The AFL secret drugs test scandal has been rocked with further shocking allegations claiming up to 100 players have been given ‘secret immunity’ from the league’s three-strikes illicit drugs policy.
Federal MP Andrew Wilkie revealed the AFL and club doctors’ practice of having players who registered a positive test in the days before matches fake an injury to be withdrawn from the team and avoid risking being caught by Sports Integrity Australia.
The latest series of allegations have seen anonymous club medical insiders tell the Herald Sun that players identified as cocaine users in a so-called ‘medical model’, to prevent them from being hit with strikes under AFL policy.
Normally, a player registering a positive drugs test outside match day for the first time would be fined $5000 and undergo mandatory counselling, while a second strike would see them name and receive a four-match suspension. A third strike would result in a 12-match ban.
League CEO Andrew Dillon admitted to the strategy being implemented across the league on Wednesday, but claimed it was ‘a very small handful of players’ circumventing the policy.
However, an insider told the Herald Sun that ‘even the cleanest clubs would have about five players on this so-called rehabilitation program.
“Some would have far more. Across 18 clubs we are talking maybe 100 players,” the insider said.
The scandal is set to bring about significant changes to the three-strikes policy, which has come in for a barrage of criticism over the years for being too lenient to players testing positive.
Former Collingwood president Eddie McGuire said on Nine’s Footy Classified its replacement would be a ‘punitive code’.
“Enough is enough,” he said.
“They [the AFL] are going to bring in a punitive code… I believe that this will be done by June this year, and I think it’ll come in next year.
“They’ll have to get everybody signed off on it, but there’s far less sense of humour about looking after the players.
“They’ll still have what was WADA, so Sports Integrity Australia, doing the match-day testing for everything, including performance-enhancing… this will actually be the strongest drug code, probably, in sport.”
Under the new code, according to McGuire, the league will recommend a six-match suspension for a first drugs offence in an attempt to ‘normalise’ the strictness of the policy.
“We’re nominating six weeks – it might be four weeks,” he said.
“They’re going to normalise it, if you like – ‘Lloyd out – hamstring, Joe Blow out – drugs.”
McGuire also dismissed suggestions such a revelation could impact named players’ mental health, saying it was time to put ‘grown-up pants on’.
“Drugs are a problem, mental health issues are a problem. They’re not stigmas anymore, you can work through it.”
McGuire cited the risk of players being ‘blackmailed’ under the current policy, noting players have only received suspensions from the AFL for illicit drug use if caught doing it, as was the case with former Collingwood and now Hawthorn forward Jack Ginnivan and Western Bulldogs midfielder Bailey Smith.
“You get rubbed out for four weeks if somebody takes a photo of you, but you get nothing if you self-report,” he said.
“The opportunity to blackmail a player if you take a photo of them over the summer… you are dealing with organised crime.
“It’s far better for a player to get six weeks and have to face mum and dad that they’ve taken drugs.”
Only an “incredibly small number” of AFL players have been protected by secret drug tests in the past decade, the head of the AFL Players Association says.
AFLPA chief executive Paul Marsh says speculation 100 players have been granted some immunity by club doctors over drug test results is guesswork.
Marsh stressed only the AFL would know the true figures but in his experience the number of players involved in such cases was minute.
“It feels like the commentary around this is that it’s happening every week,” Marsh told SEN Radio on Thursday.
“In my time with the AFLPA, there would be less than a handful of these examples.
“And what would happen here, typically, is the club … would come to us and say, ‘Is it OK for us to do a test of this player because we’re concerned about him turning up (positive) on game day?’
“And our view is, they’re looking after the wellbeing of the player. That makes sense.
“I couldn’t definitively say that happens on every occasion but it certainly has.
“I’ve been doing this job for nearly 10 years and there would be less than a handful of players that this has been an example for.
“(An) incredibly small number.
“Nowhere near the level as perhaps … this story is suggesting.”
AFL chief executive Andrew Dillon said on Wednesday the league was “unapologetic” about giving club doctors powers to withdraw players from games if they were in danger of testing positive on match day.
Sport Integrity Australia is investigating the claims about secretive illicit-drug tests, which were initially raised under parliamentary privilege by federal MP Andrew Wilkie.
Under the testing regime, doctors are not compelled to inform their club’s hierarchy of any positive test for illicit drugs.
Marsh said confidentiality was needed to protect players from backlash from clubs that have threatened to use such information in contract talks.
“We do not discourage the players from discussing this with their coaches, their CEOs, their presidents, if they want to,” he said.
“The players’ fear is that it will be used against them in contracting or whatever … and clubs are freely admitting that they would.”
Carlton coach Michael Voss said he was “disappointed” at the drugs furore.
“Obviously you have club-land commentary and then you have industry-wide and how we’ve perceived that,” Voss told reporters on Thursday.
“I sit well and truly in the same basket: we’re all really surprised and somewhat disappointed with where it currently lies.
“Now it’s up to the AFL and the AFLPA to review what that looks like and what the best steps are moving forward for us … it has been a little surprising how it’s all unfolded.”
Voss said he had never considered that some players could have used the so-called medical model to fake an injury so they couldn’t play and subjected to a possible SIA test on game day.
“In terms of any doubt on player availability, I have never had that,” he said.
(AAP)
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
It should be a great season with the betting very open. I can not see a clear favourite. As a Hawks man, I am going into the season with the view of "no expectations, no disappointments".
RT
Roar Rookie
It was a nice surprise. I thought Sydney were pretty average in their kicking skills. In fact, in the games I have watched this season, kicking skills have been poor across the league.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
BTW RT, nice win yesterday. Tigers fans must be very proud of that performance.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
I understand that WADA tests for Cocaine as a performance enhancing drug as a pIayer may go into the toilet during the half-time break & snort a line in an attempt to limit short term fatigue etc. Although I don't claim to be an expert, I would imagine WADA doesn't want put itself in a position where it has to set a bench mark that clearly separates the levels found are actually performance enhancing or just residual from previous use. For example, the police use 0.05 when performing roadside alcohol testing. If it was possible to set an agreed benchmark, would you be happy for just the performance enhancing levels to be published by WADA & the residual levels be documented as negative? I believe any young person who gets themselves into a drug dependent lifestyle is setting themselves up to under achieve. I believe in personal accountability, but I don't believe an employer should have the right to submit it's staff for random testing for recreational drugs no matter what your occupation is. A bit of light reading attached. https://calrecoverycenter.com/can-cocaine-make-you-a-better-athlete-or-worker/
RT
Roar Rookie
Mr Right, your point is irrelevant. If you test positive, WADA will ban you. I don’t know if WADA allow traces, but regardless, a normal user should only test positive (urine sample) for 3 days. Presumably some players can’t help themselves and use closer to game day, then self report and do a test before playing . Given that are risking their careers, they probably need help. I don’t think we or they should be too concerned about the apparent forthcoming changes.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
A player goes out after a game on Friday or Sat night & takes a line of coke, do seriously think that is going to lift their game performance on the following weekend? Friday, Saturday or Sunday?
BLACKTOWN
Roar Rookie
Games are on Thurs Fr Sat Sun so where's this magical 7 day gap.
Punter
Roar Rookie
AR, it's illegal, just like the Flares you so scared off.
Wolzal
Roar Rookie
*alluding to obtaining drugs
Kick to Kick
Roar Rookie
All that is true. But the AFL is not an Olympic sport. It’s a team football code played seriously in only one country, but in which over a thousand young men and women are professionally listed. Some of those athletes are statistically bound to be users of recreational drugs. The AFL has been a reluctant signatory to the WADA code which as you say is very strict black letter law. And it’s not alone. World soccer (FIFA) has been a hesitant signatory as well. That’s not because either code is soft on performance enhancing drugs. It’s because both administer large numbers of young people with a multitude of behavioural and sometimes mental health issues. And both would like to separate performance enhancing drug protocols from recreational drug protocols. The AFL would like to treat the latter as a medical/counselling issue. All the advice it gets from drug policy experts tell it to do that. But it’s not so easy. Marijuana can be treated in that way. It has no performance enhancing qualities and is not on the WADA proscribed list. But cocaine and amphetamines are. Nobody seriously thinks players are using cocaine to play better. But with “uppers” there is a crossover between recreational drug policy and performance drug law. I’m not sure it’s possible to marry WADA compliance with the humane recreational drug rehabilitation recommended by doctors. Australian rules football will never be an Olympic sport so there’s a cogent argument for forging its own model - tough on performance drug cheats but with case by case care on recreational users where naming and shaming might lead to significant harm. However withdrawing from the WADA code is politically difficult!
Randy
Roar Rookie
lapdogs. some journos are coming out saying it was all for “player welfare”. The AFL and its followers surely fit the definition of a Cult by now…
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
When you are sick & you go to your doctor seeking medical treatment. It is critical that doctor is able to diagnose your symptoms & prescribe the correct medication. It is a very important position in our community. Doctors aren't subjected random testing for recreational drugs so why are subjecting football players to it?
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
WADA can state anything, but I am sure anyone with a bit of knowledge & common sense would agree that cocaine use 7 days prior to match day is not going to assist player performance.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
In many positions where work safety & public safety is concerned, I believe in random drug & alcohol testing. Train drivers, bus drivers, crane drivers on construction sites etc. But if it's not for safety reasons, I don't believe an employer should have the right to test for recreational drugs. If an employee turns up to work & they are pissed or stoned, obviously there will be repercussions.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
If any Olympic sport did what the AFL did Australia would be banned from the Olympics. The sport that did it would then be banned from the Olympics, Australians in other sports would then have to argue they weren't involved and compete under a neutral banner. if you test for cocaine its a 2-4 year ban in competition thats the normal policy. Avoiding a test its a 4 year ban. Are journalists thick or just deluded about this or is it just part them being lapdogs of the AFL.
Dumbo
Roar Rookie
"RT, you obviously support random testing for recreational drugs. Is that just for AFL players? Or in any other professions as well?" I believe this already happens for underground workers in (some, maybe all) mines, because of the risks to other workers of some stoner doing something stupid because of the residual effects.
Dumbo
Roar Rookie
Thank you Ben. That sounds likely to be true (otherwise how could the AFL pretend that this policy is in any way WDA-compliant), but it would be instructive to hear the AFL bosses confirm that.
Scyphus
Roar Rookie
Legally, a 25-year old is an adult. Physiologically, his/her brain is still developing. Beyond that, a "decision" to do recreational drugs is almost entirely an irrational and emotional response, whether from peer pressure or being a slave to sensations. Rational risk assessment is just not a part of the equation, essentially ever.
Redondo
Roar Rookie
Highlight for me is Eddie McGuire telling anyone with a mental health issue to pop on their grown-up trousers and get over it.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Gilberto Once again, I'll say it slowly: out of competition use of recreational drugs is not prohibited under the WADA code. For this reason, SIA does not conduct out of competition testing for the use of recreational drugs, and even if it had an interest in doing it, they would not be allowed to do it under their enabling legislation.