Cocaine becoming more common in illicit positive tests

Highly nonsensical post Moonface. The AFL discloses its results (unlike other sports), that is a complete contradiction to your assertion the AFL "pretend they are the only clean sport". You then go on to falsely claim the 3 strikes policy is used to "protect high profile players from the media", ignoring the fact that this testing is 'above and beyond' industry standards, and if the it weren't conducted in the first place the media wouldn't even know about these players. If this 'above and beyond' measure is used to protect players from the media, what does the NRL do (who do not disclose their results) or the FFA & ARU (who don't even conduct such testing)? Disappointing to see the tall poppy syndrome rife in this thread. Funny to see so many people criticise the AFL's drug policy, as if they'd be perfectly willing to undergo drug testing at their place of work/education. Filthy hypocrites.

Paul J I thought it was somewhat ironic that you deride wowserism in your Simpsons reference, then go on to indulge in it. Unfortunately you seem to have swallowed the lie frequently put out by the Fourth Estate - that sports persons are somehow role models. Here's a hint folks: they're not. Parents, teachers, friends and elder school peers are role models. Abstract unobtainable sports stars are not. Evidently personal responsibility is not a value you place highly.

Moonface - you started okay but then went off track. You can't justify the inaction of others by claiming the AFL are false in claiming what they do........and they are NOT claiming to be clean - - - because they are actually disclosing the results to prove that they are not. The 3 strikes policy is debateable until the cows come home - I accept anybody's right to an opinion on that. The AFL results may be hard to believe, however, were they false represented, then I'm sure Dorevitch would speak out as they are the testers, administrators and collators. The police might be appropriate for identifying the 'trade' of drugs, however, if you don't believe 1568 drug tests in a year is sufficient........then would would satisfy you?? It's not cheap. (btw - it has to be recognised that a test is not just a test, these can be relatively cheap or rather more expensive. So, a quantity of tests is not necessarily a quantity of quality tests - - however, the AFL HAS been expanding the range - and therefore the cost - of the tests. However, they have been running hair folical tests which are NOT part of the policy as yet, but, does allow collation of data and these tests show the presence of drugs dating much further back.........THIS is the area where it would be very interesting to see the results. This is where a clearer picture of whether the standard tests are more indicative or just the tip of the iceberg would be seen - - and, whatever results might be seen there may or may not be a massive warning to the AFL and other codes.)

Drug taking is rife in all sports, as it is in society generally. The other codes aren't doing much about it either, but at least they don't try and pretend that they are the only clean sport, like the AFL does. The 3 strikes policy is not genuine and is used more to protect high profile players from the media, than to actually stop anyone taking drugs. The AFL results are hard to believe and it seems no one is ever going to get named and shamed. The only way to find out if AFL players are taking drugs or dealing in them is via the police or the newspapers - not the AFL.

Paul J - good discussion (apologies if I come on too strong, I've followed this issue for a few years now......) there's sometimes underlying issues - - there's nothing stopping players with mild depressive conditions or bi-polar conditions entering the AFL ranks......and it has been found in the past that this policy has helped diagnose some players in this situation. That's not a bad thing. For a while it was known that players of indigenous background were more likely to have a cannibinoid issue. I'd hardly think it appropriate that they come to the big city only to be embarrassed and vilified after having managed to risefrom often dubious home (community-social) environments. That's not a bad thing. The illegality issue as well - - in the main, for personal use, the Police will not charge or seek conviction - rather, most (especially first time offenders) are put into diversionary programs. In this case, the player is detected not by the police but via a health oriented program. That being the case, is your local GP obliged to report you to the police if he suspects you've been using drugs? If the answer is 'No',.....then, why shouldn't the same apply to footballers. Again though - - there's mix messages around and the AFL handling of the Ben Cousins issue is certainly one out of the box. But - - it's a bit of a minefield and it's all too easy for people to be knockers. Reality is, the AFL or NRL is not meant to be all things to everybody - - but, in this case, are required to look after the young men in their 'care' far more than virtually any other employer in the land.........why wouldn't you aspire to play footy!!!! Main thing is, not all 'cases' are the same. NOt everyone is a Ben Cousins type elite player with too much money/time. Often it might be guys newer to the system who are still uncertain in social settings especially when mixing back with their childhood mates. Likewise, the policy was concerned that drink spiking is real, and that it'd be all too easy for players to be targeted when in social settings......could you imagine the Coll supporter who spiked James Hird's drink and got him suspended for 12 weeks to allow Collingwood to roll Essendon on Anzac day...........perhaps it's a ridiculous notion?? I dunno. I don't mix in those social settings anymore. ;-)

btw - whilst not condoning any form of drug use - - what kids idols are you more concerned about should they be using the odd bit of 'coke' or whatever during their down time? A footballer, or a lyricist in a rock/pop band who's (drug affected) thoughts and words can drive deep into the psyche of impressionable youngsters far more than whether a footballer might have done a line of coke over the christmas holidays. Is anyone seriously suggesting players on drugs every Sunday night during the season??? or players playing under the influence this weekend??

For comparison.

Why do you need to ask, I thought you knew everything about the enemy.

ARU had no choice with Sailor - the WADA penalties are prescribed and the ARU had no say in it. Although, in AUstralian sport, Warnies little masking agent episode still looks poorly handled.

The point made by John Rogerson, head of the Aust Drug Foundation, is that alcohol is still the greater 'drug' scourge. Most of the AFL illicit drug strikes related to alcohol usage in the first instance that helped pave the way for the 'poor decision' making of using illicit drugs. The ADF help formulate the AFL policy, and they and many experts support the AFL vocally and publicly. However, the ADF has criticised the AFL over their alcohol policy/attitudes etc. Including Brownlow Night......interesting to see though that at the Logies the serving of alcohol by Crown was very much more regulated,......and I presume the same will apply at this years Brownlow. Good thing too. At any rate - - alcohol is what so Herald Sun sports journo Jon ANderson drive his car into a pizza shop.......I trust he won't be abusing AFL players for 'drug abuse' without at least some recognition of his own poor judgement.

was the aru response in relation to sailors test results or the fact that media outlets got wind of something fishy...

If they are doing coke 'in competition' they will be busted by the WADA testing. SImple. And fair enough - as a stimulant - throw the book at them. btw - the media ain't protecting these guys. Fairfax and News Ltd took the AFL to court and lost over trying to publish names of players on 2 strikes. It frustrates the media that they can't splash this stuff all over the pages........but, if they did, the AFLPA would withdraw their support and the program would cease and what's the point of that???? On the other tab, I've discussed elements that I see both sides of the story. The key thing here is the program (AFL) was initiated by the AFLPA. It's purpose is clear. It's about player welfare. It's not a punitive program. The NRL by comparison instituted their program seemingly as a political exercise!!! Well, when Howard, Brandis and Pyne were going at the AFL, the NRL was effectively guilted into instituting a program and going '1 strike better' than the AFL. Not sure what their 'purpose' is. It's not quite as clearly defined I wouldn't have thought. The AFL program is not perfect. It is not best in all cases. But, it has a clearly defined purpose. It needs to be judged over time. And it is an approach that is applauded and supported by the vast majority of experts in the field (including those who help create it - ironically Dr.Rob Moodie - - remember him, also chairman of Melb Storm). So, I prefer to defer to their expertise. It's all the ignorant objections that annoy. There are certainly valid objections, and that's fine. It's the ignorant one's where there's a lot of confusion and it probably illustrates the AFL has not conducted it's PR nearly well enough. Not sure what they have to do though!!! Many people just can't be reached.......and......they're all voters too........gawd help a politician trying to define a complex policy!!! btw - the media was fighting the issue on a freedom of information front, but, I'm glad the courts upheld the right of medical confidentiality. btw - if the Fed Govt wants all codes to sign up to illicit drugs regimes - - - then, the Feds should run it and fund it. As is, the Feds fund most of the WADA testing........and what's that go to show for itself?? Wendel Sailor.

AndyRoo Our comments remind me of that lady out of the Simpsons, it think it's Reverend Lovejoys wife, "will somebody please think of the children". I can see your point about a players private life being his own, and if he's good in public then who cares, and from that point of view it's fair enough. My view is that drugs are illegal. By giving a sportsperson two chances to get caught on drugs before they are held accountable for their actions is too lenient. The tougher the penalties, the less leway they get to do drugs, the less likely they will be to do drugs (in theory). The less players doing drugs, such as Cousins and Johns, the better. Kids are influenced by what their sporting idols do, so those sports stars have far more responsibility to not do drugs. The additional testing on top of the Wada tests is great work by the AFL but as Michael C has pointd out, if the AFL started to name and shame on first offence that testing may well disappear.

This is interesting, I'm not an AFL fan but I think they get it right. Most people (and the media) seem to want to know the players so they can either go beserk in the press ala Rebecca Wilson (the well known drunk driver) or use it as ammo in some code war. the player's welfare is of little interest. rather than comparing it to NRL, ARU or FFA. I;d compare it to society, recent figures suggest 1 in 7 people in society use illicit drugs. The figures of any of these sporting codes would be far far far lower than any like this. Look at how the ANZ bank is dealing with a drug trafficking ring from a melbourne office and compare it with the media hype around the Knights or Matthew Stokes. I don't like the idea of players (or anyone) using drugs, but I'm not going to publicly hound them for making that decision. As I said, the AFL looks likes their figures of usage are going down, that ain't the case amongst the punters.

I think the NRL is not being as transparent as the AFL with regard to publishing the number of tests, the results and what happens out of season (when most fail). It seems the NRL may too be shy of publicility and could be shuving the number of positive results under the carpet. I prefer 2 strikes to 3 strikes, but the AFL is acting on expert drug rehab opinion. At least the AFL publishes the results for all to see and if 3 strikes the names as well as per policy. And its program goes much futher than other codes. Also I asked about all codes not just the NRL.

I'm not an AFL fan and I agree with the policy. This is additional testing on top of the Wada tests., their going above the call of duty. If they test positive to a Wada test their named and shamed pretty much straight away I believe. Paul J, my point is if the player in public is behaving himself then what he does in private doesn't matter. It's between him and the police, the right to know seems more like an interest in gossip rather than protecting the children. If a player showed up to a family day or such and interacted with the public while effected then he should be sacked on the spotno second or third strike or even the need to test positive. But if he behaves himself in public I don't see it being any different to the scenario of a player being a drunk. Sure ones legal and the others not but I don't feel it mandatory that little Timmy is informed about either.

Dude, what the NRL does shouldn't really matter here. This is about drug abusers in AFL and wether or not the measures are apropriate. You seem to be deflecting and comparing to other codes. I think a three strike system is very generous to the players, and the fact they aren't named is also very dubious. Lets discuss this, and hopefully a better system will be introduced, rather than your obvious agenda in deflecting talk to codes other than the one you support. I doubt this will be published.

Correct that if kids sporting idols are getting busted doing coke we should guarantee they won't be named and shamed until the 3rd bust? Michael C, i know you're a passonite AFL fan but do you really think that's the way to go? If someone in any sport is doing coke they should not be protected from the media. Give them rehab but don't give them any incentive to keep using drugs.

correct.

EP - Wendel Sailor was pinged under the WADA 'incompetition' performance enhancing testing. He would've had exactly the same result in the AFL or NRL or any other code signed up to and running WADA tests. The ARU does NOT run separate illicit drugs testing programs. The AFL does. You need to be able to distinguish the two. One program is aimed at getting drug cheats, and, keep mindful WADA testing never outed Andrew Johns or Ben Cousins - - and yet WADA testing is, like in the Olympics, is targeted at the 'top performers', effectively, place getters 1,2 and 3.....and I believe in AFL/NRL circles, the WADA testing targets each clubs reigning top 3 B&F place getters.......so, try to tell me that WADA alone tells you anything (about the ARU) when WADA couldn't detect Johns or Cousins. So, how does the ARU view substance abuse?? They don't. It's too hard.....and fair enough - in more international sports its ruddy hard to run a 'voluntary' illicit drugs testing regime.