Why AFL’s illicit drug policy is a farcical PR front
Columnist By Adrian Musolino, 23 Jun 2011 Adrian Musolino is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- 2011 AFL season, AFL, Ben Cousins, drugs, drugs in sport, Illicit drugs policy, Travis Tuck
AFL General Manager of Football Operations, Adrian Anderson, addresses the media during an AFL media conference, to detail the results of the competition's Illicit Drugs Policy, at AFL House in Melbourne.
“Remarkable, incredibly successful policy,” was how AFL operations manager Adrian Anderson described the code’s drug policy in the wake of six players testing positive for illicit drugs in 2010. Even if he was referring to a system which has seen a decrease in those numbers, there’s a paradox in the system being lauded for six positive tests that is quite concerning.
After all, how players testing positive for either cocaine or ecstasy, and one for cannabis, could be turned into such a positive story, highlights just how the three-strike policy helps manipulate the truth from an AFL perspective.
With players and clubs maintaining their anonymity until the third strike, the AFL can instead focus on numbers and percentages to prove drug taking is on the decline. Six test failures is the lowest figure since testing began, down from 14 in 2009 – 0.89 per cent down to 0.36 per cent from 1654 tests.
Looks great and clearly demonstrates a decline, but those figures should not disguise the fact that six players were on drugs forbidden by law and continued playing with a mere warning. These are six players lauded on a weekly basis, idolised by fans and children alike allowed, under the rules of the game, to continue without suspension or punishment until they have wronged three times.
As Federal Sports Minister George Brandis said at the time of the Ben Cousins – an addict who incredibly slipped through the testing cracks – drug scandal, “What the AFL needs to do is to enforce the strongest possible illicit drug policy. Its existing policy is not the strongest possible illicit drug policy.”
The AFL is one of only three sports in the country that currently has an illicit drug policy where players are tested out of competition, for which they should be applauded. But, as Brandis suggests, its execution is meek.
The concern here is twofold: what message is the AFL sending out to the wider community, and what’s the true intention behind the policy. As Brandis suggests, if the AFL is true to its values of a clean environment in which drugs are frowned upon, it cannot allow known takers to continue playing and representing the game to the wider community.
And whether it is beneficial for them to be given counseling and help away from spotlight is debatable. As the Travis Tuck case demonstrates, even the prospect of hitting your third strike won’t stop some young people, with the possibility that the consequences could be lethal by that stage. As stated previously, Cousins’ ability to avoid three strikes given the level of his addiction must surely have raised some serious alarm bells.
Surely a one-strike policy would act as the greatest deterrence, robbing players of the opportunity to get away with one or two indiscretions with no public condemnation, loss of livelihood or other recriminations. And protecting the players with anonymity, while potentially allowing them to get on the straight and narrow, can equally encourage illicit acts under the protection of second chances. Masking such acts behind closed doors is built into the system, which surely encourages abuse of that system.
One must question the motivations of the AFL’s three-strike policy, hoping it is not to save face and protect the league’s image. But when you consider the different result of a one-strike policy, you see how much damage it would do to the league’s brand.
From a PR perspective, yesterday the AFL would have named and shamed, to borrow a popular expression from current affair shows, a number of players as illicit drug takers. Given the public outcry when athletes are found under the influence, the first-strike bans would scar the code, and perpetuate the belief that drug taking is rife in the AFL. If one-strike policy existed, the number of players suspended over the last four years would be enough to field a team.
Instead, a smaller percentage of takers can be viewed as a positive for the game; a bit of public relations chicanery to cleverly mask the truth and protect all concerned – code and players alike.
It’s a worrying insight into the code’s territorial nature – protecting its public image for the greater good. In fact, it’s a worrying trend across all sports.
Think of the recent accusations of the UCI’s involvement in Lance Armstrong’s alleged drug taking, the FFA allegedly covering up Sydney FC’s salary cap breaches and other cover-ups.
The AFL’s three-strike drug policy is no different.
Follow Adrian on twitter @AdrianMusolino
Recommend this story.
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:
- 2011 AFL season, AFL, Ben Cousins, drugs, drugs in sport, Illicit drugs policy, Travis Tuck
June 23rd 2011 @ 7:34am
Nick the second said | June 23rd 2011 @ 7:34am | Report comment
Deluded and very Suss the AFL, yes they had x amount of tests but what was the cross section of those being tested on? Did they just test those they knew were clean?
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
June 23rd 2011 @ 7:48am
Tooks said | June 23rd 2011 @ 7:48am | Report comment
The fact is most of the positives recorded are usually by kids in their first couple of seasons and a one strike policy would basically just destroy their lives. And once the sport washes their hands of them that might make people like you happy, and perhaps haters with agendas against sports in general, but it does:
a) nothing to change the problem and; worse of all
b) gives the kids involved zero chances to get the support they need to quit for life.
Second chances are something that the reputed 60% of young Australians who regularly poll as admitting to experimenting with drugs in their teens are accorded, and it should be no different in sport. It’s simply hypocrisy.
For the seniors on club lists – the ones that I assume the “role model” preciousness is all about – the days of using for years on end are over. And the three strikes policy should see the end of retiring players like Cousins in AFL and Andrew Johns in NRL being able to come out of the game with decade long periods of destructive behaviour. And in the end whatever prudes in the media may think, that is a far better result for the humans beings involved and for society in general.
Dud article.
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:01am
The Cattery said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Tooks
Good comment.
The AFL policy, the first of its kind in the sporting world, was developed painstakingly with the input of medical experts and continues to operate with the welfare of the player involved being paramount.
Considering that this additional testing required the approval of the Players’ Association, the quid pro quo was that player welfare be the number one consideration.
Without the buy in from the players, who are not obligated to submit themselves to testing over and above the minimumm WADA standards, it would be impossible to run this additional testing regime.
June 23rd 2011 @ 7:56am
The Cattery said | June 23rd 2011 @ 7:56am | Report comment
Adrian
As you say, the AFL is one of only three sports that undertake this additional testing for illicit drugs – no other sport in the world does it – how about making that point crystal clear. The AFL was the very first in the world to have such a policy – the very, very first.
We are talking about an additional regime of testing over and above the minimum WADA requirements – this is the essential point that all the critics fail to understand over and over. For the AFL to be able to run with such a policy – it needs 100% buy in from the players – this is the other point that people fail to understand.
Here’s a Guardian article from two years ago that talks about the English Rugby Football Union using the Australian Rules model for illicit drugs, at that stage already five years old:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/jul/15/rugby-football-union-illicit-drug-testing?INTCMP=SRCH
Heard last night on Fox, and this morning on the ABC that both the NFL and MLB are looking towards the AFL’s policy as a starting point in developing their own policy.
It would be nice if all Australians understood that the AFL has been a world leader in this respect (yet again).
How about we try and educate people how far ahead of the sporting world the AFL is on this front?
TC
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:05am
Xman said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:05am | Report comment
The AFL’s ilicit drugs policy is about identifying players who dabble in drugs to educate and support them as a first measure. If that tact doesn’t work they risk ban. This policy was developed by field experts from extensive evidence. The punitive, ban on first strike, tact you mentioned has been show to fail. According to the age today other sporting codes such as major league baseball are looking closely at this policy because of it’s success.
Fact: AFL players found taking ilicit drugs has drop by 90% in the last 6 years, despite more tests being performed than ever. The policy is clearly working extremely well.
On the PR issue, the AFL’s ilicit drugs policy protects the players identity ( so they can be managed without a media circus) but the results are transparent, being revealed to the public for scrutiny. This is unlike the NRL’s ilicit drugs policy where the number of tests and the results for strike 1 are kept a secret. Which code has something to hide?
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:06am
jamesb said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:06am | Report comment
looks like whoever follows AFL will think this article is a dud, while people that don’t follow AFL, think this article has common sense.
go figure!
IMO, it is controversial
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:11am
Redb said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:11am | Report comment
To sharpen that view, the haters are taking their annual hit at an AFL policy they dont understand. If they spent the same amount of time looking at their own code they would find several flaws and in some cases they don’t test at all.
Some still think its about performance enhancing drugs.
Some still dont understand it is voluntary, based on medical & rehab experts advice.
Some ignore the increase in the number of tests over time and the drop in the hit rate. In other words it is working. Is it perfect? no.
Just bat away, most comments are so ignorant it’s good for a laugh.
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:15am
amazonfan said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Indeed. I will just add that unfortunately one doesn’t need to not follow Australian Football to have the viewpoint represented in the article. There are some people (such as Patrick Smith) who are so ignorant, it’s embarrassing.
June 24th 2011 @ 4:11pm
Nick Bencorelli said | June 24th 2011 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
Agree with redb. Do some research old mate adrian
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:08am
Fake ex-AFL fan said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Given that it’s utterly destructive to society that users of these drugs are criminalised in the first place I think the AFL policy if spot on. Emphasise education and player welfare over a need to be seen to punish and excommunicate ‘evil doers’ in order to satisfy the moralising crazies who govern so much social policy in this country.
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:15am
Piven said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Adrian this is a spot on post.
While the AFL fans will of course, come to their sport’s rescue, pointing out that this is illicit drugs, not performance enhancing, that the AFL was first etc, there are concerns and pretending they don’t exist by shouting about all the other aspects is the usual.
Some aspects are to be applauded. Some are not. Your areas of concern are where the AFL’s PR do very well to mask – and hats off to them, they’re very very well run.
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:25am
The Cattery said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Piven
The point remains that every critique I’ve ever read of the AFL illicit drugs policy displays a fundamental misunderstanding of that policy.
Even if you have that understanding, and still had doubts about it, surely the fact that 99% of the world’s sports do nothing in this area is in fact the starting point for any concerns you might have, i.e. the world’s sports should do whatever you think it is that they should be doing.
From that starting point, you can then ask: who is the best advanced in having an illicit drugs policy? Well, it’s the AFL.
Who are the world’s biggest sports looking at in advancing their own policy? Well, it’s the AFL.
In other words, it’s not the AFL that should be drawing the criticism, it’s all the other sports that do nothing on this front.
Why do the world’s sports do nothing on this front? Because you need the players’ buy in to do any form of testing that goes beyond the minimum WADA standards.
Until people can get their head around those basic points, they’re talking with zero substance to back up whatever they think should or shouldn’t be happening.
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:21am
amazonfan said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:21am | Report comment
Oh, god, another attack on the illicit drug code. A code, which the players are under no obligation to agree to, something which critics conveniently overlook. You think it should be one strike and the players should be named and shamed? Good luck in getting the players to agree. Adrian Anderson said himself, “The achievement of a 10-fold reduction in failed test numbers……as the leadership of our player group in taking on such a policy, when they had no requirement to do so.” http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/six-afl-players-fail-illicit-drug-tests-in-2010/story-e6frf9jf-1226079821101
The players had no requirement to do so, and I also note that the Age reported that ‘AFL players want the league’s once-contentious illicit drugs policy to continue next year and have given assurances that debate over its future will not be used as a bargaining chip during negotiations on a collective bargaining agreement.’ http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/most-players-in-favour-of-continued-testing-20110622-1gfgg.html
If the AFL went to the players and told them that they were implementing a one-strike policy and naming & shaming would be used, the players would laugh and say ‘see you in court.’
You also mention that the ‘six players were on drugs forbidden by law’, except, how many workplaces implement illicit drug-testing? If the concern is that players are getting away with breaking the law, then let’s drug test everyone. Afterall, there are plenty of non-footballers who are getting away with breaking the law. The fact is that the AFL is one of the few workplaces, if not the only one, in Australia where employees voluntarily undergo illicit drug testing when they are not legally obligated to do so. The code even surpasses that of most other major sports. I would also hope, Adrian, that you’ve never taken any illicit drugs, otherwise it’s not just self-righteous but hypocritical as well.
The fact that Brandis used the Ben Cousins affair to critiicize the code shows that he should stay out of sport. Forget that the code only exists because of the good will of the players, even if there was a one strike policy, Cousins would still have slipped through the cracks. Afterall, he never tested positive!
Tim Lane has written several articles criticizing the decision of the players to agree to the policy, arguing that it is invasive; it has had unpleasant unforeseen consequences such as that many people forget that the players had a choice as to whether to sign up, that the legitimacy of West Coast’s 2006 flag is now being called into question, and that Ben Cousins has been targeted and victimized when he has never been accused of taking performance enhancing drugs. The AFL has, as Lane noted, changed the rules, so that we have the absurd situation where he was instructed on the appropriate quantity of hair “simply to determine whether or not he should be regarded as a suitable person to play elite-level football.” http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/beware-a-monster-is-at-large-20091124-j7zo.html#ixzz1Q2ojTkAm
As it is I agree with Lane. I don’t think it was such a great decision that the players signed on.
As for the idea that they are role models, that may be true, however it does not mean they need to give up their legal rights. The players are human beings, and like all human beings, some will do things that are either against the law or not in the interests of their health and well being. No policy will change that. The policy takes an educational & rehabilitative approach, it is supported by the players who would never have agreed to it if it was purely punitive, and it is successful. There is unlikely to be a time when no player ever takes drugs at least once, so the fact that there is a decrease should be applauded.
Last comment: you can not compare this to Lance Armstrong or Sydney FC’s salary cap breaches. Armstrong is accused of taking performance enhancing drugs, salary cap breaches are an attack upon the integrity of a sport. There is simply no comparison. A ridiculous article.
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:18am
Piven said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Actually, most construction/engineering/mining workplaces require drug testing before commencing work (during inductions) as well as at random. Your high horse is galloping away with untruths.
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:21am
Xman said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:21am | Report comment
Are they tested on their vacations? In their own down time?
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:30am
The Cattery said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Xman
exactly – this is what people continue to misunderstand – the additional testing regime includes out-of-competition testing.
TC
June 23rd 2011 @ 11:07am
Brad said | June 23rd 2011 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Their down time? Do you mean the 5 days they have off between shifts? They are usually tested whe they turn up to work, it can be each day or it can be random. You’ve just highlighted something interesting, Miners are drug tested more than AFL players and unlike AFL I doubt they would get 3 strikes.
June 23rd 2011 @ 11:21am
Xman said | June 23rd 2011 @ 11:21am | Report comment
The AFL players can be tested at home during the week or on vacation. Many of these ilicit drugs are out of your system within a day or so and are then undetectable. Therefore the miners can use drugs and stay clean a day or so before their next shift. Random out of hours testing eliminates that tactic.
This highlights the major difference. Work place drug testing is an effort to ensure employees do not work under the influence of drugs which could effect their safety and performance. The AFL’s policy is concerned with the players personal well-being. They are prepared to release their results for scrutiny but protect the players identity.
June 23rd 2011 @ 12:14pm
woodsman said | June 23rd 2011 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Brad, AFL players are not in control of equipment and machinery that can potentially kill or permanently maim thousands of workers in less than a minute. Piven, you can find exceptions to any rule, but this one simply doesn’t wash.
June 23rd 2011 @ 12:20pm
Megaman said | June 23rd 2011 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
No but they are meant to be role models in society. Would it be okay if an AFL player on the gear was at a school visit or mingling with young fans?
June 23rd 2011 @ 1:05pm
Xman said | June 23rd 2011 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
Megaman,
So are all elite sporting players. The AFL are one of the few codes in the world that test for ilicit drug use outside of game days. You are far more likely to see another codes’s star player in the scenario you mentioned than an AFL player. Michael Phelps being a prime example.
June 24th 2011 @ 3:20am
amazonfan said | June 24th 2011 @ 3:20am | Report comment
Brad, unlike AFL players, miners have no choice.
Megaman, being role models does not mean that they need to give up their legal rights.
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:37am
Redb said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:37am | Report comment
June 23rd 2011 @ 11:11pm
Fake ex-AFL fan said | June 23rd 2011 @ 11:11pm | Report comment
Piven – as a former contractor at a large mining company with its HQ in Melbourne, I can confirm that whilst they do perform random drug testing, they most definitely do not sack anyone for testing positive on one or two occasions. In fact for a first positive test management aren’t even advised.
Also, and this is a pretty key point to keep in mind, this testing was exclusively IN THE WORKPLACE. Testers didn’t show up after work, at your home etc.
June 24th 2011 @ 3:12am
amazonfan said | June 24th 2011 @ 3:12am | Report comment
You said it yourself, they require drug testing. The AFL does NOT require drug testing, and they only do so at the agreement of the players. So before you state that my ‘high horse is galloping away with untruths’, why don’t you actually read what I wrote?
What I wrote is completely true; The fact is that the AFL is one of the few workplaces, if not the only one, in Australia where employees voluntarily undergo illicit drug testing when they are not legally obligated to do so. Your argument proves the truth of what I am saying. The players are not legally obligated to agree to a testing regime, which is a massive difference between them and your construction/engineering/mining workplace who do legally require testing.
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:42am
The Cattery said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:42am | Report comment
Adrian
are you seriously comparing the AFL’s illicit drugs policy with accusations against Lance Armstrong of using performance enhancing drugs, and arguing it’s no different? Extraordinary.
In the meantime, you mention Sydney FC in the A-League, unsure why, but what about you tell us what the FFA’s illicit drug policy is? What about UEFA’s? Good luck finding one.
TC
June 23rd 2011 @ 10:07am
clipper said | June 23rd 2011 @ 10:07am | Report comment
“The AFL is one of only three sports in the country that currently has an illicit drug policy where players are tested out of competition, for which they should be applauded.”
What are the other two sports that have this policy?
June 23rd 2011 @ 10:28am
OnLooker said | June 23rd 2011 @ 10:28am | Report comment
NRL – 2 strike policy. They are yet to release any stats on results.
Cricket Australia – 3 strike policy. They are yet to release any stats on results.
Aust Institute of Sport – announced Oct 2010 that they would bring in a 3 strike policy – yet to have the chance to have a full year of testing upon which to report.
There is a note – that it’d be mighty hard for more international sports like soccer and union in Australia to go it alone relative to their global associations. So, in the main, they have WADA testing and club by club might have individual approaches.
Although, do note, that FIFA and WADA have had their disagreements and issues over the last 10 years.
June 23rd 2011 @ 11:13am
clipper said | June 23rd 2011 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Yes, it would be hard to get the international sports to agree to some uniform policy, although, as you point out Cricket has done it. Why haven’t the NRL or Cricket released any Stats yet – or is the case of you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t?