Nothing like a click bait headline two hours before the first game of the season! On the eve of AFL season 2016, News Corp published a piece that claimed 11 Collingwood players tested positive for illict drugs over the off-season.
This then forced Collingwood president Eddie McGuire to go on national TV, pour water on the dumpster fire handed to him and start off the mainstream news cycle.
Expect another 72 hours of drug talk and stones being thrown from glasshouses.
Now I totally understand the news value in this. Firstly, it’s Collingwood. The biggest, most polarising club in Australia, one who often brings the attention on themselves. Second, is recent history.
Collingwood duo Josh Thomas and Lachie Keeffe are currently serving bans for taking using illicit drugs (cocaine) that contained performance-enhancing drugs.
Thirdly, finally and most importantly, it’s just really embarrassing for the AFL. Just hours before the ball bounces on season 2016, the much-maligned drug policy is back in the public consciousness. Using Collingwood as the headline vehicle only makes the embarrassment greater, especially given what we examined above.
Mark Evans, AFL general manager of football operations, fronted the media this morning and basically downplayed the issue. Kicking the can down the road for another day. “This is the first year of the policy’s operation, and I ask that the new policy be given a chance to be in operation and measured for its impact before we demand new changes,” Evans said.
Fundamentally, we should all agree with Evans. The hair testing regime is in its infancy and needs more time, and a larger data sample, before sweeping changes are made. But in a media landscape where every armchair expert can throw fuel on the fire, snap judgments must be made. Collingwood must be chastised and the character of its players questioned.
The issue isn’t Collingwood, it’s the broader undertone. Let’s go over the headline from Thursday night again: Collingwood was in the top three clubs for players testing positive over the off-season. Collingwood aren’t the key point here, it’s the words “top three clubs”. As in, there are two bigger culprits than Collingwood.
Don’t feel sorry for Collingwood, they benefit from the overhyping media machine more than anyone. Heck, I’m doing just that with this article. But let’s not lose sight of the bigger issues. The ‘what’ and ‘why’ are much more important than the ‘who’ in this case.
And this circles into my biggest issue of all: does it matter that AFL players use illicit drugs? Does it matter that a quarter of three different clubs allegedly used illicit drugs during the off-season?
It all comes back to the age-old debate of athletes being a separate subset of society. Something Evans noted this morning: “The use of illicit drugs affects all sections of society, including AFL players, but testing results continue to indicate levels of use below the general public.”
We ask AFL players, and all athletes for that matter, to sacrifice so many aspects of everyday life to fulfil their dreams. No alcohol binges, no public embarrassments, nothing that upsets the applecart.
Don’t get me wrong, these boys are overcompensated for what they do. They live a charmed life, one that almost every Australian would take in a split second. I know I would. But we can’t forget that all footballers are humans first and athletes second, not the other way around.
Everyone needs a vice, a distraction from everyday life, regardless of how successful they are.
We take away almost every vice from AFL footballers and expect them to be perfect 24/7, 365 days a year. This is too high a standard for any group of people, let alone a group of highly strung 20-somethings that are often ill equipped to handle their career choice. Ill equipped in terms of mental skills, not physical makeup.
AFL footballers aren’t Rhode Scholars, they are young men who in many cases put education second to pursue athletic careers.
All I’m saying is that a rush to judgment is a step too far. I’m no doctor, psychiatrist or industry expert but it seems normal that footy players would let their hair down during the off-season. The one period every year in which they can take a holiday and act like normal people. Once again the human inclination.
In my 25 years of life, I’ve never had a drugs phase, but that isn’t to big note myself. A combination of previous family tragedies and a general lack of interest kept me away. But I still made mistakes; it’s just that I had other vices.
I had alcohol, I had junk food that I could binge on and I had the ability to escape real life for Europe any time I wanted. I could go out on a Saturday night, make a mess of myself and worry about the consequence when I awoke. Professional athletes don’t have this ability.
The rush to judgment is too much. Take this tweet from journalist Stephen Quartermain for example:
Why is it beyond you, Stephen? Illicit drugs are bad, we all know that, but they are commonplace in almost every 2016 social scene.
Now I like Quartermain. He was good on TV and I still bust out the AFL media app every weekend to catch his thoughts from halfway across the country. And to be fair, he is just one of many who feel this way. But I feel this standard is too high.
It doesn’t impact me one iota if the entire Collingwood list used illicit drugs over the break, but I’m near certain my thoughts represent the minority.
The public relations disaster of such an image cannot be underestimated. I appreciate sporting leagues like the AFL must be seen as change drivers, not facilitators of behaviour many society leaders question.
But the real focus should be on ensuring athletes are mentally equipped to deal with the 21st century limelight, not whether they occasionally slip back into real life and succumb to common vices.
Institutional support, not snap judgments and widespread criticism.
Daryl Adair
Guest
More Australians die from prescription drug abuse than illicit drug abuse. Seems amazing, but there you go. And I haven't even got onto alcohol.
Daryl Adair
Guest
Sigh. The players have volunteered to be tested. There is no requirement. It is part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which the players could walk away from if they chose. Very few sports even bother to test players. AFL/NRL are the only leagues in Oz that routinely test for illicit drugs out of competition. Yet get smashed by media for doing so. As to the law, what you claim seems logical. However, I asked the drug squad about this. The info is not evidence of a crime. Police themselves need to show use. Obviously they don't condone illicit drug use, but they are basically uninterested in workplace drug testing as 'evidence' of crime.
Daryl Adair
Guest
Most people have no idea that the AFL policy is basically the same as the EPL policy. So in order to be consistent, the same argument would appear to apply there?
paulywalnuts
Guest
Agree with the general sentiment. People are always going to take illicit drugs, despite the bleatings of the 'just say no' crowd. If this also includes professional footballers I couldn't care less.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Settle. Mostly it's a bit of tongue in cheek, but if you look at the parallels of fascism (powerful state capable of mobilising its people to serve on the front lines and providing logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens) and modern day AFL clubs there are plenty of similarities. There are lots of things that may have a negative effects (driving, living in the city, living in the country, living, drinking alcohol), but clubs allow the players to be adults and let them make informed choices on that (mostly because clubs probably feel they couldn't get away keeping players cosseted away in a hermetically sealed camp to be wheeled out for training sessions and game day). Now you may offer the legal/illegal argument, but really that's an arbitrary ruling and as I say above really best left to the relevant authorities tasked to police such laws. As for allowing clubs to have immediate and indiscriminate information. The main problem with that (other than clubs treating them more and more like assets to be safeguarded rather than people) is that there is such a wide variety of opinions different clubs have to treat this issue, from being a player welfare issue, to a moral issue, to one of outright reactionary fear and loathing. So any one player is likely to face a wide variety of treatment, from punishment, to support, depending on the club, for what is an issue that is essentially happening outside of the workplace parameters. If it does impact the workplace then there are existing measures in place to deal with that already. If the clubs feel there are best place to deal with it, what's wrong with them setting up an environment and systems where players can feel open enough to disclose what they might be up to and get support to better resist temptation?
Liam O'Neill
Guest
Why does the term illicit have to be used;there are several legal drugs that can do plenty of damage even if authorized, or is the problem only the illegal ones.How many of our Holier Than Thous'have driven home from an event when they shouldn't be on the road?I guess to them I've really missed the point
anon
Guest
When you choose to play in the AFL, you give up certain things. You give up privacy, you have to abide by your employers drug code, you can't do things on a whim like others your age. In return, if they can break into the senior side they'll on average be in their early 20's making $250k plus per year, enjoy the benefits of low level celebrity, play an exciting game for a living. Australia though has one of the highest rates of illicit drug use in the world. I'm all for personal choice and have no real issue with drug use, but I personally have no interest in drugs and I think our high rates of illicit drug use are symptomatic of a general 'sadness' in Australian society. These guys are willing to sacrifice their AFL careers simply to get wiped out on a Saturday night?
northerner
Guest
I'd be concerned about a couple of things with off-season drug taking, and a couple of things only. First, are the drugs "party drugs" or are they PEDs which will give the player a chance to get ahead of the curve on training in the off-season? If the latter, you're looking at WADA sanctions, no ifs ands or buts. However, if they're party drugs like pot or ecstasy or coke, my major concern would be whether they're going to affect the player's physical condition when he actually gets down to doing his job on the field. I have, in my time, known a few bingers on coke, and they were not the epitome of physical perfection. In season, for that reason alone I'd say it would be entirely appropriate for clubs to prohibit drug use of any kind and sanction players that transgress. And I'd have to ask, exactly what kind of professional athlete thinks it makes sense to take drugs or drink heavily in the first place. Off season, I'm not so sure. If the player wants to take his chances with the cops, and with public humiliation if caught, maybe that's the price of being an adult.
mariachi band fan
Guest
I'm with Allanthus above - your article is full of contradictions. I reckon if you'dwrittenm 2 more paragraphs you'd havecome to a different conclusion. We ask AFL players, and all athletes for that matter, to sacrifice so many aspects of everyday life to fulfil their dreams. No alcohol binges, no public embarrassments, nothing that upsets the applecart. Don’t get me wrong, these boys are overcompensated for what they do. They live a charmed life, one that almost every Australian would take in a split second. I know I would." " I know I would." - I assume from this acknowledgement that you'd also take on the gig knowing that you can't snort coke, drop pills, shoot heroin etc without risking being rubbed out of the gig you'd love so much?
Jamie Radford
Roar Pro
It would be a police issue only if they were caught, but my point is it's not too much to ask a highly paid employee not to break the law. My other point was not so much how much any drugs may effect any individual's health, more so the risk of 12 months suspension and how it would affect the side. And I'm hardly sitting on a moral high horse here Mr F. Each to their own I say as long as it doesn't affect others, but when there are consequences that are more wide spread than the individual concerned it is another matter. I'll also add that two of my good friends from high school are dead because of illicit drugs - one from suicide and one from an overdose, and my own brother was almost lost to us at 16 because of a heroin addiction. So even if I do come across a bit strong on this subject I make no apologies for it.
Geoff Parkes
Expert
Ridiculous comment. You say yourself above... "isn’t it a bit arbitrary to make that call on what might affect their ability to give to the team?", i.e. agreeing that you don't know how and if drug taking affects a player's contribution. Given that there's a possibility that any effect may be negative, how can you say that it's not reasonable for an AFL club to know what their players are using? They're entitled to contract players who conform to both their standards and the AFL rules. Even if you argue that those standards are wrong, that's a different argument.
saywhatayoyo
Roar Rookie
Expect the usual pious outpourings from the 'My s_it don't stink crowd'. This is not a moral issue it is a policy issue. Everybody from the pope down breaks the law. It's just the frequency and severity that differ. These blokes are in the same position as everybody else who is over 18yrs of age. They have to take responsibility for the consequences of the decisions they make. They are highly educated on the matter and possible ramifications of illicit drug use. If they choose to run the gauntlet and are caught then it's time to pay the piper. The AFL need to get serious and implement a black and white policy of real penalties for offenses ie. 1year ban for 1st offense, life for 2nd offense. But they won't! The AFL will continue to waffle crap about this issue and call it chocolate. Because if they did implement serious penalties for offenses possibly 25% of all 18 clubs playing lists would be banned for a significant period of time. The loss of revenue this would engender is the driving narrative of the AFL illicit drugs policy not what is right or wrong or proper. No pain no gain is a popular adage and in this case it is apt. Initially a hard stance would indeed result in many players being banned for a time however I don't think it would be catastrophic. The sky would not fall but it would be gloomy for a while but in the long run I think our game would be so much better for it. And if you still feel the need to express your moral outrage have a go at the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. All are legal and have the distinction of coursing more deaths, disharmony and physical, mental, spiritual and moral destitution than any use or abuse of any illicit substance. And don't get me started on polibloodyticians.
marron
Guest
Not really overblown though is it. Haven't seen much on it at all, barely any comment here and a lot of that saying it's overblown.
Beny Iniesta
Guest
You're comparison with Maria Sharapova makes no sense. Sharapova will be banned for using a performance enhancing drug? What on earth has that got to do with the 11Collingwood players? Absolutely nothing, so why bring it up?
Beny Iniesta
Guest
It's a good thing you're not worried about the rampant drug use in the medical community! It's not like doctors and surgeons perform important jobs that impact on other people is it! Wowsers, with your attitude we'd have to ban 30% of medical practitioners tomorrow!
Don
Roar Rookie
It's more of an employer standards versus employee conduct issue. However, considering the "optics" of illicit drug use among players, I am surprised the AFL have not been able to negotiate with the AFLPA to have a standard clause in all player contracts about some more serious sanctions for players testing positive even the first time. I'm not saying throw them out but after one breech name them and suspend them. After all, it is against the law to use or possess a drug of dependence as it is trafficing or cultivation of those substances. So at some stage in acquiring and taking the substance they have broken the law. From a policing point of view, a small quantity if found would likely result in a warning rather than any penalty and conviction.
m hughes
Guest
I totally agree the afl drugs policy is an absolute joke the veil of secrecy is appalling the players are educated on the pitfalls of all drugs they have to be responsible for what they take. The so called experts who use the term recreational or party drugs are so out of touch if one of their children or relative was affected their opinion would change in a heartbeat. This is not a code war issue but the nrl policy is so more advanced than the afl's they punish from the outset not sweep it under the carpet and protect the players identity. As supposed rolle models of the game this whole policy sends the wrong message full stop.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
DC It would appear to be a matter for the self-annointed moral police!
Mister Football
Roar Guru
If it's a matter of breaking the law, then it becomes a police matter (do police still act on anyone smoking a bong?) If you want to treat it more as a health issue, then that requires a different approach again. These hair sample tests, which I understand to be a trial, were taken during the players' time off - so it's not a footballing issue as such. On top of that, the trial can only happen with the consent of the players, and clearly they would only have given their consent on the basis of full confidentiality.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
I think Mussolini really missed a trick, if only he'd been born a 100 years later he would be perfectly placed as an AFL club's CEO or president.