News Clubs operating league-sanctioned drug testing program - Harley Balic’s Dad Speaks

[Chief]

AFL Statement

As well as being a signatory to World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) code via the Australian Football Anti-Doping Code, the AFL has an Illicit Drug Policy which has been in place since 2005, and at the core of the policy is a commitment to player wellbeing and welfare.

The AFL Illicit Drug Policy (IDP) is a policy that specifically deals with the use of illicit substances out of competition and is focussed on player health and well-being. The policy seeks to reduce substance use and drug-related harms for AFL players and aims to inform and rehabilitate players through education and intervention.

It exists alongside and in addition to the Australian Football Anti-Doping Code which covers prohibited substances including some illicit substances in competition as prescribed by the WADA prohibited list.

Urine tests conducted by doctors to determine if a player has used illicit substances are part of the AFL’s Illicit Drug Policy medical model and have been for some time.

Doctors may use those urine tests to obtain an immediate result to determine whether any illicit substance remains in a player’s system. This is normally conducted at the club or in the doctors consulting rooms.

If the test shows a substance is still in the players system, a doctor will take steps to prevent a player from taking part in either training and/or an AFL match both for their own health and welfare and because having illicit substances in your system on match day may be deemed performance enhancing and a breach of the Australian Football Anti-Doping Code (depending on the substance involved).

It is absolutely imperative that no doctor or club official should ever allow or encourage a player to take the field knowing they have recently taken an illicit substance that may be harmful to their health and/or may be deemed performance-enhancing (as many illicit substances are on match day).

We support the WADA code (as it applies to our sport through the Australian Football Anti-Doping Code) and support the fundamental premise on which it is founded that any player who takes the field with a performance-enhancing prohibited substance in their system should be treated in accordance with the Anti-Doping Code and face heavy sanctions.

The AFL observes that AFL players are not immune to the societal issues faced by young people with respect to illicit substances and also acknowledges that illicit drug use problems commonly co-occur with other mental health conditions.

While the AFL’s medical model involves a multidisciplinary healthcare management plan, the monitoring of players is highly confidential. A doctor or healthcare professional generally cannot disclose the nature of the clinical intervention or condition to others unless the player willingly consents.

We understand that the Illicit Drugs Policy can be improved and we are working with the AFLPA and players to improve the policy and the system to ensure we are better able to change the behaviours of players. But we are unapologetic about club and AFL doctors taking the correct steps to ensure that any player who they believe has an illicit substance in their system does not take part in any AFL match and that doctor patient confidentially is upheld and respected.

The AFL will always be required to make decisions which seek to balance competing rights and interests. The medical interests and welfare of players is a priority for the AFL given everything we know about the risks facing young people generally and those who play our game in particular.

 

[Stamos]

I'd assume so long as your team (VFL or AFL) is active you're 'in competition'.

So if the AFL season is over but you're eligible for VFL finals, no nose beers.

You know what they say about assumptions?

'In competition' begins at 11:59pm the night before you play/race, and ends after post match/race testing.

 

[Stamos]

No, it's about circumventing the process and then lying about it.

What process are they circumventing?

 

[yodellinhank]

I know an even more cost effective way to avoid a doping violation

 

[Crankyhawk]

You know what they say about assumptions?

'In competition' begins at 11:59pm the night before you play/race, and ends after post match/race testing.

The reply was more supposing the change to define the whole season as being in competition (so 11:59 pm from the first match your team plays to the final siren of the last round your team is involved in if you are eligble to play)

 

[Obeanie1]

They're not breaching WADA rules though.
This whole story is about not breaching the rules.

Avoiding testing is a breach is my understanding.

This is a clandestine league sanctioned and run WADA match day test avoidance policy.

Wonder if ASADA or WADA approved this approach?

People need to stop splitting hairs here. Its AFL House protecting its brand image whilst throwing players under the bus asking them to lie and act dishonestly. Instead of actually supporting them to make better decisions. They are supporting them to act dishonestly and that is what contributes to mental health issues.

 

[adock]

Avoiding testing is a breach is my understanding.

You are not avoiding a test by not playing. Avoiding a test is when you are asked to test and do a runner, or claim you cant produce urine or simply fail to turn up to your test.

 

[speedpeck23]

If you avoid it by having a test off the books, that’s nothing like a taxi. That’s like having the keys to drive, putting them in and asking your boss to cover you. He has a breatho, tests you, then realises you’re over. He’s got this deal in place where if you are, he’ll quietly drive you away to avoid nasty headlines.

But if you weren’t in his company car, he wouldn’t have driven or stepped in.

And it’s a bit different because the “cops” are WADA and shouldn’t be circumvented to protect players.

Yeah, but because it's a company car, your boss has an obligation (to you and the general public) to make sure you don't do drugs when you're driving the company car.

 

[faible]

You know what they say about assumptions?

'In competition' begins at 11:59pm the night before you play/race, and ends after post match/race testing.

That's not what was being discussed.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Well Essendon was convinced the AFL tipped them off on an ASADA investigation into their supplement program.

Which was probably the only truthful thing to come out of Essendon over that whole period.

 

[DavyRed]

Okay, there’s something I don’t understand about this.

So a player goes out on the town, snorts a few lines but, no worries, the club sends him off for a bit of unofficial pre-testing. Then if he comes back positive the club tells him, no problem, sit the next game out matey, put your feet up and we’ll see you again in a couple weeks.

Why the hell would any club do that? Why would they tolerate any player letting them down in that way and then simply allowing them to walk back into the team a couple of weeks later, regardless of how good they might be?

 

[Tandy]

If there were genuine journalists covering the sport and not just sycophants suckling from the teat of league headquarters we may find out.

Will take a Nick McKenzie type to come in and go scorched earth to outlay to the public just how insidious the league is.

Nick McKenzie should come in now. He'll find it.

 

[yodellinhank]

Okay, there’s something I don’t understand about this.

So a player goes out on the town, snorts a few lines but, no worries, the club sends him off for a bit of unofficial pre-testing. Then if he comes back positive the club tells him, no problem, sit the next game out matey, put your feet up and we’ll see you again in a couple weeks.

Why the hell would any club do that? Why would they tolerate any player letting them down in that way and then simply allowing them to walk back into the team a couple of weeks later, regardless of how good they might be?

Maybe the coach themselves is an addict. Maybe they even got on together.

 

[projectv]

Okay, there’s something I don’t understand about this.

So a player goes out on the town, snorts a few lines but, no worries, the club sends him off for a bit of unofficial pre-testing. Then if he comes back positive the club tells him, no problem, sit the next game out matey, put your feet up and we’ll see you again in a couple weeks.

Why the hell would any club do that? Why would they tolerate any player letting them down in that way and then simply allowing them to walk back into the team a couple of weeks later, regardless of how good they might be?

What's the alternative? They let the player run out on game day, fail a drug test, and watch as the player and their club gets dragged through the media / WADA precedings?

Obviously they would treat it as a disciplinary issue, and should have things in place to deter the player from doing that.

 

[projectv]

This entire issue is such an enormous nothing burger.

But it's whipped up the anti-drug hysteria, so I guess the media has got what they wanted.

 

[CliffMcTainshaw]

What process are they circumventing?

They are using it to avoid a drug test. It's a bit of a loophole at the moment, just like using a masking agent once was. Just about guaranteed that WADA will close it. Pre testing to avoid a drug test will be prohibited. The East Germans used similar methods to hide the drug use of their athletes back in the 70's.

 

[speedpeck23]

what's the hard place exactly?

players being held accountable for their actions? Like any other person who makes up society?

3 strike policy is more than fair. Frankly if you havent learned after the 2nd strike, you dont deserve to play. No other job I am aware of will give you 3 chances to take illegal drugs. You are usually sacked after the first.

Guess you don't believe in rehab

 

[brutus76]

 

[memoryofmchale]

Okay, there’s something I don’t understand about this.

So a player goes out on the town, snorts a few lines but, no worries, the club sends him off for a bit of unofficial pre-testing. Then if he comes back positive the club tells him, no problem, sit the next game out matey, put your feet up and we’ll see you again in a couple weeks.

Why the hell would any club do that? Why would they tolerate any player letting them down in that way and then simply allowing them to walk back into the team a couple of weeks later, regardless of how good they might be?

It’s too hard to control their behaviour without dishing out punishments that render awkward questions being asked so faking injuries and putting up with it protects the player, club and league.

 

[speedpeck23]

It’s too hard to control their behaviour without dishing out punishments that render awkward questions being asked so faking injuries and putting up with it protects the player, club and league.

Punishment is not the real answer anyway........

 

[Stamos]

They are using it to avoid a drug test. It's a bit of a loophole at the moment, just like using a masking agent once was. Just about guaranteed that WADA will close it. Pre testing to avoid a drug test will be prohibited. The East Germans used similar methods to hide the drug use of their athletes back in the 70's.

No, they're not.
They're using it to avoid playing a game while breaching the drug code. That is very very different to trying to avoid a drug test.
It's not a loophole.
In the case of drugs banned for match day, WADA don't want players/athletes competing with those drugs in their system. So WADA is still getting the outcome they want.

 

[Stamos]

Okay, there’s something I don’t understand about this.

So a player goes out on the town, snorts a few lines but, no worries, the club sends him off for a bit of unofficial pre-testing. Then if he comes back positive the club tells him, no problem, sit the next game out matey, put your feet up and we’ll see you again in a couple weeks.

Why the hell would any club do that? Why would they tolerate any player letting them down in that way and then simply allowing them to walk back into the team a couple of weeks later, regardless of how good they might be?

It's not 'the club', it's the club doctor, and it's confidential.

 

[slackboy72]

This entire issue is such an enormous nothing burger.

But it's whipped up the anti-drug hysteria, so I guess the media has got what they wanted.

It's not quite a "nothing burger" but it's nowhere near the issue of alcohol abuse or prescription drug dependence.

 

[CliffMcTainshaw]

No, they're not.
They're using it to avoid playing a game while breaching the drug code. That is very very different to trying to avoid a drug test.
It's not a loophole.
In the case of drugs banned for match day, WADA don't want players/athletes competing with those drugs in their system. So WADA is still getting the outcome they want.

And if they didn't do pre testing they wouldn't know. They would play, maybe be tested and found out. Just a way of avoiding doing a drug test. That seems to be the only reason for it, otherwise it wouldn't be covered up calling, it an injury preventing play.

 

[Stamos]

And if they didn't do pre testing they wouldn't know. They would play, maybe be tested and found out. Just a way of avoiding doing a drug test. That seems to be the only reason for it, otherwise it wouldn't be covered up calling, it an injury preventing play.

No.
They're not avoiding a test.
They're avoiding playing while positive.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Guess you don't believe in rehab

i do, hence the multiple chances.