy exists due to the AFL Players Assoc. It was brought into the AFL at their request, the 3 strikes is what they would agree to as I understand it.
September 1st 2010 @ 12:01pm
Art Sapphire said | September 1st 2010 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
From the Wilson article “Mr Hassett said Tuck had received 10 months of treatment under the guidance of Professor Jon Currie, the director of addiction medicine at St Vincent’s Hospital”
This does not seem to be the case of a player popping the odd pill while partying during the off season but someone with serious issues. You can understand why Hawthorn is annoyed.
September 1st 2010 @ 12:11pm
Redb said | September 1st 2010 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
“You can understand why Hawthorn is annoyed.”
That is the players choice under the AFLPA.
September 1st 2010 @ 1:21pm
Art Sapphire said | September 1st 2010 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
Yes redb – but as a club, you would be annoyed.
You can agree with me there
September 1st 2010 @ 1:28pm
Redb said | September 1st 2010 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
I think the question Art is, can the club be trusted not to delist them to avoid any trouble, sponsor or otherwise?
September 1st 2010 @ 1:55pm
Nick the second said | September 1st 2010 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
would we as supporters care if they are delisted? maybe maybe not
Im sure sponsors would be happy if they are delisted, thats a certainty.
The AFL though WOULD CARE and thats probably the only thing keeping the drug takers listed, Imagine if half a team was dropped, it would be very hard for the AFL to hide the fact they are dropped because of drug taking then, players speaking out etc.
Clubs would care as they invested alot of time and energy into these young players.
So to answer your question
‘I think the question Art is, can the club be trusted not to delist them to avoid any trouble, sponsor or otherwise?’
I think we can trust the club and the AFL not to delist the players, they need them, can we though trust the clubs and the AFL to delist the palyers based on supporters and sponsors? the answer to that is a resounding NO. Hence why they keep it ‘in house’
September 1st 2010 @ 12:43pm
JB said | September 1st 2010 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
And i’m not saying name and shame after first positive test. Players get suspended each week for match offences, it’s not considered naming and shaming. But if the AFL were serious about the players welfare, then they’d say go away from footy, get out of this environment, get the help you need, you can come back next season when you’re clean. There doesn’t need to be any more than that.
September 1st 2010 @ 12:55pm
Redb said | September 1st 2010 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
If people learned anything from the Cousins doco it was the structure of a routine that was vital to assisting with a drug problem . A football club provides reguarlar training and structures, a purpose.
Sending the player off to find his way is the not the answer. In Cousins own words ” the Devil makes use of idol hands”
September 1st 2010 @ 1:25pm
JB said | September 1st 2010 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
No it doesn’t. Cousins had a routine of training several times a week, playing a match and doing drugs. It can become their routine to play Saturday night, then go out and do as much drugs as they want for the weekend. It becomesw their routine to do drugs when they have the break in footy and so that’s what they do each week. Telling them to take time off to get help will tell them, ‘if i want to play footy, i have to get off the drugs.’ Then maybe they will take it seriously so they get the help required. Cousins was never caught, so was never given the initial help. Tuck had two strikes, he was meant to get help, but it obviously didn’t work because the issue was ignored, and just told thats strike two. Take the tough stance if you’re serious about getting them help.
September 1st 2010 @ 2:09pm
Mister Football said | September 1st 2010 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Tuck did have two strikes, and he did receive treatment, but it didnt’ stop him from receiving a 3rd strike – that one case does not necessarily mean the 3 strike policy is a failure – it means it failed in this one instance – the true test of the policy is seeing the stats on first, second and third strikes over a number of years.
September 1st 2010 @ 3:44pm
JB said | September 1st 2010 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
So you want more players to take drugs to get more positive tests so we know if it’s a failure??? It didn’t work in this case, the system failed, deal with it now. Why sit back and put other players health at risk, if we know now they don’t get the help they need under the current system?
September 1st 2010 @ 4:04pm
Mister Football said | September 1st 2010 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
No one sat back, at both the first and second strikes, action was taken, both times with a view to helping the player.
Others are saying he should be immediately punished first time – how does that help the player?
That view also ignores the fact that for out of competition testing, it’s an entirely voluntary process on the part of the players – so we are only finding out about it because the players are submitting to tests they do not have to do under the WADA provisions.
September 2nd 2010 @ 2:06pm
JB said | September 2nd 2010 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
How about instead of looking at it as being punished the first time, look at it as getting him the serious help he needs the first time. First offence, have a year off, get some help. Not allow them to carry on with not a word mentioned to anyoen else about his condition. My stance is just as much about getting the player help so they can beat the drug addiction as it is about sending the message that drugs won’t be tolerated.
September 1st 2010 @ 8:33pm
jimbo said | September 1st 2010 @ 8:33pm | Report comment
Unfortunate that Tuck is in the grips of drug addiction but fortuantely he only collapsed and didn’t overdose and die.
The Tuck family is well connected with the Hawthorn Aussie Rules club.
I think the 3 strikes policy has given him the freedom to almost kill himself.
What happens now if he gets a fourth or fifth strike?
September 2nd 2010 @ 9:46am
Mister Football said | September 2nd 2010 @ 9:46am | Report comment
An article in today’s Australian on the subject:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/positive-drug-test-isnt-a-negative-for-afl-policy/story-e6frg7t6-1225913012657
September 2nd 2010 @ 10:34pm
Karlos said | September 2nd 2010 @ 10:34pm | Report comment
Tucks would never have been caught if Cousins had not put his programme to air. It is the AFL propaganda machine yet again finding what they want at the time they want. “Our policy works. See. We got one!” Soft on drugs. The NRL is much harder on everything. They all get someone to claim depression or bipolar as in Andrew Johns’s case. Anyone can get a diagnosis of depression if they want one.