It was as esteemed and learned a panel of rugby league people as had ever been assembled. There were famous coaches, commentators, players, journalists. Men like Ray Warren, Wayne Bennett, Ian Heads and Roy Masters.
And over coffee and friands, they knocked the topic back and forth: who should be the eighth Immortal?
Fine cases were made for Norm Provan and Mal Meninga, both truly worthy. Great players, great leaders, great men.
Yet the general consensus was that Newcastle Knights halfback Andrew ‘Joey’ Johns was on another level again. The man was a freak, could win games with hands and heart and flashy feet. He won grand finals, Origins, Tests. Surely it would be our Holy Joseph who would enter the prestigious pantheon.
Yet one man didn’t agree.
Johnny ‘Chook’ Raper – Dragons champion, old boy, Immortal – had a one-word argument against Johns’s elevation. And when Johns’s name came up, Raper repeated his opposition using that one word.
“Drugs.”
According to Raper, Johns’ arrest in London for possessing an ecstasy tablet and subsequent mea culpa on television – in which he admitted to consuming ecstasy and other ‘party’ drugs throughout his brilliant career – should disqualify the former Knight from joining league’s hall of fame.
But the judges knew that Immortals aren’t judged on what they’ve done off the field. A man’s character is not a precondition, his off-field exploits are not counted among criteria. Johns could’ve injected all the heroin in Newcastle – or been the city’s beloved Lord Mayor – and it would not have mattered.
The panel could judge the player only on his play. And Raper knew that too, and was perhaps wanting his opposition noted, or unable to discern between performance-enhancing drugs and those which enhance only a man’s perception of his prowess on the dance floor.
And here we are with news that South Sydney Rabbitohs centre Kirisome Auva’a has allegedly breached the NRL’s testing policy for illicit and hazardous substances a second time. And while it won’t affect Auva’a’s chances of being an Immortal (should he, you know, suddenly become incredibly good), he is looking at the prospect of a 12-match ban. If he contravenes again he could be out for two years.
The NRL’s Illicit and Hazardous Drugs Testing Policy is based on a “player welfare model”. That means that the reason players are tested for speed, ecstasy, ice, ketamine, cannabis, cocaine, opiates, and synthetic versions of those drugs, is because the NRL wants them to be healthy. And that’s fair enough. The league does have a duty of care.
But a ban? For doing something many Australians do every weekend? For something that’s so prevalent that it’s effectively decriminalised?
If a player is unlucky enough to test positive – via a third-party drug lab employed by NRL and independent of the clubs – within the 48 hours after he’s been raving on the pingers or hoovering up Colombia’s national product (or whatever) and it’s the first time he’s tested positive, he’s given counselling, a mandatory treatment program and “monitored”, which means further targeted testing. That’s strike one.
If the player tests positive again, it’s a 12-match ban. And it’s made public.
Auva’a hasn’t tested positive, but he’s “contravened the rules as set out in the NRL policy”. That’s how come we’ve heard about it. And now Auva’a is faced with the “prospect of contract termination” along with further treatment, counselling and targeted testing.
If he strikes three he’s good as gone. Probable two-year ban and a meeting with the CEO or Chief Operating Officer who’ll “determine the appropriate sanction”.
And Andrew Johns Kirisome Auva’a is not.
It seems the NRL wants a stick – being banned and publicly shamed – to go with a carrot – remaining in the NRL.
My question – and, granted, this may not be mainstream think – is why? Why ban the man? For sure some drugs are dangerous, and there should be all sorts of advice why you shouldn’t take them. The NRL does have a duty of care and player welfare is paramount. Who knows who’s cooking up the blasted things up or what’s in them? Say no to drugs, kids.
But if every industry tested their employees this Monday morning, and sacked those who turned up a positive, we’d be running the country on a skeleton staff. There’d be countless fewer plumbers, nurses, lawyers, boilermakers, chefs, librarians (maybe not librarians), accountants, couriers and – yes, hell yes – journalists. It’s endemic in our society. It’s what a lot of people do.
In the United Nation’s 2014 World Drug Report, Australians were rated the biggest consumers of ecstasy in the world. In the world! We’re number one! We’re fourth for cocaine. The reality of illicit drug-taking in Australia is that it’s so common as to be normal.
Yes! No! I know! It’s not a healthy thing to do! Drugs – and that includes alcohol and nicotine – are like an emotional credit card. They give and then they take away with interest. But why ban Auva’a for doing something Johns did, and that so many other Australians do every weekend with apparent impunity?
Sure, give him all the counselling and education and monitoring he can eat. Get in the man’s ear. Mentor him. But why ban him from playing? If it’s not affecting his play – his work – how much should an employer be able to delve into a citizen’s personal business?
People will argue that train drivers and pilots and plant operators are tested, and they can make that case. People will argue that illegal drugs are illegal, you idiot, and that’s just it. That’s why Auva’a should be banned. Rub him out for life!
But here’s a fact: a footy player taking an ecstasy tablet on a Saturday night – or even the popular and completely legal cocktail of sleeping potion Stillnox and caffeine drink Red Bull – is doing far less damage than a player knocking back a legal, even socially applauded, dozen schooners.
The relative harm illicit drugs do compared to that caused by alcohol – which isn’t on the banned list, isn’t tested for, is the drug of choice for millions of Australians – is chalk and cheese. Alcohol is by far the worst drug in Australia.
According to health journal WebMD, a study in 2010 undertaken by neuropharmacologist David Nutt of Imperial College London, rated 20 different drugs “on a scale that takes into account the various harms caused by a drug”. Drugs were rated on the harm they drug cause individuals and harm they cause greater society.
Alcohol topped the pops with a 72.
Next up was heroin (55), crack (54) and crystal meth (33). Ecstasy, the drug of choice for party people in the Sin City of Sydney, rated a 9. Alcohol – sponsor of this greatest game of all, rugby league – was rated three times as harmful as cocaine.
To be fair, I’m not completely sure of the solution, or if there even is one. And the NRL is doing its best.
Drugs, legal and illegal, are prevalent in Australian society. And over-consumption causes addiction, disfunction and death. But the illegal ones – those tested for by the NRL – are, according to experts, less harmful than the legal ones that sponsor rugby league.
Someone should assemble a learned panel to discuss it.
steveng
Roar Rookie
Johnny Raper and some of the other greats had their days also, but were not reprimanded as much as todays players, I and my Mrs had an incident with Johnny at a night spot decades ago (which I won't get into).. Todays players are under the microscope allot more and the media and people have means of exposing whatever they do much more.
Dizzle
Guest
You're making the assumption that they would be legalised in the same or a similar way, which nobody is advocating for. A sophisticated regulatory framework with accurate public health messages would unlikely increase use to such a huge degree that it would create the massive social costs that you say. The rate of smoking and its social costs have now substantially declined under a legalisation model since we have improved policy instead of advertising it like in the 40's - so you have essentially disproven your own argument about consumption under legalisation. Surely we would learn from our mistakes of the past? We won't be selling a massive array of branded cocaine and MDMA by the truckload at Dan Murphy's. Colorado actually had a decrease in cannabis use among young people and it was legalised rather liberally. Yes, I do believe occasional cocaine or MDMA use would often be healthier than how many people consume alcohol, it depends on many factors. Alcohol causes far more damage due to its associated harms. For example, you would be much more likely to trip over and sustain an injury when tipsy or drunk on alcohol, compared to MDMA or cocaine which make people more alert (I'm just using your drug examples here). Lets say I accept your argument on consumption to a degree and there is a moderate increase under my controlled access regime - this is still a weak measure of social impact because it ignores harms not directly related to consumption per se and all the negative impacts on society of prohibition (organised crime, policing costs, increase in black market drugs, etc). MDMA users cause almost no damage to society, which is not surprising considering its pharmacological profile. What accidents are you referring to? I would suggest taking this as a learning experience rather than trying to defeat me on this topic, because I will have you covered. Most of the things say sound smart, so I think you have the capacity to understand the shortfalls of your position. Join the side of progression mate, you're better than this.
Danno1
Guest
Well said hard yards, I'd only add one rider, and that is ALL staff involved in the sport are treated the same, from club managers through to support staff, through to player agents, through to administration staff. If players are tested and it is unacceptable, then ALL people in the supply chain of professional support should agree to be tested. Reminds me of my brother who represented an employer who demanded no drinking in work hours and drug testing for all frontline staff, they were horrified when the union came back and agreed, as long as ALL staff not just frontline had to abide by the same rules. Alas the marketing and legal types had to reduce their long lunches and the people who so righteously promoted the program got rather grumpy about the side effects.
Dave
Guest
Horse riding is roughly as harmful as taking MDMA, neither the UK government or anyone else has disproven Nutt so you're statements, who reference nobody are incorrect
Dave
Guest
When has David Nutt been debunked by anyone more reputable? References please
Don
Guest
One of the underlying points is obviously that the behaviour should not be illegal, for anyone. To simply say, they are the rules is narrow minded - the (stronger) counter-argument is that they should not be the rules considering the evidence, this is exactly the point being made. Furthermore, it is a private matter. If they are reducing performance, the club can sack the player, no need for the publicity. If someone then takes the angle that players who consume illegal drugs are poor role models for kids, this is also rather flimsy, because it would be irrelevant if people stayed out of that players business.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
It would depend on what ADADA and WADA take as being illegal substances. The NRL has signed with these organisations. Not saying what is right or wrong but this is the way the NRL has gone. If this is causing a concern then let the RLPA have the NRL drop their association with ASADA/WADA.
stu
Guest
Times have changed and I struggle sometimes to understand the pressures and influences on young people today. Players can't go out for a few beers because they get their photos taken and published. The alternative is they pop some pill and take the risk. Young guys will always want to have a good time when they are off work. Sure, some get paid big dollars, but for most, once they can't play, most come back to reality with the rest of us. I support testing the day of the game, but any other times, either test everyone or let them be. Imagine if Hollywood decided to test all their 'employees' randomly!
Don
Guest
What is actually your point? They are not testing for adulterants in pills, they are testing for the actives in the pills, which as the author points out are often less harmful than alcohol in their pure form as judged by experts. The harms you refer to are directly related to their illegality, as you said, they are illicit. Therefore, they can and should be compared in their pure forms. Just because something can be tested for and one cannot doesn't mean you allow one and not others, all the others should also not be banned.
Cathar Treize
Roar Guru
Clipper, your hate & bile toward rugby league is severly exposed with this commet as the AFL has been shown up as a sport not in control of its players' drug habits. Try again.
Dean - Surry Hills
Guest
And nearly 11% of the population aged 14 and older has taken ecstasy on one occasion or more. This figure represents more than 2.5 million people. Lets rework these statistics based on Australian demographic statistics to provide everyone with the reality of the situation. A link to those stats is below. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/featurearticlesbyCatalogue/7A40A407211F35F4CA257A2200120EAA?OpenDocument Remove our massive aged population (from the statistics who are 65 years and over) that did not have ecstasy available to them in their youth. These people make up less than 1% of the above statistic. Remove all children under the age of 14. The percentage of people who have tried ecstasy on one or more occasion currently aged between 14 and 64 now rises to around 16% of the population. Do you begin to see the bigger picture?
Simon
Guest
Mate. You sound like some Tory HR Manager. I think in general people are intelligent enough to realise Kirisome Auva'a does not represent the NRL 'brand', and come to think of it... I've never met someone who goes to the football to watch the 'NRL brand'. A vast majority of people his age are taking the same substances and I don't think he should have to become a different person altogether just because he plays football on the telly once a week
Joseph Doueihi
Guest
Matt, I could not agree with you more, I am seriously concerned for the future of this great game, it is being run by people who cannot see the forest through the trees, it must be a prerequisite that to be part of the NRL hierarchy you must not possess any common sense what so ever, what is all the hype from the NRL about standing strong against domestic violence, but allow players to play while they have been formally charged by the law enforcement authorities, wanting to ban a player who has not done any harm to anybody because he used a certain drug, then on the other hand accepting sponsorship money from an organisation that produces the worst drug of all is beyond belief.
Hard Yards
Roar Rookie
Yeah well alcohol and smokes are taking a bloody long time to kill me. I might not ever die at this rate. Mind you, I think it depends on what you do drink. I think you need to stick to the top shelf to give yourself a bit of extra shine on the ball. Can't go wrong with quality. Having said that, it's nearly 3 o'clock by my watch, so I think I go and pull a bottle of Riesling from the fridge and contemplate the order of things.
Hard Yards
Roar Rookie
yep. The thing is, probably 80% of the adult population has tried a joint or something else. All of which is illegal. All of whom could have a criminal record applied to them, doors closed and futures buggered. And for what? Just bloody stupid.
Hard Yards
Roar Rookie
There only one star here and its called S.L. You absolutely picked The Who. Might go and check it out on Youtube a bit later once I've recovered from my day down at the bowling club. We played singles and I was against my nemesis, Lawrence, when it came down to the last throw. My mate Arthur stepped up and said under his breath to me 'Finish him'. It was if the wings of the angels guided it home to victory. Smashed Lawrence. Raised a hand in salute to the onlookers. Covered myself in glory. Just another Friday for the true sportsmen.
turbodewd
Roar Guru
Heavily intoxicated should not be a legal defense anywhere for anything. If a person choose to get smashed and then kills someone as a drunk driver...its no excuse in my books. It should be an aggravating factor actually.
AlanKC
Guest
They can if they're sold through pharmacies.
AlanKC
Guest
Your last line may actually be on the money.
AlanKC
Guest
It wasn't a flippant dismissal of Baz' comments, simply pointing out that Matt had already stated exactly what Baz had said without adding anything further to the discussion.