AFL's illegal drugs policy not working

Jimbo, have you any statistical data indicating the rate of drug abuse amongst AFL players is higher than the average population? All you've got is anecdotal evidence which means diddly squat. You've made use of a sensationalist technique that is rampant in journalism (which doesn't make it correct), some other examples being: Drunk drivers & crime 'waves'. "The AFL’s Illegal Drug Use Detection Scheme is clearly not working." Prove it. Call me cynical but I believe this is a thinly veiled attempt at laying the boot into Australian football. I dare you to respond to this post.

The ICC and drugs, Warne and Pakistani cricketers in the past - - was all a bit of a balls up. The AFL really didn't say much at all back during the big 'debate' on the issue. It annoyed me - because I followed it very closely, it was a topic I was able to self-research on the net and track the misrepresentation and ignorance from the media. The AFL has not (at least over the last 5 years) claimed to be 'clean'. I'm not sure they ever have. It's the other sports who claimed a holier position when they boasted "Oh yes, we're fully WADA compliant" as some claim of being clean and doing enough - - (some of the Olympic sports in particular) - - back when people were still confused b/w PED's and illicit, in season/out of season, WADA and WADA + Illicit policy. Seems some people (Jimbo) still are!!! Gallop was quiet for a good while because the NRL position was left to the clubs where it varied from Zero Tolerance, 3 strikes to nothing really. The NRL then jumped into be with Howard and went for a 2 strike policy - - got lauded by Howard because of the 'numbers game' and since have released zero information about it. I'd suggest there's very little evidence to steadfastly claim anything is better than the rest. The AFL have chosen their path and are sticking to it, and the test of time is the only real measure.

MC, i agree with you about the 1 size fits all does, nominating where you are going to be let alone which country 3 months in advance has no chance Dametriou and Anderson stuff up because they come across as defending users as well as trying to say sport is clean. I can not recall seeing Gallop and his assistants defending anything on this issue Carlton got rid of player(s) on 1st strike and ALFPA wanted 3 strikes which stuffed everything uo I hardly ever hear any sport body talk as if they are above the drug issue, when somebody is caught like a Perth Wildcats player (non WADA case) a few years ago got caught for Mariujana for 1st strike & getting the sack straight away, Shane Warne (WADA case) getting caught and gets suspended They tend to let the drug body deal with it

Tom - see below reply to Mick - I wasn't trying to bash FIFA - but, simply point out that the AFL weren't all alone in questioning or resisting WADA's one size fits all.

Mick (Tom too) - I appologise if you gain the impression I was attacking FIFA - - I wasn't intending to attack FIFA, I've tried to illustrate that WADA policy is not a very good one size fits all, I've tried to illustrate that FIFA has been running a 'battle' with WADA for at least 5 years, and I've tried to illustrate that the AFL shared similar view - - now, if I'm defending the AFL, then, by extension I'm also defending FIFA. my main issue domestically was that whilst Govt made a political issue of attacking the AFL - - our narrow focussed media were incapable of reporting a little more broadly - such as pointing out that FIFA too shared much of the AFL position and that perhaps it was all worthy of fair and reasonable debate/discussion rather than political grandstanding and Jim Wilson having a crack at the AFL via NewsLtd papers (he had an axe to grind with Demetriou) and Fairfax having an axe to grind over the freedom of information and the right to publish names (this was a broader issue for them) which made it all a tangled mess and fair coverage got left well behind.

And my opinion is that this article is irresponsible. You've misrepresented the AFL's drugs policy and you've implied a connection between Stokes and the three strikes policy without showing any. I don't believe the AFL had any kind of role in the Matthew Stokes incident. What are they meant to do? Bug players' phones? He committed a criminal activity in his own time away from AFL and was caught by the police. The point of the three strikes policy is not to create an extra layer of law enforcement, but to identify players who've developed drug problems while in the AFL, and try to help them before drug use costs them their livelihood and their freedom. By its own nature, we're not going to hear about when it works most effectively. I can't see any evidence of a systematic recreational drug culture in the AFL. No more than in normal society, at any rate. That in itself seems like success. Not really sure what more I can add on top of the overwhelmingly compelling case put by Michael C. In any case, what kind of policy do you think the AFL should have, Jimbo?

I still don't understand MC going on about the FIFA 3 month issue. Manchester United play AC Milan home & away in few weeks time, the winner will go into the draw (held February, early March) to see who they will play in the next round. The next round is 1/4 finals & the winner could be playing in Spain, Portugal, Germany & others.. The final is near the end of May I can not see how they can give 3 months notice on their location when they do not know where they will be unless there is a new crystal ball which I do not know about

I think these drug testers tipped off some club awhile ago when they were going to test and there was 1 occasion when 1 player could not pass urine so they let him go. I reckon these drug testers on the take anyway I remember Mottram saying during a training program a drug tester rocked up to house at night requesting a sample, he said he could not give him 1 & told the tester to sleep on the couch as when he gets up early in the morning for training he will be able to give him a sample This drug issue is all hot air

irresponsible? This is an opinion piece and I am entitled to express my opinion. It would be irresponsible of me not to give my opinion when so much is wrong with the AFL's drug policy. Do you really believe its working given all the AFL players in the news for the wrong reasons, and what evidence do you have apart from AFL press releases that it is actually working?

Michael, I agree with almost everything you're saying, and I think Jimbo's article is very irresponsible, but I don't understand why you find it necessary to attack soccer to defend your position. I'd have thought, at least in Australia, the two sports had very different cultural issues related to drugs. Soccer players don't quite live their lives in the same bubble as AFL players, for example. My advice would be not to let your good arguments be dragged into another zero-sum-gain code war.

Jimbo - I grant you that you probably believe your statements at the outset, but, your confusion around the topic is obvious and, alas, it wasn't helped by media coverage at the time : including Sunrise and Today show both having their 'sports anchor' stating that Wendall Sailor if caught in the AFL would still be playing unknown to everyone - - when, the fact was that Wendall was pinged by WADA, and if caught by WADA in the AFL the same penalties apply. FYI - ASDA who conducted the WADA testing annual report 2004/05 showed: 3849 Govt funded tests, 2285 'fee for service' tests. 63% were Govt funded RU 5 vs 242 = 247 (2% Govt funded) RL 14 vs 807 = 821 (1.7% Govt funded) Soccer 111 vs 16 = 137 (87.4% Govt funded) Aust Footy 20 vs 484 = 504 (4% Govt funded) Cricket 14 vs 135 = 149 (9.4% Govt funded) the Olympic sports get a nice Govt funded boost - having the majority of the 3849 Govt funded tests. but 2008/09 56% of 7498 tests were Govt funded, only 4212. Not a very big increase since 2004/05. This is an interesting article fromDr Daryl Adair is Associate Professor of Sport Management in the UTS School of Leisure, Sport and Tourism who looks at the issue from a recent 'overview' position (late 2009, better than Crikey references to 2007). The important thing to remember - is that whilst the AFL was resistant to WADA (or, a 100% adoption of WADA) - - so too was FIFA, and FIFA is bigger than the AFL, and the Howard Govt remained rather silent on FIFA or even the Australian soccer organisations (Soccer Australia or now the FFA). Howard et al attacked the AFL publicly but failed to attack soccer in this country (whom the Howard Govt was 'rebuilding', and yet the soccer position has always been "We're in line with FIFA". This is the hypocrisy of this issue. The AFL was whipped publicly for political reasons and, amazingly enough, the AFL stood firm and have at very least out lasted John Howard. Note back from April 2006 - Court of Arbitration for Sport confirms FIFA's individual case management in doping matters, earlier in 2005 FIFA dismisses WADA criticism – CAS must examine law of sanctions. FIFA has been conducting a running battle with WADA all this time such that in 2009 the battle ground was regarding the notification 3 months in advance of where people would be 3 months ahead at a given time whilst even on 'holidays'.........groan, WADA is a blunt stick trying to clean cycling and weighlifting etc, and isn't overly appropriate in all cases, just a shame J.Howard was beholden to the IOC to get Aussies higher up that chain of command.

really old news Jimbo - - and Dylan Howard was made almost unemployable because of the crock of a story that these highly sensitive and confidential patient records were just 'found in the gutter', an absolute crock, Do you know the craziness of your reference here though Jimbo?? Any allegations around EPO or any other PERFORMANCE ENHANCING drug has NOTHING to do with the AFL illicit drugs policy. THat's the domain of the WADA (ASADA) anti-doping testing. Even Crikey was getting confused - as so many people did. The AFL has (had) BOTH, a stand alone illicit drugs policy AS WELL AS being signed on to the ASADA administered WADA protocols. Around this time, the AFL's own illicit testing was only around the 500 mark, but, irrelevant to this Crikey 'rant', if the WADA (ASADA) testing was only around the 500 mark too - - then, is that a problem with the AFL illicit drugs policy??? Clearly 'No'. You need to use better sources - - and stop quoting 2.5 yr old out of date and pretty well off the mark 'Crikey crap'.

Jimbo - firstly - the stats are NOT produced by the AFL. They are released by the AFL. There's a difference. The stats are produced by Dorevitch pathology who are contracted to run the program nationally, who administer it and report results back to the AFL. re the Crikey commentary of Nov 2007 - it's taken a position regarding 'public sanctions'. That's their view. That's NOT the design of the AFL policy. That's not it's intent or purpose. That's what WADA is about - finding and exposing 'drug cheats', the AFL policy is separate to that about finding and helping people who have got involved in drug use. The player base is so broad, over 700 - that they ARE a fair cross section of our society, it's backgrounds, it's influences. Likewise, players can enter the system with the same vulnerabilities to mental illness as anyone else in the community. Of the 11 players who had tested positive in 2007, the AFL revealed almost all the failed tests were related to alcohol, and that three of the six players who had twice tested positive in the previous three years had a mental illness. The AFL has to actually be attacked MORE regarding a too relaxed attitude to alcohol consumption - - write an article on that!!! (the Aust Drug Foundation supports strongly the AFL illicit drugs policy - but, has caned the AFL re alcohol). Anyway - whilst Crikey seems focussed on public humiliation - I'd rather side with the experts back AFL's 3 strikes policy; Campaign rejects 'populist' drugs approach, and their open letter here is worth a gander. The letter appeared in The Age and The Australian on 11 September 2007, and is signed by: So, you take the Crikey line if you wish, I'll stick with the good folk below who were so driven to put their names to the open letter in support of the AFL, even whilst John Howard and his cronies (Brandis and Pyne) were having a public crack at the AFL and brandishing such hollow rhetoric as 'zero tolerance'. Associate Professor Robert Ali, Chair, Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine, Royal Australasian College of Physicians Sam Biondo, Executive Officer, Victorian Alcohol & Drug Association Donna Bull, former CEO Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia; Specialist Technical Adviser on AOD matters for the Australian Defence Force and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Professor Nick Crofts, Director, Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre Professor Jon Currie, Professor of Addiction Medicine, St Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne Associate Professor John Fitzgerald, Principal Research Fellow, University of Melbourne Professor Wayne Hall, University of Queensland School of Population Health; Vice-President, Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia Professor Margaret Hamilton, AO, University of Melbourne Dr Ian Kronborg, Director, Drug and Alcohol Services, Western Health (DASWest). Dr Bruce Mitchell, President, Sports Medicine Australia Professor Rob Moodie, Professor of Global Health, The Nossal Institute for Global Health, University of Melbourne David Murray, Executive Director, Youth Substance Abuse Service The Hon Alastair Nicholson, AO RFD QC, National Patron, Australian Drug Foundation; Honorary Professorial Research Fellow, Department of Political Science, Criminology and Sociology, University of Melbourne. Professor David Penington, AO, Former Vice Chancellor, University of Melbourne Professor Robert Power, Director, Centre for Harm Reduction, Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health Professor Robin Room, Chair of Social Alcohol Research, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne; Director, AER Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre Daryl Smeaton, CEO, Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation Bill Stronach, CEO, Australian Drug Foundation David Templeman, CEO (acting), Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia Professor Ian W Webster, AO, Emeritus Professor of Community Medicine and Public Health, University of New South Wales. Professor Steve Wesselingh, Director, Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health No doubt - if you really wish - you might find an expert or two to support your view - - which would show only that there's mixed views such that you can't please everybody - - - but, what you can do, and the AFL HAS done this - is to stick to their path. Like it or not - you ought to respect that the AFL has held fast, and the 'rhetoric' from K.Rudd and K.Ellis is far, far more moderate/concilliatory than their predecessors.

It's contracted out to Dorevitch pathology across the country - they administer it, they operate it - and the report the results back to the AFL who get to review them and report them to the media. The AFL 'owns' it, but, has contracted the administration and operation of the policy to a fully independant third party. That's such basic common knowledge that I wonder why you felt able to pen an article on this topic without knowing this. In comparison - the NRL allows each club to contract out their testing - and therefore, each club is the local 'owner'. Which is better? Dunno - do we, 'cos the NRL refuses to report the results.

"The AFL does not administer their drug policy" Then who does?

Do a bit more reading bever http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/08/27/afl-blaming-the-whistleblowers-not-the-system/

Some of us have a job and a family Michael.

Your missing the point Michael, these stats are produced by the AFL, so they are not reliable - self regulation does not work. http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/11/16/a-1-chance-the-stats-on-the-afls-farcical-drug-regime/ Quote "No one seriously doubts that drug use is widespread in the AFL. John Worsfold, West Coast Eagles coach, said around 20% of his players admitted using drugs. Disgraced Carlton player Laurence Angwin claimed “five out of the nine” in the leadership group were taking drugs the night before he was sacked. Former player Dale Lewis nominated the figure of 75% of players using drugs. Hawthorn great, Dermott Brereton, famously lamented a recent Mad Monday where “there wasn’t a beer in sight”. " Why isn't the AFL picking up the drug use amongst its players - is the system working? I don't think so. 1% chance of even being tested and the AFL decides who to test.

it depends surely on how you gauge success?? FOr the time being, we can but assume a success mark by virtue that no one has become a third strike offender. Thus - the policy is so far seen to be a success. We have no other real reference point - as, no one else is delivering any information into the public domain, and, given the NRL scenario, whereby each club contracts out their testing - the NRL aren't really in command of all the data - but, if they do receive all the data, then, there's no one to oversee their aggregation and reporting (although apparently the process has been audited a couple of times) - - but, the NRL are yet to report on it. Were the AFL to misquote or completely misrepresent the data - then, Dorevitch is the one stop shop providers of the data to the AFL who can set the record straight - - the NRL doesn't have this relationship - because, apart from anything else.....they still refuse to go public. So, for whatever 'smokescreens' the AFL might be accused of.....it's a bit unfair when no one else is forthcoming with data. It's too easy to throw stones at the only windows dressed up you can see......because, you haven't got stone throwing access to the NRL program. (be it deemed better or worse of a program - that's beside the point).

the challenge is to actually quote them (the FFA).