It could’ve thrown its own players under the bus at a time when they need support rather than uneducated judgement.
Thankfully, though, the AFL didn’t name the six players their illicit drugs policy caught in 2010.
All they released were numbers and data, despite the critics who still maintain the “name and shame” route would be more appropriate.
Yesterday, my Roar colleague Adrian Musolino described the AFL’s policy as “a farcical PR front” and called on the league do adopt a name and shame stance.
I couldn’t help but respectfully disagree with this argument, firstly because of the negative impact on players a name and shame approach would have but primarily because the AFL illicit drug policy would appear to be the antithesis of a PR front.
It must be remembered that most sports in Australia, and indeed the world, do not test for illicit drugs out of competition at all.
The two other sports here that do – rugby league and cricket – do not publish testing results. As a result, these sports manage to avoid the kind of criticism the AFL sets itself up for every year by revealing its results.
These sports avoid headlines like the one that appeared on the back page of yesterday’s Herald Sun, which screamed “Drug Alarm” in big letters.
If the AFL were truly concerned about public relations above all else, they would not subject themselves to this kind of negative attention on an annual basis. In fact, if that was their chief concern, it would be easier not to test at all.
There are unfortunately many misunderstandings when it comes to this issue and it’s worrying that after six years some still fail to grasp two of the most important distinctions that simply must be made when assessing the AFL’s policy. Too often critics fail to properly distinguish between illicit drugs and performance-enhancing drugs, as well as out of competition testing and in-competition testing.
In the case of performance-enhancing drugs or use of drugs in-competition (before or during a game), if a player was caught there would be major repercussions, as there should be. Most likely he’d be kicked out of the game for a period of years.
However, the AFL’s three strikes policy applies to those found to have used illicit drugs – drugs that are not performance enhancing – out of competition. It’s important to make these two distinctions because there’s such a massive difference between the two alternatives. Use of performance-enhancing drugs is cheating, pure and simple.
Thus, it was disappointing that Adrian chose to write that the AFL’s handling of the issue is “no different” to the UCI’s involvement in Lance Armstrong’s alleged (performance-enhancing) drug taking. There was in fact one very important difference between the two cases.
The AFL have chosen to adopt an illicit drug policy that places player welfare as its number one priority, which is exactly how it should be.
They could do as other sports do an bury their heads in the sand – then we wouldn’t be talking about this at all.
They could choose not to go public with the testing results – then either we wouldn’t be talking about this, or people would still have a go at them for not being transparent.
But the AFL have instead chosen (with the support of medical experts) to stick by their policy and, believe it or not, it has worked. The number of positive tests has dropped ten-fold – yes, ten-fold – since the policy’s introduction in 2005, despite three and a half times the number of tests as back then.
Now, even Major League Baseball and the NFL are reportedly looking to the AFL for guidance on this issue.
Sure, the AFL’s policy sets the league up as an easy target. But the alternatives – name and shame, doing nothing – simply don’t compare.
Hopefully one day the league will get the credit it deserves for the stance it has adopted.
I'm surprised that so many people can't see that it is an invasion of privacy and outside the rights of anyone except members of the police force. We have laws in this country and these have been fought for, through many wars and conflicts, yet some people think they can change them to suit themselves. We are not talking about whether taking drugs is right or wrong here, we are talking about whether a corporate body has the right to take it upon themselves to test for "party" drugs. The answer is, quite clearly, they do not.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Yes, but unfortunately a few remain who can't help mixing up completely different concepts. If anyone out there is truly concerned about illicit drugs in sport, the place to start is with the majority of sports through out the world doing nothing - encourage them to catch up with the AFL on this front.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Xman is right. Furthermore, unlike you, the players signed onto a policy they were not legally obligated to sign on. Unless you get drug tested outside of work, and unless you volunteer to do so even though you aren't legally obligated to do so, you can't compare your work place to that of the AFL. If anything, it's your workplace that is soft.
woodsman
Guest
m'kay..
ManInBlack
Guest
It's good to see the message slowly creeping through, or, at least, more voices in echoing the reality rather than echoing a communal ignorance. It's been slow going on theRoar, but, as the iceberg melts up in the sunshine, gradually there's less and less volume of ice stuck below the surface (isostatic equilibrium).
Dingo
Guest
Excellent article and hopefully for some a bit of an educational piece also. Most of the negative comments are from people who can only post negative comments about the AFL. The AFL have clearly got the best drug testing policy in sport, maybe not perfect, but of all the options spruiked by those with an alternative, it is far and away the best. They have copped a barrage of criticism from all directions since they implemented the policy and now they are proving the naysayers wrong....................again.
Xman
Guest
That's a separate policy and yes the results are released as the events occur and the penalties are severe.
gazz
Roar Pro
Do they release results for the performance-enhancing drugs? Or have I missed something???
Xman
Guest
AFL players are also tested at their work place. If they are caught with illicit substances in their system they are banned and named without question under the WADA policy. But do you also get tested at home or on holiday? AFL players do. The AFL's illicit drugs policy is far tougher than any sporting or work place drugs policy that I know of.
Xman
Guest
WADA couldn't care less about illicit drug use unless it's on game day. Just ask Michael Phelps. You really have no idea. Almost every sport in the world employ WADA policy only and a therefore far less interested in ensuring their players are not taking illicit drugs than the AFL.
dasilva
Guest
I'm of the opinion that any out of competition testing is a down right strict procedure and I'm absolutely surprised that the AFLPA actually supported it. Even occupation that requires drug testing such as engineers, pilots, truck drivers etc to either protect the society or protect co workers because it will be a safety risk for employees to be under the influence don't test for illicit drugs outside work. All the testing occurs at work. As long as they do their job properly during working hours, it's not the employers business what they do during their private hours. I'll also add that occupation such as doctors aren't drug tested at work even though practicising medicine when under the influence is a sacking offence. What the AFL is doing goes way beyond what other occupation does and I see no good reason why players should be tested outside work. I see the AFLPA selling out their players by accepting such conditions. If any other workplace tried to implement what AFL does in terms of drug testing, I can guaranteed that the respective workers union would complain loudly. Is there any good reasons why sport people should be singled out for drug used? Why don't we random drug test any member of parliament outside work as well. They are public figures. We expect high amounts of moral standards from them. They influence society and we look to them as leaders (especially during a crisis). They have a strong influence to where the society is heading. Shouldn't we have a safeguard to ensure that they don't break the laws and do drugs?
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Choppy, you do realise the AFL is WADA compliant, right? You also realise the three strikes policy is separate to what WADA does and deals with a different area (illicit drug testing out of competition)?
dasilva
Guest
You do know Tom that if an AFL player test positive AT WORK (eg. during seasons) then there would be serious repercussion. I think there's a zero tolerance for people who turn up to work under the influence of drugs like any other profession This 3 strike policy only counts outside competition. Which brings an interesting question. What business does an employer have in getting people to have drug test for recreational drug outside work? Isn't what citizens do outside their job an issue between them and the police rather then them and their boss. If citizens do drugs, it's the job of the police to catch them not the job of the employer to find out what they do outside work. It's a huge invasion of privacy.
Tom
Guest
My work places does random alcohol and drug testing. I would lose my job instantly if caught. 3 strikes policy is hopeless and the non naming of players is just sweeping the problem under the carpet. Wake up afl. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Swampy
Guest
It's all good on the policy front. What's not good is the three strikes and you apologize pollicy on Swanny's sense of humor. Realy the AFL is a little too precious sometimes.
clipper
Guest
Choppy - which sports body do you think has a better and/or fairer policy? Not that it's perfect or can't be improved. This policy is in addition to societal policies, which they are still bound by, so I don't know how you say it isn't even close to the same policies as the rest of society - after all I don't get woken up at 6am to do a drug test.
Redb
Roar Guru
very slowly :)
TomC
Guest
' ...as the rest of society faces for failing a drug test in society.' You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?
trent
Guest
Yeh good article. Good to see some expert debate on The Roar too!
Choppy
Guest
What a load of garbage ! They are doing something not only self harming but illegal. There are no 3 strikes policy on the roads if you fail a drug test so the AFL drug policy isn't even close to the same policy as the rest of society. Signatories of WADA don't publish results of negative test but there is immediate and decisive action against drug offenders (after the process is complete) as the rest of society faces for failing a drug test in society.