Ben Cousins’ return to football, for which the AFL Commission paved the way on Tuesday, highlights the urgent need for the sport to make drastic changes to its drug-testing policy.
The present “three strikes” system is clearly inadequate, with a reported six players who have returned two positive tests continuing to play the game and chief executive Andrew Demetriou admitting he doesn’t know who they are.
Cousins, a self-confessed drug addict, was thrown out of football 12 months ago for “bringing the game into disrepute” without ever testing positive under the AFL system.
The commission imposed severe conditions when it agreed to allow him to enter the draft on November 29, or the pre-season draft, including giving up to three urine samples a week and four hair samples a year. If he doesn’t comply he can be suspended immediately pending an investigation into the alleged breach.
All of which is understandable, even though the players’ association is uncomfortable with it.
As chairman Mike Fitzpatrick said, the commission had to consider the interests of the game and of the wider community, as well as Cousins’ future, which could be bright if he continues with what appears so far to be a successful attempt at rehabilitation.
St Kilda and Brisbane, and to a lesser extent North Melbourne, have expressed varying degrees of interest in recruiting him, with the Lions favourites if they decide to go ahead – they have an earlier draft pick than the Saints.
Cousins deserves to have this chance. He’s done his time, admitted his problem and is trying to overcome it. As Demetriou put it on Tuesday, “he’s making a real effort to rehabilitate himself”. Good luck to him if he can.
Good luck, too, to the club that takes the punt on him. It’s a big call. There are never any guarantees that a former drug addict won’t relapse, as Demetriou was at pains to point out.
But what about those half dozen players whose identity is so zealously kept quiet under the league’s policy, even from its chief executive?
They’ve all tested positive two more times than Cousins, but all that’s happened to them is that they’re being monitored under the AFL’s policy. We don’t know how, or how often, they are tested, so essentially they belong to a protected species that doesn’t include Cousins.
So what’s the solution? It’s two-pronged – more effective testing, and goodbye to the three-strikes policy.
The AFL should set up a system under which it picks three games every week and has tests done at random on a number of players (say four or five) from both teams.
That’s 24 or 30 players a week, not an unreasonable number to be within the AFL’s financial and logistic resources.
Players who test positive to performance-enhancing drugs should lose points under a scale to be drawn up similar to the one that governs on-field indiscretions, with suspensions to match.
Obviously previous offences would have to be taken into account when deciding the severity of each suspension, with serial offenders banished from the game altogether.
That’s what Cousins is facing if he slips up. And he won’t be under any illusions about that if and when he crosses the white line.
Fair enough. But he shouldn’t be Robinson Crusoe.
Michael C
Guest
REdb - the big thing is Alcohol - - the ADF (AUst Drug Foundation) fully supports the AFL re the drugs - but has not held back in attacking all sports, AFL included and in particular - about alcohol. Even the AFL alcohol policy is regarded as half hearted - - ironic, as at grass roots local footy clubs have really jumped on board the 'good sports' responsible alcohol campaign. At any rate, most the illicit drug positive tests found have been strongly associated with alcohol first and drugs second. - - - http://www.asada.gov.au/news/statements/asada_statement_070803_afl_doping.pdf this link gives you a run down on the ASADA testing (for the WADA 'regime') You can see that 'standard' target testing applies to all new drafted and elevated rookie players, as well as the previous seasons top 3 B&F players. (where did Ben Cousins finish in the B&F for WCE over each season?) The intelligence based testing is very interesting. Clearly though, 500 or so ASADA tests is not enough. But, the AFL players with 500 odd ASADA tests, and then over 1100 AFL tests for illicit drugs - - you then have over 1600 tests scheduled for season 2008 (more if ASADA has since scheduled more??). What I love is this article from 2006: NRL claiming victory in drugs war August 27, 2006 WE'RE winning the war on footballers taking drugs. That's the message from the NRL, which says its players know if they use recreational drugs there's a good chance they will get caught. Would they have said that at the time if they'd known about Andrew Johns???? Just goes to show that making over the top statements on this topic is just plain silly. Btw - the above article was a week after Mitchell Sargent was 'sacked' by his club. Remember, at the time the NRL itself had no powers on this front, and a week later, he was snapped up by the Newcastle Knights. As it was, they spoke of "I remember the first night we went to training to conduct the tests, and there were 40 positive tests for marijuana and that was only across three clubs. At any rate - at this time, the NRL was trying to claim 'leading the way', but, had no competition wide illicit drugs policy, it was club by club just as a reminder of the situation back then (knowing what we know now): AROUND THE CLUBS 1. How much testing do you do? 2. What is your policy on drugs? BRONCOS 1. More than 200 random in-house tests this year. 2. Fined 10 per cent of yearly contract and put into three-month program on first strike. Fined 25 per cent of contract and rehabilitation program on second strike. Third strike - sacked. BULLDOGS 1. Random in-house testing every couple of weeks. 2. Three strikes and you're out. Welfare and discipline approach with counselling involved. STORM 1. No in-house testing. 2. Sacked for positive tests.what positive tests?? KNIGHTS 1. Random in-house testing. 2. No comment. DRAGONS 1. Random in-house testing. 2. Two strikes and you're out. RAIDERS 1. Random in-house testing but don't publicise results. 2. Deal with case by case. COWBOYS 1. Started in-house testing a fortnight ago. 2. Zero tolerance. ROOSTERS 1. Confidential in-house testing. Support WADA and ASADA. 2. Case-by-case approach. SHARKS 1. No longer do in-house testing but have been visited regularly by ASADA agents lately. 2. Take each case on its merits. EELS 1. In-house testing performed by ASADA under contract. 2. Zero tolerance in line with WADA code through ASADA. TIGERS 1. Between 200 and 250 in-house tests a year, including for junior players. 2. Individual dealt with confidentially. RABBITOHS 1. An estimated 50 in-house tests have been performed this year. 2. Player fined, stood down and put on education program, but not sacked in first instance. PANTHERS 1. No in-house testing. 2. Policy in line with the NRL through ASADA and WADA code. TITANS 1. Will have in-house testing in days after games and breaks. 2. Zero tolerance. WARRIORS 1. Post-game testing and at training by Drug Free Sport NZ in line with the WADA code. 2. Case-by-case basis. SEA EAGLES 1. Random in-house testing to complement ASADA. 2. Player dealt with by a panel led by CEO and football manager. ----------- what a mess that was. Not saying the AFL wasn't prior to the competition wide policy - - but, gee, at this time they were still claiming to be 'leading the way'..................yeah roight!!!
Redb
Roar Guru
IMO the title of this article should read all sports should get fair dinukm with drug tests and not just performance enhancing. Redb
Michael C
Guest
Ah now, the game DOES have serious match-day testing with suspensions attached. For match day the WADA testing applies - - the 2 year penalty as per Wendall Sailor applies in the AFL too. That's the general evolution of the anti-doping rules that started back around 1990, and previously had effectively ended the career of Justin Charles. That was the whole misinformation of people such as Cameron Williams on Ch.9 Today show back in '06, and Mark Beretta on Sunrise last year - - each had stated that Wendall Sailor would still be playing in the AFL. Quite false. Sailor was picked up under WADA testing on match day. The AFL is signed up to WADA, and had he tested positive similarly to the WADA testing in the AFL - - 2 years. Remember back during the public debate on the topic, participants of other sports came out and said "Oh yes, we've been getting tested for years"............well, everybody had. Under match day anti doping (AFL since 1990). WHat people forgot to specify was that these other sports folk were only being tested via the WADA regime, as was the AFL. When people accused the AFL of being soft on drugs - the majority seemed to believe that the illicit drugs regime was the ONLY AFL drugs testing happening and seemed unaware that it was additional to the WADA testing that everybody else had. The whole issue of illicit drugs OUTSIDE of competition is a totally different kettle of fish to match day testing. So, what I disagree with is The present “three strikes” system is clearly inadequate, with a reported six players who have returned two positive tests continuing to play the game and chief executive Andrew Demetriou admitting he doesn’t know who they are. The 6 players who have tested positive DID NOT test positive to WADA match day performance enhancing drugs - if they had of, they would be outed for 2 years. SO - - there's no reason to believe that they have been playing 'juiced up' with either perf enh or non-perf enh drugs. The fact that the majority of positives have been recorded just coming back from the post season is indicative that we you really need, in the main, to separate the illicit drugs from 'in competition' thoughts on this topic. The problem with the AFL is that they are forthcoming on the number of positives and the types of drug. However, not fully detailed is the general demographics or the specific calendar spread of positive tests. In many cases this might be very instructive. Andrew Demetriou, in accordance with the policy being a health policy, has no reason to know the identities - - he's not a doctor. To me, the present 3 strikes policy for illicit drugs ABOVE AND BEYOND but in addition to the WADA match day policy provides a very robust broad approach. And importantly, with the support of the player group. And what IS a sad reality, is that had the AFL done like all the other sports and simply run with WADA only - -then, we wouldn't ever have had this discussion. Those 6 two strike players wouldn't have any concerns about out of season drug use, they wouldn't be in diversion programs, and they may not have had their mental illnesses diagnosed and - most importantly - (and hopefully) treated (ongoing). Relying on WADA alone and claiming no drug 'culture' in the player group is head in the sand stuff - but, people like the ARU claimed that back during the debate about 2-3 years ago. And the ability of a code to - off it's on bat - conduct the out of competition testing - is down to dollars - - it costs money. Lots of it infact. Keep mindful - the AFLPA effectively forced the AFL's hand, because, after the problems around Karl Norman and Laurence Angwin - - wanting to ensure players weren't going to start being summarily sacked. Keep mindful as well that the NRL who left it to the clubs, had some clubs with zero tolerance and others with zero concern. It was no coincidence that Andrew Johns was at Newcastle, given that the Knights quickly swooped on Mitchel Sargent after he was sacked by the Nth Qld Cowboys who were applying (supposedly) a (un-accountable, but self professed) zero tolerance approach.
Bruce Walkley
Roar Guru
Michael, what you're saying is that someone who tests positive on a day he's juiced up and cheats someone else out of three Brownlow votes shouldn't be suspended, but someone who gets caught throwing a punch should be? The game (in fact all sports) needs serious match-day testing with suspensions attached.
Michael C
Guest
I disagree. The AFL is signed up to WADA - - that program for match day performance enhancing testing is an issue within itself - - as, it has failed to deliver anyone in Australia other than perhaps the ultra clumsy Wendall Sailor. It missed Cousins and Johns. Remember, re WADA and performance enhancing drugs - both the AFL and FIFA were at loggerheads with WADA. As it turned out, FIFA more got their way whilst the Howard government - eager to earn IOC browny points - whacked (or tried to) the AFL with the biggest stick they could find. For illicit drugs outside of competition - - the main issues really should be around the 'outside of competition' definitions. But - as a voluntary program that the AFLPA were key in helping form (and actually a key driver in instigating) - you can't have the AFL playing dictator too greatly. Remember, the illicit drugs policy of the AFL accounts for testing done ADDITIONAL to the testing performed under WADA match day program. In 2005 there were 472 tests, 19 detections (3 were 2nd positives) at a rate of 4.03% in 2006, there were 486 testings, 9 detections (zero 2nd positives) at a rate of 1.85% in 2007 there were 1152 testings, 14 detections (3 were 2nd positives) at a rate of 1.2% (ref http://www.concernaustralia.org.au/file_download/102/AFL+&+AFLPA+Illicit+Drugs+Policy+Media+Release.pdf ) FOr the year 2007, ending Feb 2008, It's important to note that the majority of failed tests were during a blitz on players returning to their clubs during 'post-season'. Given that several of the players having tested twice are now diagnosed and recieving treatment for mental illness - - well, that's a good thing. ANd thus far, no one has been 'failed' by the system such that a third strike has occurred - - that suggests that, thus far, the system of 'intervention' is working and changing lives for the better. Far from "but all that’s happened to them is that they’re being monitored under the AFL’s policy. " - these players have been diverted into rehab programs, the same form of health related harm minimization programs that the Victoria Police pursue. Remember, drug use is treated as a health issue and possession and trafficking as a criminal issue. tThe program is working. Why get rid of it?? I've yet to see a decent argument to remove the AFL 3 strikes program. Certainly not an argument from health professionals. Quite the opposite, despite the HOward Govt posturing, the AFL were repeatedly urged to stand their ground - despite the public ignorance and government point scoring. Full marks to the AFL for holding true. Going forward, Players now incur a suspended sentence on each strike, $5000 on first strike and 6 wk suspension on 2nd strike. That was one of the main issues previously, when 'striking out', players were diverted into health related programs but not given a 'punishment' - - the NRL then went for a 2 strike policy inclusive of a suspended sentence, and the Howard govt said '3 cheers lads'.......so.......that set the standard.........a suspended sentence was deemed acceptable!!!! Testing has been increased to up to 1500 over a 12 month period going forward, such that EVERY AFL player will be tested outside of competition at least once a year. And greater target testing of players at that key time returning to their club after the post season break. Ben Cousins - - he's claimed that he has not tested positive. Well, we know that previously with less than 500 tests a year, that it was going to be rather easier to fall through the cracks of BOTH the AFL and the WADA testing regimes. With 1500 a year, it will be rather less possible to fall through the cracks - - but, nevertheless - - still possible. But, we don't need a witch hunt. Cousins and Andrew Johns after all say more about the ineffectiveness of WADA testing alone than Cousins does about the validity of the AFL's illicit drugs policy that, after all, has been crafted by, and firmly supported by experts in the field. Including the following open letter September 2007 from a pretty impressive list of signatories. http://www.adf.org.au/downloads/AFL_open_letter.pdf