Richmond’s Ben Cousins lies injured on the ground during the AFL Round 21 match between the Richmond Tigers and the Hawthorn Hawks at the MCG.
In wake of Geelong’s Matthew Stokes’ alleged possession and trafficking of cocaine, the AFL has again been forced to defend its illicit drugs policy, which was introduced in 2005 with the assistance of the AFL Players’ Association.
Stokes is facing criminal charges and there is no proof, at this stage, that he has actually taken any illicit substance.
As a result, any criticism of the AFL policy on this basis is ill-informed.
All those negative characters out there in our world like to call the system soft, citing its “three-strike” policy, where players are only publicly named after they have tested positive to drugs three times.
Ben Cousins, it must be remembered, never tested positive. Part of the reason for this is that illicit drugs can take as little as 48 hours to disappear from your system.
But, now, hair samples, which can detect drugs three months later, can be used for testing purposes.
Today, there is a focus on “naming and shaming” players. But put yourself in their position.
How would you feel if a policy to test you and your fellow workers for illicit drugs was introduced at your work site? That’s right, you’d be outraged.
But you can stand in judgement of AFL players, condemning those who have made one mistake and tested positive.
Naming those who have transgressed after one positive test will tarnish their name forever – perhaps unfairly, too. What if the drug was slipped into their drink at a nightclub? That can happen to any of us.
The AFL’s policy allows for the prospect of rehabilitation and caters for medical confidentiality – a right that everyone deserves.
Medical records and results of drug tests are, simply, not for public consumption.
Medical confidentiality is maintained when necessary – for two positive tests – which then enables the player to receive the medical care they need.
Those who don’t know about illicit drug use will tell you the policy is soft; doctors will tell you it caters for the basic rights of players.
I know who’s opinion I’d listen to.
Drug dependency is a health issue; trafficking and possession are criminal matters. There is a clear difference. It is important we acknowledge this before slamming a policy that is as comprehensive as any.
Those wanting zero-tolerance are, basically, saying these players should be hung, drawn and quartered. That’s unfair.
We can’t condone the use of illicit drugs, either. But we must give people a chance.
The legal system gives plenty of people, who have committed much more serious offences, a second-chance.
Just because you are an AFL player, does that mean you are not afforded basic rights? Of course not.
Testing, of course, occurs out of competition under the AFL policy. Like speed cameras, testers can’t be at every club, every day. Some will slip through the net. That will always be the case in all areas of life.
The AFL will make a constant effort to improve its policy. But criticism about a “soft-hand” approach is off the mark and ill-informed.
davido
Guest
WADA and the government have to crack down on the AFL. Take away these drug users right to use public facilities. Bring in the police and lock these drug abusers up. No exceptions.
Rob
Guest
Mark Bosnich, Adrian Mutu ?
Bam Bam
Roar Guru
The difference Luke is that it is very lenient, my brother got caught by police when he was high, so they took him in. Then he went to court, and he isn't even in the limelight up to 27 weeks of the year. The NRL continually gets pulled up by people saying "oh, there are so many druggies and drunkards in that game." The difference is that the NRL give a penalty straight away. And soccer do testing, at least in England anyway. But the AFL shouldn't have to release the names of players, but should have to suspend them on a first offence by refusing them a license to play for a year (and since most of them can't just simply switch codes this would mean a year without pay and play) and giving them medical help, whilst on the second offence it should be a name and shame, just as my brother now has on his record so his job search is a lot harder than most. And on the third (which I think is too lenient) there should be an ousting with the AFL suing them for bringing the game in disrepute.
Michael C
Guest
KB - "If you play AFL, then eventually - perhaps after several years - you will be asked to pee into the cup. " in other codes - they don't even bother. Since 2007 when this piece was written - the volume of testing has increased each year from 486 the most recent reported year at time of that blog to 1152 for 2007 and yet to be confirm around 1500+ for 2009. and in soccer and Union......you will NOT be asked to pee into the cup for illicit drug testing. "As slight as it is, there's still a prospect of returning that dreaded positive result. " play union or soccer. simple. No risk whatsoever. It's too hard for them....oh, and they can't afford to fund it - financial basket cases as they are. "It seems I'm not alone in expressing concern about the efficacy of the drug-testing regime. Even players have come out with doubts about the professionalism of Dorevitch Pathology and the AFL's testing policies" The AFL ensured Dorevitch lifted its game. Simple. The reference to Nick Maxwell twice in 5 years - - in all likelihood that's the combination of BOTH WADA and AFL testing - - WADA would NOT target such a player - - as he was not a top 3 B&F winner. AFL testing...increased 3 fold since then. "At least one senior club doctor is calling for an end to the "six week party time period" that follows each season. (This is the "no test" period which allows players to indulge in as much drug-taking as they want, free from recriminations from their employer.) Good for him for speaking up against this sham." Hmmm, or play soccer or Union with no illicit testing whatsoever; meanwhile the AFL is leaving daylight b/w them and the non-testing codes by running a trial hair folacle testing program this year where in traces dating back 3 months can be detected. I'll leave it at that KB - - basically, Jimbo's usage of a 3 year old out of date blogged rant is pretty lame, that you - KB - rate it so highly goes to show how blinkered you are. Of to play drug soup soccer again??? the code that doesn't care so long as the Govt keeps paying for it's WADA tests, and WC bids, and to allow it to send teams overseas.........what a tin pot game soccer is in this country. Go get that game sorted before you attempt to shovel 'tish' on the AFL on this topic. and build yer' own stadium while yer at it!!! ;-)
Michael C
Guest
Correct - the WADA compliance effectively takes it out of the hands of the sporting body itself - - 'effectively'.......as, sporting bodies still have to enforce the bans and if possible seem to lean to the 'leniant' side. On this topic - Union folk really have to be very careful as they have no moral high ground what so ever.
Australian Football
Roar Guru
Satire? Is that your reckoning MC; seems serious enough to me.. Here's your smiley MC if you are looking for one :) I would be embarrassed if I were you.
Australian Football
Roar Guru
Jimbo, that link pretty much sums it up for all to read and what you have stated---the prosecution rests your honour. Interesting that no one has made a reply to this post.. Why no answer to this comment and link lads ?
Drug testing in Sport
Guest
Sometimes I don't know why you bother Michael C. A perfectly good point made over and over again. Unfortunately those on here that have a vested interest in sticking up for their own sport (whatever that may be - but most likely one of the football "codes") will not cede an inch to any rival code - even when they are hopelessly outgunned and out FACTED. Its shameful really. I wonder if the Government threatened to pull funding for the ARU and the FFA (Inlcuding the World Cup bid) because these sports did not conduct stringent enough drug testing - ie, not at least matching the NRL/AFL - how that would make all those who continually belittle the AFL (In particular) and NRL drug codes feel? Would they then realise the futility of hurling stones from their glass huts?
Red Cap
Guest
Union didn't ban anyone for drug taking. They didn't have any choice with Sailor because WADA forced them to act. So even this one example is irrelevant. Why don't you concentrate on defending union's lack of testing - outside WADA - next time?
rugbyfuture
Roar Guru
yet we ban all the league converts from playing again, whilst you embrace them (thats Rugby by the way, not union).
Red Cap
Guest
I replied to this in full but it was cut. I can't be arsed doing it again. Thank the rah rah mods.
Michael C
Roar Guru
Jimbo - you're dredging for flaws, as, thus far, you haven't actually been able to grasp the topic well enough to identify a valid flaw. The one's you thought you had ---- thus far, you've managed to get wrong. ANd a little bit of reasonable research would've set you straight. Part of cross code intercourse is the capacity to allow those a little more abreast of the code specific issues to fill you in. Thus far, you're resisting everything for seemingly the sole purpose of trying to get up the people who what exactly? who reckon the FFA was dishonest in it's dealings over Docklands? or the people who can see 2 years straight of roughly 15-20% attendance decline as both a problem and a little more than a F.Lowey spin phrasing of a 'plateau'. Yup....I'd be seeking revenge too!!!!!
Luke D'Anello
Roar Guru
Jimbo, I put this article up to inform people about the basics of the policy. It's my view that it is sound, and not much more can be done at this stage. The sport will never be fully clean - it's a reality. Thanks for the tips, Mr Real Australian it's called Football Man formerly known as Kurt . You are definitely correct with both points you make. It's much appreciated. There are plenty of misconceptions about this policy, and a few comments prove that they still exist.
jimbo
Guest
Settle down there Tom. :) You don't represent the football supporters on this forum and neither do I - but I am completely entitled to point out the flaws in AFL and its administration, just like poeple are free to point out their opinions about football and the FFA. If you are really a football supporter then you would understand that.
Tom
Guest
I'm as big a football fan as I am an AFL fan, Jimbo, and I don't care about rugby league at all. But you are a disgrace, no matter which codes you support. Please stop posting here. You're hurting the credibility of all football supporters who contribute to the forum.
Dogz R Barkn
Roar Guru
Red Cap but this is the point - the NRL and the AFL are the only sporting comps in the world that test for illicit drugs outside of competition. People need to understand this fact before they start criticising either sport.
jimbo
Guest
Dogz Arz, NRL good, AFL good, Soccer bad. Got the message fella.
Michael C
Roar Guru
where's your smiley face??? is this 3 years old piece of satire supposed to support your argument?? Jimbo, Jimbo, Jimbo - - why do you waste our time so??? A. since then the AFL has increased testing 3 fold. B. the AFL is the only body (of those couple who do test for illicit drugs outside of competition) who actually DO publish any form of results. C. and stuff the people who can't get by without knowing names. and, once again,......what's soccer, FIFA and the FFA doing about it?? In what way are they better??
Michael C
Roar Guru
The truth is??? THe NRL does cover up results by NOT reporting on their testing results at all. They run a '2 strikes' policy, with each individual club contracting out the testing, and filtering the data back to the NRL who have thus far sat on it and nobody knows. The AFL by contrast report annually (around May each year), on the number of tests, the number of positives and the number of 2nd positives. They also report on the break down of drug type in the 3 categories of 'stimulant, cannabanoid, mixed'. We've also had some high level break down on the number of 2nd strike 'offendors' who suffered/were being treated for mental illness/conditions. The number of tests is only as good as what they test for, and when they are conducted and towards whom. You could run 5 times the number of tests at the same total cost and achieve nothing by not doing it 'smart'. Union has only WADA. However, WADA is solely focussed on 'drug cheats'. So, your comment regarding Union shows you still don't get it. WADA IS FOR DRUG CHEATS. Illicit drugs policy (as per AFL 3 strikes and NRL 2 strikes) is for illicit (recreational) drugs - - it is ADDITIONAL to WADA testing within these codes. Is the NRL testing regime the most stringent?? Maybe, maybe not. Is 2 strikes better or worse than 3 strikes with respect to non PEDs (Performance enhancing drugs)?? Thus far - the experts in the field of treating personal drug USE as a health issue have supported the AFL on their 3 strikes stance (as 'twas the experts that formulated the plan....so, I guess a vested interest to 'back it').
Michael C
Roar Guru
btw - Jimbo - Tim Lane wrote a very good piece on this (the Stokes situation) about a week ago : AFL must better educate players about drugs.