The AFL’s illicit drugs testing results have been published for the year 2009. And, again, the debate rages. There are those who advocate zero tolerance, there are those who advocate two strikes, and there are those who advocate naming and shaming.
Dealing only with the facts, the AFL testing for 2009 conducted 348 extra drug tests for two extra positive tests. The rate of positive testing has dropped from 0.98% to 0.89%. There are still yet to be any third strikes recorded.
The following points need to be remembered whenever discussing this issue:
1. The AFL is WADA compliant, and so the AFL enforces a zero tolerance on ‘drug cheats’ – i.e. players are tested for performance enhancing drugs ‘in competition’.
2. The AFL illicit drugs program is a voluntary program entered into by the AFLPA, so, even if the AFL were to buckle to some elements of public opinion and try to name and shame and be more punitive, the AFLPA would simply withdraw their support.
3. The AFL does report the findings. About the only comparable program is the NRL two strikes program. However, the NRL does not report the findings.
4. Ben Cousins’ three weekly tests are not counted in the 1568 tests.
5. It’s recognised that the legal drug – alcohol – is actually the bigger issue, and that in most cases, the illicit drug use is subsequent to firstly overuse of alcohol.
6. Federal Government statistics for 2009 claim that 31% of Australians aged between 18-29 used illicit drugs sometime during the year, therefore, a 0.89% strike rate in the AFL is massively lower than the general public for this age group.
7. Extension of point six, 20% used cannibinoids compared to one positive strike in the AFL testing, whilst 5% used cocaine compared to an AFL strike rate of below 1%. So, it is important to recognise that the AFL environment is seemingly significantly better than the general social setting.
No doubt debate will continue to rage. And having heard absolute ignorance from one Steve Price on MTR dismissing Australian Drug Foundation head John Rogerson and remarking “What’s the ADF?”, and suggesting they were a promotion agency for drugs…not helpful Mr.Price.
*Note – the testing period runs March to February.
Michael C
Guest
exactly right. The moral guardians of our society apparently play back pocket for St Kilda (hmmm....that alone is scary!!). .....anyway, the purpose of the program is for the AFLPA to protect the interests/welfare and rights of their members (the players). It CAN work in the AFL......but, it's dubious as to whether it can actually work in more international sports.
Lorry
Guest
Listen to all of you on your high horses! As Peter Fitzsimmons has said, compulsory recreational drug-testing is an absolute infringement on a player's civil liberties. How many of your would be happy to have your teenage/early 20s sons/daughters or yourself subjected to this testing regime? Perhaps there is some arguement for testing on game day but there is no arguement for random testing at other times, especially out-of-competition!!! If a player has a drug problem, like Ben Cousins, they should be allowed to get on with treatment privately. Why don't we just start drug testing all role models: politicans, the media, musicians etc etc. No other 'role models' have to put up with this intrusion into their private lives. Why don't we just start testing everyone? Recreational drugs are certainly NOT performance enhancing. You try to play a match wasted on cocaine - you probably couldn't even see straight... Sports fans really have double standards about this one. Even if you don't consume drugs, just imagine how much you would resent on the spot random drug tests. It's demeaning and more worthy of a dictatorial state like Singapore than a democracy like Australia.
Al
Guest
The point is that they did make an example out of a nothing issue and now they are covering up players who are actually breaking the law as oppossed to officials who have gambled miniscule amounts of money on games not even involving their teams. The AFL went all high and mighty last week over a nothing issue but when something more severe comes up it's all hush hush.
DB
Guest
I don't think you get it, this is a voulutary program. Outside the AFL and NRL to my knowledge no other competition test for out of competition drugs this is about player welfare not about catching drug users. when was the last time you were tested for drugs let alone outside of work. I can't think of anyone who's been jailed in this country for using drugs. If they get caught by the police than it's a criminal issue and the same consequences will apply.
Michael C
Roar Guru
Not true. FOr small personal use 'offences', very few people would go anywhere near jail (our jails wouldn't cope!!!). The courts send most people into 'diversion' programs. And that's for people 'caught' by the police......usually more around the 'possession' more so than the evidence of otherwise of 'personal use'. In this case - these players are employer tested and it is conducted and administered medically and doctor/patient confidentiality is applied. If your doctor were to see evidence in your goodself of drug use......is your doctor going to call the cops?? or is your medical condition confidential?? Any player caught by the police is still subject to that process. The incentive to stop is provided via suspended sanctions and councelling and health intervention. The threat of a slap on the wrist should be nothing compared to the assistance to avoid developing a dangerous addiction.
Akazie
Guest
For gods sake, stop protecting these fools, if anyone else got done, they'd be in court and jail. Just because some meathead plays a sport, it doesn't mean he is above the law. They get paid thousands sometimes millions of $$$, yet they get treated with kid gloves. One rule for them, and another rule for us. If you start naming and shaming these guys, the ones that are thinking about doing drugs might think twice, the way it is now, they don't care as it's all hushed up and they are protected. Why should they not do drugs if the sport is going to hide them, there is no incentive to stop is there?
Michael C
Roar Guru
Akazie - show us a better model?
Michael C
Roar Guru
Al - the distinction here is that the gamblers potentially compromise a 'result', or put in doubt the integrity of results. So too do match day drug cheats - and so, via the WADA protocols, a match day 'in competition' drug cheat would be named, shamed and banned. True, it seems harsh that some of these fellows have been named regarding a $5 bet, and we know they can just as easily bet via a third party entirely and we'd probably never know.
DB
Guest
Why? how will that help anyone?
Akazie
Guest
Sweep sweep, I bet mitre 10 gets a good deal from the AFL, they must make a packet selling all those brooms. Name and shame them.
DB
Guest
Wouldn't it of have been better for them not to have made examples out of those that put on $5 bets? Two wrongs don't make a right
Redb
Roar Guru
Different situation entirely. Performance enhancing drugs is immediate shaming. The 3 strikes is not about public shaming as its an attempt to rehab. Gambling is a curse on many sporting competitions to protect the integrity of the comp you have to come down hard with a zero tolerance policy.
DB
Guest
How so?, I think it's adequate and looks at a way of tackling the issue that would otherwise go by the wayside.
Michael C
Roar Guru
Akazie - how so??
Akazie
Guest
The AFL's drug policy is a JOKE.
Al
Guest
Would be good to see them name and shame these drug offenders the way they made an example out of people that put $5 bets on.
DB
Guest
So the other professional sporting bodies in Australia have gone even softer?
Michael C
Roar Guru
Paul J Yeah, wrote it today....I had a draft ready yesterday arvo but accidentally deleted it!! re the people knowing - the AFL club doctor gets notified. The question here is interesting - - if as a 'health' issue, then, players have the right to privacy and the confidentiality of their medical records. From a football club perspective - certainly, the club would like to know. But - the premise I gather was that without the voluntary program, then the club would still be none the wiser (other than normal 'signs'). So, the club hasn't 'lost' anything. And if the club did know - then it just increases the chances of the confidential information leaking or being used against a player (not the desire of the AFLPA who was, I reckon, trying to avoid this when they pushed for the drugs code years ago). I think the AFL process via Dorevitch, informs the players doctor at strike 1, and the club doctor at strike 2. it's certainly a contentious issue - - I can see both sides of it. The clubs especially don't know come trade week whether they might be trading in a fellow sitting on 2 strikes. That's not ideal either. As, if there were no policy, then, true, no one would know in those circles - - but, then, if there were no policy the player wouldn't be on the cusp of a suspension and other penalties and public naming/shaming. Re the general public - - true. The general public simply do real things like drive buses, perform surgery, operate machinary etc......at any rate, the AFL rate for age group of less than 1% vs a reported 31% or thereabouts is the best perspective we have. THe thing for all codes is it's hard to avoid that people have been exposed via their social circles and the best private schools are no insulation. The cocaine usage at this point seems to be all out of season and generally related to excessive alcohol consumption......leading to bad decisions. The legal drug - alcohol - is probably still the bigger issue and too easily diverted from. Interestingly, the Australian Drug Foundation has supported the AFL to the hilt on illicit drugs......but has criticised the AFL in the past over their alcohol policies/cultures (esp Brownlow night!!!). On match day when players ARE being idolised - they are subject to WADA testing and careers can be on the line, personally I'd be surprised of anyone on the juice on a match day. re people idolised by potentially millions of Aussie kids.....personally I'd like to see the community apply tougher standards to musicions, actors etc. A drug effected lyric get's into the psyche of an adoring audience,.......where as a nuggety back pocket or fly half is hardly doing so . The AFL and NRL have to be careful. They aren't soft. They are WADA compliant which is where the zero tolerance for drug cheats is applied. Remember - this illicit drugs code was volunteered to by the AFLPA. They can just as easily withdraw their support. The AFL and NRL are the only codes with any real idea of what's going on in this regard. And this approach, esp at the AFL of treating it as a health issue (and don't forget - - players might have made only one 'mistake' whilst perhaps affected by the loss of a loved one, breakdown of a relationship, suffering a clinical depressive episode........how would it help anyone to drag the 'dirty laundry' out in the public domain......going to work might be the only time the person in question feels secure, take that away and???) - anyway, this approach needs to be judged via the passage of time. So far, no 3rd strike at AFL level. That, by a measure - deems the approach a success. However, just how well the players concerned will be when they finish their playing days and leave the 'safety net' of the AFL environment, again, who knows. On that front too though, the AFLPA has a focus on helping players transition back to the 'real world'. btw - 30 odd years ago there was mild uproar with McCartney in Japan and other RnR drugs 'scandals'.......now, well - let's see all on stage performers drug tested upon entering the country and before taking to the stage. In 2004 McCartney revealed "he tried heroin, regularly used cocaine" - - and yet he's still idolised and is still a 'Sir'. Seems there's double standards. If a footy player has been silly enough to use cocaine over their holidays........does the world really need to know?? (I don't - I'd rather NOT know).
Paul J
Guest
Michael C When did you write this today? You're on the ball. "3. The AFL does report the findings. About the only comparable program is the NRL two strikes program. However, the NRL does not report the findings." Correct me if i'm wrong but my understanding was with the NRL, that on the 1st bust the Club chief executive is notified of who the player is and the players gets rehab and on going testing. On the 2nd bust, everyone is told, the media and the public and the club can tear up the players contract. With the AFL no one knows who the player is, not the club or media or public, until the 3rd bust. Re point 6, you say the AFL drug use is well below the general public. The general public for the most part don't ever get tested, we have to take for granted anyone surveyed is telling the truth in regards to their own drug use. Imho, all the codes should be well ahead of any claims of public drug use. You and i can do cocaine but we are not idolised by potentially millions of aussie kids. I think both the NRL & AFL have gone too soft on this, the AFL more so. Perhaps the codes CEO's are afraid what would happen if they really got serious about testing and naming players?
Michael C
Roar Guru
I'd also like to remind people that Wendel Sailor in the ARU was struck out under the WADA performance enhancing testing. The AFL and NRL are also WADA compliant. WADA testing?....how useful. The AFL illicit testing has picked up all these guys out of competition, but, WADA has drawn a blank. So, WADA testing alone really gives zero indication of social drug use out of competition (but, then, is it the business of the employer really what people do on their holidays???). WADA testing focusses on the top place getters (like in a race at the Olympics....1, 2 and 3, no one cares about 6th!!). As such, WADA would target test each AFL clubs reigning top 3 from their B&F count, and the Brownlow medalist etc. We note then that WADA did not detect Ben Cousins in season 2006 (the Premiership year), despite Cousins being the reigning Brownlow medalist and Eagles club champion. Likewise, WADA never detected anything with Andrew Johns in the NRL at Newcastle. SO, again, a code like the ARU with no illicit drugs testing regime and relying on WADA only, would be in dreamland to attempt to ascend to any moral highground.