Johnson investigation another headache for AFL

Moonface - Cousins I think we can easily explain on the same basis that Andrew Johns avoided detection for just how much of his career?? Cousins in the main only had to avoid the WADA testing. Back in 2006, the AFL was only conducting 400-500 tests, it's since tripled, and more importantly they are trialling hair folacle testing which is I gather not to be used (at present) to record a strike, but, can be used to target test as a result of. Again.....would you rather the AFL do like the ARU and FFA.....and do nothing?? It's all too easy to be a knocker.....and that's all you are doing. It's a bit boring. Are you able to give the AFL some credit here.......it's not cheap running these tests.

Michael C, Marian Jones, the world's "greatest ever female athlete" took drugs for many years and got away with it. She only confessed years later after she became a born again Christian. Yes - drug takers can fool the drug testers. How else can you explain Ben Cousins' clean AFL drug record.

Moonface - it wasn't Stokes who was being watched. It was the bouncer at the club who was being monitored and watched. Stokes was 'caught up' in it. His mates were mates down from Darwin. They seemingly had no one else to ask. Now.....whether they've been down previously and this arrangement has been in place???? Now - - you must realise that most reasonable to high profile AFL players are much sought after by club owners to attend, be seen and are provided with drink cards. Via this - an awful lot of AFL players will have some level of 'association' with club owners of variously shady or otherwise backgrounds. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove there. If you're satisfied that masking agents are so freely available and the AFL is getting false recordings.......then......fine, let's just all give up shall we. And WADA too I presume. That'd be a good move!!!

No Michael it isn't enough for me. I'm not doubting he has a mate who uses cocaine - we all do. How or why did Stokes come to buy cocaine and why did his mate know he could get cocaine from Stokes. As what usually happens, an AFL player was only caught as part of a wider police investigation and six other people were arrested. This wasn't an innocent mistake, they were being watched for weeks. Also as part of the investigations it was reveled that Stokes sent several text messages to his drug dealer mate Randall at the Blue Martini, a Melbourne underworld club part owner who has drug convictions and uses the club to sell drugs. Whether Johnson paid for the cocaine or not is irrelevant, it was on him when he was arrested, again it was part of a wider investigation by the police, not an innocent one night incident. You seem to suggest these incidents are harmless and the AFL players are basically innocent, just a mistake, especially if they tell the police that the drugs weren't for them, just for a mate. You can buy stuff over the internet to mask cocaine use: http://www.passadrugtestingforall.com/shp+masking+agent+for+urine.html or get someone else to give a urine sample for you. So no surprise Johnson or Stokes have a "clean" drug record with the AFL. So does Ben Cousins.

Moonface... so far your 'strike rate' on getting things 'right' is pretty attrocious. How many strikes should we 'AFL' fans give you with respect to putting with overly negative and factually wrong commentary from you?? 1, 2 or 3 strikes?? ;-) Seriously though -- Please DO have the decency to acknowledge being put right on topics - after all , this should be a 'value add' process here on theRoar.

Moonface - This got taken out of everyone's hands by the Police picking him up, and the subsequent rapid leak of the story to the media. The AFL policy is NOT supposed to be a poor substitute for the police.........private organisations (like a footy leagye) ARE NOT supposed to be substitute law enforcement agencies. The AFL policy is about harm minimisation. If people can accept that - - and that distinction, and leave the police work to the police, and the AFL to do their thing.

Stokes 'story' was consistant in the phone taps - - including that he'd called for a second amount but that didn't go through because his mates couldn't raise the money, one might assume that Stokes would've been quite able to self fund..........and thus, appears as a 'tight' mate!!!!.....not willing to spot his mates!!! At any rate - - - they were the published facts released by the police and nothing at all to do with any defence offered up by Stokes when published.

Michael, Stokes' story of buying it for a friend was a bit hard to believe. The punishment shouldn't be based on what the player says in his defence, but on the facts. If Johnson says he only bought cocaine because it was very good for polishing silverware, should he get off scott free?

I'm not an ex-AFL fan. I still follow the game, but I don't follow some of the things the AFL says and does- what's wrong with that?

and this highlights the AFLPA's interest 5 plus years ago in creating a framework to manage this sort of issue - - because, in reality, Johnson does not get subjected to much 'natural justice' via this process. Why afterall.....is he fined by his employer?? For 'tarnishing' the brand?? He was on his own time in the company of others. Why is he effectively stood down for 5 matches?? Why not the rest of the year?? Where's this number come from?? I'd've thought if you justify standing the fellow down, then, do so until his day in court on July 5!! What's june 21 in all this??

Paul J - when you say the "The only people who defend the AFL policy " you might want to re-think your list. back in 2007, we saw the open letter of support signed by 21 experts in the field in support of the AFL's 3 strike policy : <I?We commend and support the AFL and the AFL Players Association for taking a reasoned, sensible and strong leadership stance in relation to these issues, and for resisting the pressures from populist quarters to use such issues for partisan ends. Such populist approaches ignore the mass of evidence that humane harm minimisation and treatment approaches to issues of illicit drug use are far more effective at diminishing drug-related harm to the individual and the community than are punitive ‘name and shame’ approaches. The AFL’s policy is, in fact, in line with current community practices towards people found to be using illicit drugs –– they are most often diverted towards the drug treatment system and away from the criminal justice system. This approach is the policy of all governments in Australia, because the evidence is that it is far more effective in dealing with drug use and harm from illicit drugs than are punitive measures. The blurring of the distinction between the use of performance-enhancing drugs and the use of illicit recreational drugs is potentially forcing upon the AFL and other sporting bodies roles for which they have no mandate or capacity –– roles as law enforcement agencies. Ironically, when head of the Aust Drug Foundation, current Storm chairman Dr Rob Moodie was pivotal in creating the AFL policy and very vocal in its defence. to be fair, a month later the religious right provided their own letter 'Contradicting medical opinion' : although 'drugs free Australia' appear a tad 'idealistic'.

IMHO... The AFL has the best leadership of any code in Australia, so when they actually do get something wrong it stands out like a turd in a fish bowl. How can you say that by giving AFL players the option of taking illegal drugs and getting 2 get out of jail free cards is the right way to fight drug taking in the AFL, or any other code. This is one of the few areas the NRL has got it right. In the NRL: 1st strike and your club CEO is informed and you get on going counselling and drug testing. 2nd strike and everyone knows, your club, the media, the fans. The only people who defend the AFL policy of not naming players seem to be some AFL fans and the players testing positive to illegal drugs. I don't see it as trolling to suggest the AFL don't name their players as it seriously tarnishes the AFL brand, which it does. Michael Johnson is the perfect example. Which is more damaging, the fall out of the media and fans knowing he's taking illegal drugs or him being an unnamed figure when the AFL say "only X amount of players tested positive for illegal substances in 2010."

waterboy - the 'disincentive' aspect I think often assumes 'rational' thought/behaviour patterns and decision making. What HAS been evident is that the vast majority of cases seem related to excessive alcohol consumption in the first instance. The decision making process there after is very much impacted. It is certainly improper behaviour dabbling in illicit drugs - - alas, it is not uncommon behaviour and is by all indicators far, far lesser in the AFL than outside of it. As is - the Police have NO pressing interest (as stated this morning by the AFLPA ceo) in the AFL referring the identities of players who have tested positive. All the police would do is push them into diversion programs anyway - - and they don't really need the hassles of dealing with the AFL strikees. The issue then comes to the Rehab prospects of those who HAVE struck out. ANd this is where we can debate the relative merits of 2 vs 3 strikes. ANd we can look at an AFL club environment very much 'grown up' in the last 5 years on this and relate issues. Perhaps the system IS now capable of handling these issues a little more openly...as clubs have now moved to more openly apply internal 'suspensions' and have exhibited the benefits of such actions.......I just don't have similar faith in the media!!!

and Michael, that's one of the issues here that some people fail to separate (not just here on theRoar, but, listening to callers into radio land). Johnson, as with Stokes, is being done on the 'possession' charge, after being caught by the Police. There's firstly no 'use' issue involved in the Stokes case - - -and he was at pains to stress to Geelong that all his drug tests have been negative. These issues are separate to what the AFL illicit policy is set up for, which in turn is separate to what the WADA program is set up for. What DOES seem odd is the suggestion that if found guilty then Johnson will be given a 'strike' by the AFL system. Perhaps what needs instead to be done is a regular and if necessary a hair test, and if that is positive, - - then put 2 and 2 together and give him a strike. Because, Johnson is caught 'outside' of the AFL policy - - so too was Ben Cousins and he got deregistere and is now tested thrice weekly.

Incorrect. There is nothing to spin, you are clutching at straws. The rate of drug abuse by AFL players is SEVERAL TIMES LOWER THAN THAT OF SOCIETY IN GENERAL. How many times must this be pointed out to you? Why do you refuse to accept logic? Why do you continue to spout irrational sensationalist nonsense? I don't accept anything as gospel (especially what you are saying), see your problem is that I disagree with you therefore I must be a sheep. I do not accept the authority of anyone, I have sovereignty over my mind and thus I analyse an issue in and of itself regardless of what others have to say on the matter. This ability you lack.

Its a shame that Johnson has to go through the public scrutiny now, but he has been let down by his club and the AFL for not dealing with this poroperly before it became a public issue, Maybe if the AFL drugs policy really did catch drug users and dealers and was a real deterrent for players to fear, he wouldn't be in this situation.