Positive drug tests on the rise in AFL

You've got yourself confused. 1st the Aust Sports Commission adopted a 3 strikes policy for the AIS so don't give us the no credible sports line. 2nd the AFL testing is for illicit drugs so why are you going on about PEDS? The AFL are the biggest spender for the ASADA user pays testing so it's ASADA testing that's caught no one. 3rd what we have learned this year is that ASADA testing doesn't catch people. Shame that. And yet some big sports in Aust still claim to be clean based entirely on that.

The sporting bodies who allow their employees a "strike" for having been caught taking an illegal substance are displaying the same moral bankruptcy as the Catholic Church has/does with the non-reporting of kiddy fiddling priests and brothers. If a player gets caught taking a recreational illegal drug or writes themselves off and behaves badly drinking alcohol they should be sanctioned by their club and code for reducing their playing efficiency, increasing the burdens on their fellow players and club managements and bringing the code into disrepute. Regardless of the code these blokes are well remunerated and are held up as good examples. If they err they should be punished financially and with playing bans for a period at least. Where it's an illegal drug they should be required to provide information to the police regarding their suppliers. Counseling and molly coddling are all very well but nobody makes 'em take drugs or drink alcohol to excess.

Ok, cheers

No govt has ever been able to win the war on drugs. Drugs are a major problem in society. Therefore why do people get so fired up at the AFL? Are they expected to guarantee a nil result. Players, like any young people will do the wrong thing regardless of the fortunate position they find themselves in. A nil result would be great but it is sadly unrealistic. The problem I have is with self reporting and 3 strikes. I may have read that this has been changed to one strike but I am not sure - so don't jump on me. Like anything, if the bans were longer or harsher, then I have no doubt this would have a greater impact. Anyway, I am just very surprised that people are quick to judge the AFL negatively every time they say something.

@Blind Bomber. Fact 1 : the AFL is WADA compliant and ASADA runs over 1,000 expensive tests annually....and those delivered the AFL a clean bill of health. Note 2009/10 as an eg. ASADA conducted 3829 govt funded tests over 56 sports and 2777 tests for 'user pays' such as AFL, ARU, NRL, FFA & CA. This is from there annual report. They stated that the AFL had over 1000 (of the 2777) tests inc for HGH and CERA-EPO for the first time in a user pays contract in Aust....from March 2010 and started immediately in the 2009/10 cycle. The NRL followed suit. For all that look where ASADA testing got everyone. Note too that the ARU do not have testing as a part of the educational illicit drug policy (available on their website). The ARU rely fully on ASADA testing.....no prizes for guessing that they appaer clean too. Fact 2 : almost 2,000 tests under the AFL illicit policy is that many more than the ARU. And on the 2009/10 ASADA numbers if we remove the AFL 1,000+ tests that leaves the other 4 major user pay sports to share up less than 1,777 tests avg below 450 each code. But hey...it costs lots and unlike cycling isn't govt funded. Fact 3 : AFL illicit policy is NOT a punitive one; it has a different testing focus to WADA tests and a player health focus on outcomes. You clearly disagree but that is what it is. Now the way I see it is the AFL got 26 strikes for its investment in 1979 tests in its own policy while presumably the min of 1,000 ASADA tests last year gave a clean bill of health. In Feb we saw the codes + ACC + ASADA at the presso proving that a clean bill of health from the testing was worth nothing. So you come along and attack the AFL. Let us know your stance on the ARU who do no extra testing and rely on ineffe tusl ASADA testing. Or your stance on CA, or the NRL - both of whom have 2 strike policies but tell us nothing about the operations or results. NRL supposedly have 70 per side (1120) annually. A report early July last year referred to only 255 test to that point for the season....only left 865 to go. Did they get there??? Let alone it's all in house at the clubs - trust level?? Or your stance on the AIS who also run a 3 strkes policy. Based in no small part on the ground breaking AFL code. Given the ARU position there is irony that the English RFU in 2009 established their own code and cited the AFL and NRL as the best references. So forgive me for declaring your rant a tad off the mark. The AFL does not alone run an illicit drugs policy but we know more about it than others because unlike others the AFL reports. And as illustrated even the Aust Sports Commission adopted a similar policy for the AIS.

Classic. Denial, seems to be a river in Egypt.

It's confusing because it's messy and often ineffective. The players' association carries sufficient power that they have pushed the AFL outside of normal WADA guidelines. Self reporting is simply not a part of any WADA code. Can you imagine Usain Bolt standing on the blocks in the Olympics having 'self reported'? Three strikes is simply not accepted in any other (reputable) world sport. WADA do not agree with it. If anyone argues it's for the welfare of the players, I'd simply point them to the *fact* that is is easily abused. Players like Ben Cousins played as an ICE addict, only quitting the game himself. He never tested positive, and is widely rumoured to have self-reported on a regular basis. The AFL is unable to even catch an ICE addict, one of the highest profile players in the game at the time. One player has been busted for performance enhancing drugs in the history of the game. When every other sport has Performance Enhancing Drugs throughout the sports, how is that AFL players are clean? Rather than suggest AFL players are some 'miraculously principlaled' individuals who refuse to use drugs, I would suggest it is a failure of the testing to catch them. Perfromance Enhancing Drugs are not tested out of season, only illicit drugs are. Vice versa, illicit drugs are not tested match day. Players are quarantined from reportable tests after their second strike until the doctor in charge of treatment decides therapy has been completed. With no mention of how long that might be, it is quite possible a player could undergo therapy for the season itself. That means he could feasibly use drugs the whole season. Even then, after being caught three times, the player faces a maximum of 18 games / one season suspension. Out of season testing in the AFL means only at training or on official club duties, which is unlikely to be 6am after a big night on the charlie at Boutique Nightclub is it? The likelihood of a player turning up to training or at a club function 'positive' could be expected to be low, kind of like optional breath testing at your own choice. Who would risk it? Out of season testing in the AFL (using hair samples) also does not trigger a strike if illicit drugs are found. making it There is a huge conflict of interest in the AFL's drug policy, and its plans for changes (band aids) are making it even worse. The same people tasked with trying to maximise revenues, sponsorships, etc. are also taking control of target testing. The AFL proposes now that the CEO's will select target testing - could you imagine if their best player tests positive, which CEO would select him and try to bust him?

Listen up. The AFL does not alone have a problem with illicit drugs. End of story.

It's funny all these people arguing about who is 'less worse', rugby league or AFL... Rehashing AFL press releases, blindly and unquestioningly, is sad too. There are 800 players in the AFL system, with the AFL recently confirming that they spent $850,000 on testing. Assuming one test would cost approx. $1,000 (salaries to administer, lab tests, etc.), that's not much more than 1 test per year. 'Target testing' by the AFL is their way of saying, if/once a player tests positive, we'll test him again. Not rocket science, but that means one less player is tested (we already know one takes drugs so testing him again doesn't prove much). On the $850,000 for 800 players, then target testing within that meaning the same players are tested (26 at last count) that means several players may not even be tested. Trim that down to the fact that they only test out of season for illicit drugs, and the inability to test for a wide range of drugs within the same test, it all gets very shaky. Don't ask questions, don't make up your own mind though. Just keep repeating Demetriou's comments until you believe it all...

With all due respect Callum, that's absolute rubbish. Typical of the AFL and its plethora of sycophantic and uneducated journo's and fanboys like Stavros, however. Assumptions but no facts doesn't prove a thing. The AFL operates outside of WADA (that's world standards in case anyone doesn't know) guidelines in many cases. Fact - in the AFL you can take illicit drugs and continue to play without any sanction. Self reporting is the acknowledged loophole. No other sport, well apart from powerlifting or TV wrestling perhaps, has these 'standards'. Test positive to Cocaine in cycling? 2 year ban. Fact - the AFL do not test out of season. They say they do, but does anyone know how they test players in Las Vegas on a footy trip? Unlike the 'Whereabouts' program that is required elsewhere in sports like athletics and cycling (athletes must complete a monthly schedule advising where they will be available for testing. If they miss that date, ie. are out, and the tester turns up then a positive test is recorded), the AFL has no method in place to require this out of season testing. More spin however, say it enough times, let the punters repeat it, and it becomes fact. Self-reporting is a convenient loophole, not a social lever. Footy players are *not* a normal part of society like the AFL pretend, when they hide behind the fact that drugs is present in normal society so therefore must be the same in the AFL. The average 25 year old does not get paid $300,000 a year, is not provided with substantial support and welfare, is not provided with benefits and elevated status everywhere he goes, is not constantly educated by his employer about everything from normal social behaviour to expectations of a professional athlete, then mollycoddled when he commits indiscretions. Demetriou's unsubstantiated and completely untested idea that the "AFL has saved two lives" with its drug policy is so laughable it hurts. 1,979 tests for illicit drugs in 2012? That means the 800 players in the AFL system are tested only twice a year, over the season plus 6 weeks of NAB cup that's once every 3-4 months (for a total of twice a year). Even assuming the testing were adequate (?!) the rate of positive tests going from 0.4% to 1.3% means a 350% increase. Read that again, a 350% increase in positive tests in one year. Whoah. The AFL is not doing any heavy lifting in drug testing in Oz, it is scrambling to protect its "brand", but really its revenues from gambling and other sponsors like alcohol. Essendon can continue to play on and on without any sanction, even if found guilty of using banned drugs what will the AFL do? Hand back the punters bets? Compensate the fans and other clubs? Not likely. The AFL is covering its behind, not doing anything for 'australian sport'. Even by your own poor standards, the AFL has a major problem on its hands. I'm not sure whether it's self denial or the drug use itself.

fishes, Please get your facts right! - Wendell Sailor is not relevant and the same result would occur in AFL. Where is the NRL report on testing they perform out of competition? Can we see the results to compare for the good of mankind? ....waiting in anticipation.

there it is.

1. It's two tests in the NRL. 2. Wendell Sailor was playing Rugby Union at the time, not Rugby League. 3. Wendell Sailor tested positive to an ASADA test and not an ARU administered test. Any player who tests positive to an ASADA test is automatically banned. If they test positive to an NRL/AFL/FFA/ARU/CA/etc administered test then they can get warnings or "strikes" with the number of strikes determined by the respective code.

in the nrl one positive test and players are banned for 2 years, see wendell sailor. the afl 3 strikes rule is very soft, and the ceo comes out and says there is no problem, i wouldn't call it 'heavy lifting'

Yep confuses some, the dumber ones choose to misintepret.