This might just be me, but I read with interest about Manchester City player Kolo Toure being suspended by his own club overnight following a positive drug test.
According to English media reports, Toure has been given time off the pitch to think about his actions after he tested positive with an A-sample as part of a regularly-scheduled test.
“City acted quickly after being informed by the Football Association that the former Arsenal defender is facing a range of punishments up to a two-year ban,” said Dan Taylor and Owen Gibson in The Guardian.
WADA would only state that it is most likely that Toure’s positive test was related to “a credible, non-doping explanation.”
In other words, Toure may have taken an illegal substance without knowing, perhaps as part of a diet pill or regular chemist medication.
But that’s not the point. He may lose his place on the team – which, in the high-stakes world of the EPL also means his job.
“He [Toure] has been suspended from participating in all first-team and non-first-team matches pending the outcome of the legal process,” said City in a statement released to the press.
Toure can request a B-sample test and try to explain his actions to the English FA if he chooses.
Multiple English media outlets noted that the penalty awaiting Toure could be anything from four months to two years, depending on how the legal processes pan out.
The Guardian noted that then-Sheffield player Paddy Kenny was banned for nine months after taking the wrong cold and flu tablets.
Of course, the Australian Football League has continued with it’s “three strike” drug policy – the first positive test for illicit substances results in a player receiving a visit from a medical officer and a potential fine, the second requires counselling and a possible six-match ban.
Only the third means a trip to the AFL tribunal, potentially rubbing out said player (on evidence, obviously) for up to 12 games – plus the other six previously hanging over their head, plys a $5000 fine, according to AFL.com.au’s drugs policy information.
In other words, the player could miss an entire season – but only after they’ve been caught for the third time. The first two results remain secret.
Toure’s name hasn’t been kept secret. Far from it, in fact – every English paper knows it’s him. They can even spot him in a match-day photograph. Fans could probably spot him down the street in Manchester.
That’s the AFL’s stance on out-of-competition testing. On match day, the full World Anti-Doping Agency penalty of two straight years away from the game may apply. But why not at any other time?
The testing process, in the lab, may well be in line with WADA standards, but what about the terms of the penalty.
Even the NRL apparently slugs any positive-tested player a fine to start with, then the subsequent positive costs them a 12-week stint on the sidelines.
As late as September 2010, the AFL continued to support its policy, even after Hawthorn’s Travis Tuck copped the 12-week suspension following a drug overdose. According to ABC news reports at the time, the Hawks were not made aware of the Tuck’s first two positive test results.
Why?
Because the AFL respects player privacy, said operations manager Adrian Anderson. Maybe so – and that is a noble aim – but it presumably means that it is possible that a player may be out on the field under the influence of an illegal substance without the opposition knowing.
For weeks at a time if all they’re required to do at strikes one and two is get checked by a doctor and talk to a counsellor.
“It is incredibly frustrating – the position they’ve [Hawthorn] found themselves in, but at the end of the day the primary focus has got to be on the player and this policy would not exist were it not for the confidentiality and that principle must be preserved at all costs,” Anderson told the ABC on September 1 last year.
Hawthorn club president Jeff Kennett reckoned that clubs should know from the first test about any player under its payroll.
True, Toure is not alleged to have ingested anything illicit – perhaps no more than a poorly-ordered chemist treatment. But at least Manchester City instantly pulled the pin – as required under the competition’s regulations – on Toure’s on-field appearances until things are sorted out.
They’ve reacted properly, and with appropriate speed – something that AFL fans still don’t see happen in local drug cases.
If the B sample option is taken by Toure and turns up a negative result, then that’s the end of the matter, said the Daily Mail‘s Ian Ladyman and Matt Lawton.
But if it comes back with a plus sign, then it could result in a ban from the sport of up to four years.
Most other international sportsmen and women don’t get three chances. They get one. Should that one strike – including an automatic player suspension – be enough in the AFL, too?
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Actually, the AFL season (and it's only this year) is 24 weeks if one includes the two byes. Clubs will still play 22 games this year. I think it's a silly, and incredibly uninformed, article, but on on this point, I think the lack of research is forgivable. If someone gets suspended for 18 weeks, they will miss all but four games, which is almost the entire season (not every club plays finals.)
Dean
Guest
The Author makes a fair point but needs a little more research. 12 week ban + 6 week ban = 18 weeks. The AFL season is 24 weeks and another 4 for finals.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Except you don't understand it. If you did, you would understand that it is indeed highly effective (the goal is rehabilitation), and that it's irrelevant whether the police and magistrates follow it.
ItsCalledFootball
Roar Guru
It doesn't take much intelligence to understand the AFL 3 Strikes Drug Policy. It takes a bit more intelligence to understand how the AFL use it to their advantage.
MyLeftFoot
Roar Guru
No need to narrow it down to the FFA, the charge can be made of soccer all over the world - no one is doing anything that comes close to what the AFL is doing, soccer is miles behind.
MyLeftFoot
Roar Guru
Someone else commenting on a policy that he actually knows nothing about.
OzFootballSherrin
Roar Pro
ICF - re 'high profile drug cheats' clearly the answer to your assertion is a pretty obvious NO. The AFL 3 strike illicit drugs is NOT about drug cheats - - that's what the WADA testing (administered by ASADA) is all about. Do you even know what we are talking about? or are you just throwing stones helter skelter? Please take a leaf from the article author who has allowed himself to be educated about the topic rather than just being mindlessly anti AFL. btw - the AFL additional testing is commissioned by the AFL to a single company, Dorevich pathology. When the AFL annually releases the higher level results - were the AFL fudging figures then Dorevich would be able to assert otherwise. The NRL by comparison DOES NOT release any information, and each club is able to individually commission testing, so, not even the NRL as a ruling body really oversees it. And the FFA......don't have such a policy.
DB
Guest
So how is FFA 'additional' testing going?
ItsCalledFootball
Roar Guru
The 'additional" testing by the AFL is commissioned by the AFL and the results are kept and published by the AFL. Conflict of interest and hardly un-biased is it - its just a smokescreen to protect high profile AFL drug cheats from the media. Luckily the police and magistrates don't have to follow the AFL's drug policy and it proves time and time again that the AFL policy is ineffective.
OzFootballSherrin
Roar Pro
It's a pleasure. Hopefully this is a function this website can serve well with. btw - the Aust Drug Foundation, whilst helping the AFL develop it's policy, and being a staunch supporter of the AFL regarding it, the ADF DID also bake the AFL over it's alcohol policies/attitudes. I'm pointing this out to illustrate that the ADF were fully independant and not playing favourites with the AFL. Even now, the ADF, who pushed the 'Goodsports' program, has suggested that the 'Aust footy' culture is changing on this front - but, driven MORE from grass roots than the AFL top down. Another aspect of the whole illicit drugs code - is the demographic of the people 'striking out'. It's easy for people to picture that likes of Ben Cousins, however, with the prevalance of cannabinoids (typically indicative of marijuana) - it's important to remember where over 10% of the AFL player lists come from......the indigenous community. Now, this is no sweeping claim here - but, there's a program that got kicked off around 10 years back, the Clontarf Indigenous Academy to encourage kids to school/attendance etc via footy. From a recent article by Martin Flanagan (the Age) : "Former Fremantle coach Gerard Neesham set up the Clontarf Foundation, which uses football to attract Aboriginal kids to school, and has supplied a ready flow of nominees for the AFL national draft. Neesham says the average 16-year-old Clontarf deals with has the lifestyle of a 26-year-old in relation to making choices about sex, drugs, cars and crime, the emotional maturity of a 11-year-old and less literacy then his grandparents. That's one aspect of the reality AFL clubs are dealing with." In this context - a naming/shaming 1 strike illicit drugs policy looks like using a sledgehammer for a task requiring a precision toothpick.
MyLeftFoot
Roar Guru
amazonfan very true. I don't care if people want to write an intelligent critique of a particular policy - as long as they display an undersanding of what the policy is in the first place!
OFS thank you! A very informative and interesting answer. (And far better than saying "your a mug who doesn't know what he is talking about.") :)
amazonfan
Roar Guru
"The other important point is that the Players’ Association had to agree to this testing (which explains why FIFA doesn’t do it, and will not do it in the foreseeable future)." Fussball and the like may regard it as soft, but whether that is true or not (and I disagree with that assertion BTW), the players were not legally obligated to agree to any policy. That to me is the essence of it. What Aussie Rules haters fail (either deliberately or not) to understand is that the players were not legally obligated to agree to the policy. Whether In fact, Tim Lane has written numerous articles criticising the AFLPA for agreeing to the policy in the first place (as he thinks it is an invasion of privacy which future generations of players will continue to be affected by.)
OzFootballSherrin
Roar Pro
GrantS - it's a really good question re Travis Tuck - - because, whilst the policy had a number of guys on 2 strikes, the longer it went without anyone incurring a 3rd strike - then that was a measure of success. Tuck is interesting for more reasons though, because, his dad, the AFL games record holder is a legend of the Hawthorn footy club. His older brother Shane Tuck was NOT picked up by Hawthorn, and has forged a solid career at Richmond. There was much supporter pressure on the Hawks for NOT having pick up the first son of a legend. So, Travis Tuck comes along, and Hawthorn make sure they get their man this time.......and for Travis, he's got all that 'son of a legend' pressure. Different circumstances and different personalities handle it in a variety of ways. Look at Geelong where Nathan Ablett was reluctant, then retired way too early with a premiership medallion and now is having a crack on the Gold Coast where Gary Jnr has 'escaped to' as well. So, I dunno just what the club could or should've done, other than perhaps trade him to another club!! The club doctors know and they are probably better placed than the club president to manage the player. If there's nothing perceptable in other areas of the players performance, then, how is it the concern of the footy coaches or president?? If the player in question has not felt comfortable to confide in family, or friends or employers......is it appropriate to force that? when it's the normal domain of confidential medical care? That there's no such thing as a perfect solution in this area is clear. Drugs both legal and illegal is a major issue and it's not all black and white. I'm no expert but I prefer to defer to the experts in the field. If you look back at how this story evolved, back during the 2006-2007 time frame and lead into the 2007 elections, the Howard Govt tried to make a political football of the AFL. Senator Christopher Pyne, George Brandis and John Howard in particular chimed in, with policy written effectively on a napkin, and Howard getting exposed on 3AW radio for not comprehending that the AFL WAS WADA compliant as well as having the additional illicit drugs code. Back during this time of ignorant politickng, there was an open letter paid for and published in the Age by 21 or so experts in the field who openly backed the AFL's code and position and urged the AFL to resist populist pressures. These same people are very much opposed to the 'zero tolerance' and public outing ideals that J.Howard was pushing (which may be fine for drug cheats with performance enhancing drugs, but, given that Howard had a severe case of confusion - - it's doubtful that his policy was that well thought out to distinguish.) For me then, I keep thinking back to this, and unless I see these people turn around and change their mind, then, I'm willing to trust that the policy is worth sticking by in the long term. The main measure of success so far has been that even with a more than trebling of tests, better knowledge of who and when to test and a broader range of drugs tested for, that the 'strike rate' has fallen from over 4% to 0.89%. As they say, it's still too many - - but, the trending is all in the right direction.
UK Steve
Guest
If I knew I was going to fail a drugs test, I probably wouldn't turn up either. Ferdinand is obviously smarter than he looks.
MyLeftFoot
Roar Guru
Ozfootballsherrin it is indeed tiresome, I've apologised to Ben for having a go at him (the comment is awaiting moderation for some strange reason), but I share your frustration that people seem to struggle to come to grips with the fact that the AFL have an extended policy the goes well beyond the minimum WADA requirements (a feature now shared with League, Cricket and the AIS). The AFL was the leader in this respect, miles ahead of every other sport on Earth. Our frustration is exacerbated by the same old names arguing the same wrong point repeatedly - one in particular who is constantly trying to make that he is some intellectual giant, then comes on here and has trouble grasping the fundamentals.
OK a question! If our drugs policy is so good how can situations like what happened with Travis Tuck arise. This would have to be a first in that I actually agree with what Kennett said. Why wasn't the club informed and how can we expect any policy to be successful if all the people involved aren't "in the know."?
MyLeftFoot
Roar Guru
Ben Sorry for going in hard, I actually should be really getting stuck into professional journalists that keep getting it wrong time after time. As Ozfootballsherrin points out above the decaying Howard Government tried to make it a political issue on the eve of the election, and to a man, they too made fools of themselves in not understanding that the policy is additional to the basic WADA requiremnets. Also, AFL haters regularly take up the issue to vent their spleen about the AFL, but the obvious respsone is: well, if you feel strongly about it - get your sport to conduct out of competition testing of recreational drugs. The other important point is that the Players' Association had to agree to this testing (which explains why FIFA doesn't do it, and will not do it in the foreseeable future). The quid pro quo with the Players' Assoc is that it be treated as a health issue, and that's the way the policy works, to assist players get over it rather than be thrown immediately on the scrap heap. The first strike is a matter between club doctor and the player, not even the club knows - and for the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with that. Anyone who does have a problem, should immediately volunteer himself and all of his workmates to out of work hours drug testing - see how popular you'd be then.
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Hi MLF - thanks for Grant, too, for the extra input. Thanks for elaborating MLF. I usually don't have any intention to be embarrassing (either to myself or anyone else). If it turns out that, via constructive comment, my post has been deficient in a factual manner then thanks for pointing it out, and it's worth noting for future reference. I do acknowledge that there are perhaps more mixed feelings about how public each sport should be about the person(s) undergoing testing at any particular time. Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to let me know what you think. Hopefully it makes me a better writer! :-)
OzFootballSherrin
Roar Pro
GrantS - do you understand the difference between drug cheats (WADA testing) and the illicit drugs policy for the health related 'recreational' drug use?? 2 separate policies. The AFL has both, i.e. is fully WADA compliant plus the illicit policy.