AFL must crack down on Breaking Bad in fight against drugs
Carlton and Collingwood - old rivals face off with new spice added.
Related coverage
When Collingwood CEO Gary Pert first floated the idea of a drug summit at the recent clubs’ executive conference you would have thought the entire AFL playing list was boarding in a drug soaked fraternity house with a crystal meth lab in the gazebo.
And when Pert’s claim that there was an intrinsic drug problem was questioned by the AFLPA chief Matt Finnis, the Pies’ boss – red faced and with phosphine gas hissing from his ears – took a swipe at the players’ union as well.
Add the AFL’s ardent desire to preserve its unique three strikes policy to the powder keg and this summit had the makings of a spectacular explosion. Not to mention the stories about the “dark underbelly” and “shadowy alliances” of AFL drug culture.
But no, Wednesday’s gathering was a bit of a storm in a teacup, I’m afraid. A little pile of baking soda on a snorting dish.
Ok, apparently there was plenty of information on drugs, and a working party was agreed upon, but the delegates emerged from the proceedings having altered nothing of the drugs policy, or each other’s faces.
In fact, the extreme goodwill exhibited by all participants led some outsiders to suspect they may have been sampling items – brought along by the Australian Drug Foundation for educational purposes only – that require for their manufacture a round-bottom boiling flask and some pseudoephedrine.
One interesting point to emerge though was the “network” of information sources, including supporters, used by some clubs to gauge general drug use or to target suspected individuals. This will ensure some players keep clear of their fan base.
It was also claimed that some clubs have resorted to employing private detectives. Unfortunately it’s not as exciting as it sounds. If a player, while illicitly imbibing, happens to hang his head out the window it won’t be Humphrey Bogart in a Buick staring back at him but a uni student in skinny jeans pretending he’s playing Angry Birds on his iPad.
As we discovered with Ben Cousins, it can be difficult to identify a player’s drug problem, with many dismissing his regular bouts of mid-game projectile vomiting as a case of a strong work ethic. And Collingwood’s supposed alcohol imbibing “bad boy” Dane Swan won a Brownlow and averages 35 disposals a game.
But if there is an illicit drug problem among AFL players I blame an over qualified underpaid chemistry teacher with inoperable lung cancer from Albuquerque, New Mexico: Walter Hartwell White, also known as Heisenberg.
Yes, the TV series Breaking Bad is the problem everyone. When Walt White decides he’s not going to leave his family impoverished, he does what any rational, family loving, chemistry genius with a terminal prognosis does: he begins making and distributing the purest grade of methamphetamine.
Suddenly crystal meth addiction and dissolving your competition in hydrofluoric acid don’t seem so bad if the proceeds are going to poor Walt and his (albeit slightly annoying) family.
We and AFL footballers find ourselves rooting for a serious drug producer and trafficker. Heck, I even found myself getting nervous for Walt’s cold-blooded drug boss (a man who slit his own employee’s throat with a Stanley knife for no good reason) when Walt’s Drug Enforcement Agency brother-in-law started closing in on him.
No, it’s not ideal for our young players to be watching this stuff. It will only densenstise them to drug culture. I suggest all clubs prohibit the watching of this programme.
Let’s look for a positive TV role model for our boys. Here, what’s this?
“He’s smart, good looking, and he’s got a great sense of humor. Michael C. Hall stars as Dexter. Everyone’s favorite serial killer. Miami forensics expert by day and murderer by night, this serial-killer killer is making the world a better place – one homicide at a time…”

February 3rd 2013 @ 12:17pm
FastEddy said | February 3rd 2013 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
I always felt the AFL’s 3 strikes rule was designed purely to allow everyone to take
almost, but not quite, all the drugs they wanted to … recreational and/or otherwise ….
without having to face any organisational, disciplinary or employment consequences.
Little wonder then ….
February 3rd 2013 @ 2:11pm
polly said | February 3rd 2013 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Ditto & add in the public relations angle that not exposing the offenders keeps the AFL media wagon rolling along smoothly. I don’t think AFL HQ has the players welfare in mind at all.
February 3rd 2013 @ 12:38pm
Adam Scroggy said | February 3rd 2013 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Not to move this away from a sport discussion, but the whole point of Breaking Bad is that, eventually, you STOP rooting for Walt. Not sure how many seasons you’ve watched but the show’s creators’ aim is to take season 1′s likeable protagonist and, by the end of the series, turn him into a detestable antagonist. I don’t think anyone is rooting for Walt any more.
TV show critiques aside, I certainly don’t buy into the “these guys need better role models on TV” argument. Recreational drug culture among young people was around long before HBO and AMC started making shows about it. If footy players are trying drugs it’s because their mates are too, not because they just watched Walter White cook up a batch of meth.
February 3rd 2013 @ 12:49pm
Anon said | February 3rd 2013 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
What changes did you expect on the day Andrew? The AFL Commission was not present to ratify any changes!!! That day never was about immediate changes.
The AFL policy is not a unique 3 strike policy – the Australian Sports Commission has in the last 2 years adopted a 3 strikes policy very similar to the AFL one and that covers the AIS. The alternative models of 2 strikes were adopted by the NRL and CA back around the 2007 election campaign – and if you can seriously suggest that was a time of ‘informed debate’ then I’d have to choose to disagree – given the PM of the country was exposed as not comprehending that the AFL 3 strike policy was additional to and not instead of the WADA testing.
Ben Cousins – well, the AFL began testing in 2005 – and we know the number of tests and targetting etc was all very much in its infancy. However, by 2007 Cousins’ position was untenable. He hadn’t tested positive but he had been flushed out. We can only assume that were the testing program of 2012 dropped into 2006 that Cousins would have tested positive and would iniitially have been processed discretely through the policy. Personally – I was sure that with the hounding from the media that the story would only naturally conclude with his death – I am amazed that he is still around.
It also needs to be acknowledged that had the AFL at the time done nothing – as, in the main was being done – then they could’ve happily stuck up their hand saying “We are WADA complient, like all the Olympic sports and everyone else.” And we know that WADA testing alone didn’t detect either of Ben Cousins in AFL or Andrew Johns in NRL.
And looking in Australia at other codes – the NRL in particular. They claim to run about 1100 tests a year. 70 per club. It’s run in house. Not reported on. We just don’ t know. The AFL at least have Dorevich Pathology run it across the board and DO report the results. I can google and find the AFL policy on line – I can’t find the NRL policy.
And – the Australian Drug Foundation – heavily involved with both NRL and AFL. Let’s for a minute assume they know what they are on about, and they continue to defend the AFL’s 3 strike policy and the avoidance of ‘naming and shaming’. Given that the Vic Police and Federal Police are also supportive – - well, I’m fine with that. Let them continue to evolve the program and make it function better – but – sure as heck, had they never started on this journey then imagine the mess.
And I do note, an example of the RFU from England, in 2008/99 they initiated their policy and ONLY cited the AFL and NRL as among the few examples around the world. They didn’t pass judgement or get into juvenile numbers games (2 strikes are better or worse than 3 etc). Interestingly – by 2010 they’d already adopted hair tests and made them count. I have no idea what the NRL are doing but in the AFL policy hair tests have been run now for 2 years at least for information purposes but don’t incur a strike. The clear point here is that like the old ‘oils ain’t oils’, well – a test ain’t a test. Whether it’s 11000 (NRL) or 1600 (AFL) – it’s got to be worth the effort otherwise it’s just PR.
btw – yes – drug culture unfortunately is societal. The drug culture does not begin at sports clubs – it is migrated in from the drugs sub cultures of night clubs etc. And when TV somehow glorifies it – alas, no surprise that it’s demented US shows – there should be no surprise that suddenly the AFL are trying to clean up a mess. That’s where a session like the drugs summit was critical to ensure all CEO’s had at least a common base of information.
February 3rd 2013 @ 1:22pm
FastEddy said | February 3rd 2013 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
@Anon – some good points -
In Rugby Union, (at least in UK and Aus, if not elsewhere), examples abound of the following:
if you fail a drug test, both samples, unambiguously, then your contract is torn up.
Cocaine, EPO whatever.
Pretty simple. And cost effective –
No Ben Cousins sagas there, as he’d be out on his ear after his first bust.
You just need administrators with the cojones to do it.
And you need to start with a base group of non-drug taking people …
which is where NRL and AFL might encounter some problems …
(The Public, whilst being generally understanding of drug issues, still want zero tolerance for
sports people I would suggest – as hypocritical as that may be !!)
February 3rd 2013 @ 1:44pm
Brewski said | February 3rd 2013 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
If you need to start with a base group of non drug taking people, then you would not have a AFL, NRL or super rugby comp, perhaps you don’t pay attention, but drugs are rife from the effluent to the affluent, from Toorak to Meekathara, they miss no race, creed or colour.
February 3rd 2013 @ 5:05pm
fred gallop said | February 3rd 2013 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
reni Matua (NRL) and Wendell Sailor (RU) got 2 years. Jutin harrison got his contract torn up but got another one soon after. Illicit drugs are not performance enhancing just like alcohol so why should sportsmen in their prime earning years be deprived of income when they dont harm anyone un like train drivers, doctors etc under drugs or alcohol.
February 3rd 2013 @ 7:35pm
Floreat Pica said | February 3rd 2013 @ 7:35pm | Report comment
Hear-hear, Fred. Australia’s mainstream culture if not openly liberal on recreational drugs is at least wilfully ignorant. I would completely disagree that society in the main would be in favour of zero tolerance for recreational drugs such as ecstasy or marijuana use in sport- performance enhancing drugs though would be a different story.
February 3rd 2013 @ 11:53pm
Brewski said | February 3rd 2013 @ 11:53pm | Report comment
i would be interested to know how many drug tests the boards of BHP, news limited etc etc etc have, even the local doctor or chemist have.
Yet young guys are drawn and quartered for doing things that young guys have been doing as a right of passage for time immemorial,( doing stupid things and pushing boundaries) and i am not talking just AF here.
Performance enhancing drugs are different IMO though.
February 3rd 2013 @ 2:57pm
Swampy said | February 3rd 2013 @ 2:57pm | Report comment
Let’s just hope that no one’s heart ever explodes on the field during an actual televised match. That potential has got to be there right now.
If something of that nature, or worse, ever occurs than everything the policies have attempted to avoid/cover up will have been worthless.
Search ‘dead pro-wrestlers’ or ‘dead NFL players’ to see the effects of drug culture that was swept under the carpet.
If you think ‘yeah but that’s just America’ then remind yourself of the sad demise of Chris Mainwaring.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
February 3rd 2013 @ 4:04pm
clipper said | February 3rd 2013 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
I don’t know how many AFL and NRL players would be watching Breaking Bad – it’s on ABC2 and a cult show, like Dexter. Brilliant as these shows are, they’re hardly mainstream.
February 3rd 2013 @ 7:40pm
Floreat Pica said | February 3rd 2013 @ 7:40pm | Report comment
Wouldn’t be watching as its on ABC2?? Wow.
February 3rd 2013 @ 8:51pm
clipper said | February 3rd 2013 @ 8:51pm | Report comment
More the case that it’s not on one of the main channels and therefore has never rated well.
February 3rd 2013 @ 11:27pm
Floreat Pica said | February 3rd 2013 @ 11:27pm | Report comment
A quick google claims it was the fifth most downloaded series of last year- I’m sure that’s more indicative of the demographic’s awareness of the show than being on a sub-channel.
February 5th 2013 @ 3:13pm
clipper said | February 5th 2013 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
That then proves my point that it’s a cult show (I’m sure Dexter would be near the top too) – typically on at odd hours or obscure channels, but downloaded by the fans because they are very good – but outside of the cult status, how mainstream are they and what percentage of the general population, let alone footy players, would have watched it?
February 5th 2013 @ 8:42pm
Floreat Pica said | February 5th 2013 @ 8:42pm | Report comment
The demographic of footy players is that most likely to find these shows; 17-30 year old males with reasonable down-time living in shared accommodation (particularly the junior players). They would be all over anything online.
February 3rd 2013 @ 4:50pm
deebhoy said | February 3rd 2013 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
where does this drug crap come from? wasnt it 6 positive tests out of 800 players last year?
gary pert needs to concentrate on collingwood and not worry about the other 750 odd players in the league
john silvesters story in the age the other day was the only sensible thing ive read on the subject,probably cause he’s got some idea what he’s talking about
February 3rd 2013 @ 7:14pm
The_Wookie said | February 3rd 2013 @ 7:14pm | Report comment
The AFL reports annually on drug testing.
2005 – 472 tests – 19 failed, 3 failed 2nd, 0 failed 3rd – 4.03% failure rate
2006 – 486 tests – 9 failed, 0 failed 2nd, 0 failed 3rd – 1.85% failure rate
2007 – 1152 tests – 14 failed, 3 failed 2nd, 0 failed 3rd – 1.2% failure rate
2008 – 1220 tests – 12 failed, 2 failed 2nd, 0 failed 3rd – 0.98% failure rate
2009 – 1568 tests – 14 failed, 2 failed 2nd, 0 failed 3rd – 0.89% failure rate
2010 – 1654 tests – 6 failed, 1 failed 2nd, 1 failed 3rd – 0.36% failure rate
2011 figures will be in the annual report released in march. Essentially over 6 years and 6,552 tests, 74 have failed, 12 have failed the 2nd time, and 1 the third. A failure rate of 1.1%.
February 3rd 2013 @ 7:30pm
Arthur fonzarelli. said | February 3rd 2013 @ 7:30pm | Report comment
Is this declining trend of failed tests the result of an increasing trend in self reporting ?
Is there data available on self reporting ?
February 3rd 2013 @ 7:38pm
The_Wookie said | February 3rd 2013 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
no there is no data available on self reporting.
February 3rd 2013 @ 7:15pm
The_Wookie said | February 3rd 2013 @ 7:15pm | Report comment
I also found it interesting that the article was written by the crime reporter and no a football person.
February 3rd 2013 @ 7:27pm
deebhoy said | February 3rd 2013 @ 7:27pm | Report comment
thanks for the stats mate,i still reckon its hardly the size problem the media are making out.i dont think you have to be football person to have an opinion on the issue.everything he wrote made sense to me
February 4th 2013 @ 1:33am
amazonfan said | February 4th 2013 @ 1:33am | Report comment
It was a great article.
One part that I found to be interesting:
“Some say the illicit drug policy, where they are sent for treatment for the first two strikes before being banned after the third, is too soft.
“Drugs are illegal,” the lock-them-up lobby repeats. “Why are they treated differently?”
Well they are not – we all live under a three-strike policy.
When police catch someone carrying drugs for personal use, they will be given a diversion order, not once but twice. Only on the third offence will someone be charged and go to court (only to get a bond).”
There is a lot of hypocrisy going around, as represented by his last two sentences:
“Football has a drug problem and so does the rest of society. And at least the AFL is trying to do something about it.
Many reporters will be covering today’s AFL drug summit. None of them are subject to drug testing in their workplace.”
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-afls-got-a-drug-problem–and-so-do-we-all-20130130-2dka2.html
February 4th 2013 @ 8:11am
Australian Rules said | February 4th 2013 @ 8:11am | Report comment
good post amazon
February 4th 2013 @ 10:50pm
amazonfan said | February 4th 2013 @ 10:50pm | Report comment
Thanks.
February 3rd 2013 @ 7:26pm
Andy_Roo said | February 3rd 2013 @ 7:26pm | Report comment
Andrew,
I think that there were probably a lot of people around Ben Cousins and people around the West Coast Eagles who knew about his drug issues well before they became public knowlegde. I think a lot of people were in denial and were willing to look the other way.
It seems that Gary Pert is not willing to look the other way and good on him for speaking out.
Players should only get the opportunity of self reporting once.
February 3rd 2013 @ 7:48pm
Floreat Pica said | February 3rd 2013 @ 7:48pm | Report comment
That’s sensible. I agree that the clubs need to be empowered to know so that they can support their players and act if there is an ongoing issue. I don’t feel there’s an issue at all though in the vast majority of cases. With recreational drugs the balance needs to be towards support, not punishment- as it is throughout society.
February 3rd 2013 @ 9:33pm
Arthur fonzarelli. said | February 3rd 2013 @ 9:33pm | Report comment
Why floreat do AFL players deserve a more supportive approach as opposed to the rest of society ?
If anything maybe a harder line should be taken to those who have the privilege of being elite sportspeople ?
February 3rd 2013 @ 11:53pm
Floreat Pica said | February 3rd 2013 @ 11:53pm | Report comment
Re-read, I pointed out that they should get the SAME as the rest of society. Support for those who need, not punishment for personal use of recreational drugs is the ideal for harm minimisation and the way our law enforcement has sought to operate for decades; successfully I believe. When was the last time you heard of someone outside of sport publicly denounced, tried by media, or fired for use of ecstasy? Cocaine?
Take the media circus around Michael Phelps admitting to using Marijuana- shameful. At least he ‘sucked it up’ on camera and managed to save his career gracefully- punished for calling a spade a spade. Former US Presidents have copped less flak for admitting as much.
Yet all Australians can be proud of Hawke-ies (still standing?) yard-glass skulling world-record, or how many tinnies Boony can get through on a flight.. and Bravo I say. AFL is about as corporate as it comes, thus the coke comes with the territory.
When it becomes a problem in their private lives, thus affecting their career or others(‘); that’s when the clubs should be the first to step in to support (off camera), and only if is beyond their ability should other agencies be involved. As with the rest of society.
A harder line? See Phelps vs Bush II/Clinton…