Opinion Commentary & Media VII

[king of the road]

Yeah i agree and i think the AFL snookered themselves by signing up to the WADA code in the first place, it has forced them into a corner when a/ its not an international sport b/ despite some peoples view AFL footballers are not professional athletes the WADA code is designed for they are simply really well paid footballers and c/ they are footballers; young men in the prime of their lives doing something they enjoy being handsomely rewarded for it and indulging in all that being feted by the football public brings which is essentially sex, drugs n rock n roll. All very natural for young men which is why they developed this work around, otherwise I would hazard that some weeks some teams may have struggled to field a full AFL grade team, plus if players are wiped for 4 years that would have played havoc with some teams in particular big clubs. In relation to * I think the biggest mistake they made was not availing themselves of this policy at the time to check if their supplements were detectable and if they had come clean with the AFL right from the start in all likelihood this policy would have protected them.

Finally I am a big fan of banning all reporting and social media of all AFL players during their off season and stopping drug testing during this time, they deserve some time where they can be simply young men. The definition of drugs that enhance performance needs to be reviewed I have trouble believing pot, heroin, acid or booze enhances somebodies performance, if a player tests positive for these take an educational medical welfare approach and send them to counselling.

That is all.

Pretty sure the Fed gov required the AFL to do so as part of funding agreement conditions.
Could be wrong though.

 

[travelli]

We can certainly rule out any North Melb player then. If its such a performance enhancing drug, explain curtis taylor?

I am not sure what you are getting at there, but perhaps he is not stupid enough to get on it on game day? It's 24 hrs in your system if you load up.

You could have a bump every time you go to the bench and still not have a reading.

 

[giantroo]

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Which dictionary? Or the WADA definition?

Well WADA doesn't actually refer to them as "professional athletes", but specifically mentions Athletes that play at the national level as included under anti-doping laws, and further mentions they are different to recreational athletes.

If you are going for a general definition of "professional athlete", it's someone who gets paid to play their sport, sometimes based on % of their total income achieved by playing the sport.

Both of which comfortably cover AFL footballers.

 

[Makeshift Park]

View attachment 1941355

About 100 current AFL players have secret immunity from three-strike drugs policy​

Footy insiders have revealed the extent of the clandestine scheme involving players from all 18 clubs who are given free rein to take drugs without penalty.

Michael Warner, Sam Landsberger and Jade Gailberger
March 27, 2024 - 9:14PM

About 100 current players have been granted secret immunity from the AFL’s three-strike drugs policy, clubs’ medical officials say, as the league is accused of “aiding and abetting” illegal drug abuse.
And the number of players given free rein to take drugs without penalty is climbing.
The football world was rocked on Tuesday night when federal MP Andrew Wilkie exposed evidence of “off the books” drug tests facilitated by the AFL, in revelations that stunned club chief executives, presidents and coaches.
Under the secret scheme, medico insiders have revealed to the Herald Sun that players who register a positive result in the days before a game are advised by their doctors to fake a minor injury or claim to have an illness so they are pulled from the team and cannot be caught by Sports Integrity Australia (SIA) tests on game day.

A defiant AFL declared on Wednesday that it was “unapologetic” over the emergence of the secret scheme, saying it was committed to “player wellbeing and welfare” and claiming because the players were not taking the field, they were not breaching anti-doping rules.
“We’re talking about a very small handful of players and it is private medical information,” league boss Andrew Dillon said.
But footy insiders said clubs were actively identifying cocaine users and placing them in what is called “the medical model”, where strikes are not counted.
“Even the cleanest clubs would have about five players on this so-called rehabilitation program,” one insider said.
“Some would have far more. Across 18 clubs we are talking maybe 100 players.”
Two other club medico sources confirmed the numbers.
One club insider described the whole program as “a mechanism to cover up drug use”.
Under the AFL’s three-strike drug policy, a second positive test outside match day would normally result in the player being named and shamed, fined $5000 and suspended for four games, with a third strike seeing them rubbed out for another 12 matches.

Positive match-day tests, which are overseen by SIA, could lead to a four-year ban.
SIA said on Wednesday it had started assessing allegations made by Mr Wilkie in parliament, but would make “no further comment at this stage”.
The drugs saga reignited in Canberra when the Albanese government stymied a second attempt by Mr Wilkie to table whistleblower documents relating to the revelations, after he was first blocked on Tuesday night.
A signed statement by former Melbourne Football Club doctor Zeeshan Arain, in which he details how the AFL’s former chief medical officer Dr Peter Harcourt facilitated clandestine testing for Demons players, is included in the documents.
“We now know that there’s a secret game happening behind AFL games, and the government needs to act urgently to stop this,” Mr Wilkie told the parliament on Wednesday.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the claims had been referred to SIA.
“My job is not to … control the Australian Football League,” Mr Albanese said.
Dees coach Simon Goodwin said he had no knowledge of the alleged secret tests or players faking injuries.
Coaching legend Mick Malthouse said: “I can’t describe how angry I am. This is almost on the same level as the Essendon (supplements) saga, in fact it might even go beyond that, because this is suggesting AFL officials are involved.”
Goldstein MP Zoe Daniel said the allegations were serious and went to the duty of care the AFL had to its players.
“The point of this debate is what drugs can do to clubs and players, a culture of normalisation of cocaine use and in some cases addiction,” she said.
“In his statement, Dr Zeeshan Arain says ‘at the end of the day, it’s a business and the players are treated as a commodity. There is no desire to address this issue because it’s a fickle world, particularly for people in power and people making money’,” she said.
“Ultimately, he says this is a management issue. The culture comes from management.”
The AFL did not comment on Mr Wilkie’s revelations after he revealed them on Tuesday night.
But about 11.30am Wednesday, the league issued a statement defending the regime, and the secrecy around it, saying “doctor-patient confidentiality” must be paramount.
The statement did not address how the previously undisclosed program tallied with its purportedly “tough” three-strike illicit drugs policy.
“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,” the league’s statement said.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...s/news-story/dbda79e50ae00283ca868cf3ab1a54c4

---

“Doctors may use those urine tests to obtain an immediate result to determine whether any illicit substance remains in a player’s system … if the test shows a substance is still in the player’s 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).
“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.
“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.
Shaun Smith, the father of Demons player Joel, who has been charged with using cocaine after recording a positive SIA match-day test and is under investigation for alleged trafficking to his teammates, said: “If my son was 17 right at the moment, I'd be saying you’re not going to AFL footy because obviously there’s a bad culture there.”

Detailing a statement from Smith in parliament on Tuesday, Mr Wilkie said: “Shaun maintains that his son had not been a cocaine user prior to joining the AFL and attributes his son’s situation to the AFL’s aiding and abetting of illegal drug use. To quote Shaun: Something is not right when you get so many broken players.”
A World Anti-Doping Agency spokesman said on Wednesday the agency had no comment “at this stage”.

 

[Devington]

100 players doing drugs carte blanch without racking up any strikes. What a great policy you have there AFL. B-B-But muh medical issu- Oh so all 100 of these are actual drug ADDICTS who need medical help? Really? You'd be the biggest employer of drug addicts in the country if that was the case.

 

[Sillygit]

About 100 current AFL players have secret immunity from three-strike drugs policy​

Footy insiders have revealed the extent of the clandestine scheme involving players from all 18 clubs who are given free rein to take drugs without penalty.

Michael Warner, Sam Landsberger and Jade Gailberger
March 27, 2024 - 9:14PM

About 100 current players have been granted secret immunity from the AFL’s three-strike drugs policy, clubs’ medical officials say, as the league is accused of “aiding and abetting” illegal drug abuse.
And the number of players given free rein to take drugs without penalty is climbing.
The football world was rocked on Tuesday night when federal MP Andrew Wilkie exposed evidence of “off the books” drug tests facilitated by the AFL, in revelations that stunned club chief executives, presidents and coaches.
Under the secret scheme, medico insiders have revealed to the Herald Sun that players who register a positive result in the days before a game are advised by their doctors to fake a minor injury or claim to have an illness so they are pulled from the team and cannot be caught by Sports Integrity Australia (SIA) tests on game day.

A defiant AFL declared on Wednesday that it was “unapologetic” over the emergence of the secret scheme, saying it was committed to “player wellbeing and welfare” and claiming because the players were not taking the field, they were not breaching anti-doping rules.
“We’re talking about a very small handful of players and it is private medical information,” league boss Andrew Dillon said.
But footy insiders said clubs were actively identifying cocaine users and placing them in what is called “the medical model”, where strikes are not counted.
“Even the cleanest clubs would have about five players on this so-called rehabilitation program,” one insider said.
“Some would have far more. Across 18 clubs we are talking maybe 100 players.”
Two other club medico sources confirmed the numbers.
One club insider described the whole program as “a mechanism to cover up drug use”.
Under the AFL’s three-strike drug policy, a second positive test outside match day would normally result in the player being named and shamed, fined $5000 and suspended for four games, with a third strike seeing them rubbed out for another 12 matches.

Positive match-day tests, which are overseen by SIA, could lead to a four-year ban.
SIA said on Wednesday it had started assessing allegations made by Mr Wilkie in parliament, but would make “no further comment at this stage”.
The drugs saga reignited in Canberra when the Albanese government stymied a second attempt by Mr Wilkie to table whistleblower documents relating to the revelations, after he was first blocked on Tuesday night.
A signed statement by former Melbourne Football Club doctor Zeeshan Arain, in which he details how the AFL’s former chief medical officer Dr Peter Harcourt facilitated clandestine testing for Demons players, is included in the documents.
“We now know that there’s a secret game happening behind AFL games, and the government needs to act urgently to stop this,” Mr Wilkie told the parliament on Wednesday.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the claims had been referred to SIA.
“My job is not to … control the Australian Football League,” Mr Albanese said.
Dees coach Simon Goodwin said he had no knowledge of the alleged secret tests or players faking injuries.
Coaching legend Mick Malthouse said: “I can’t describe how angry I am. This is almost on the same level as the Essendon (supplements) saga, in fact it might even go beyond that, because this is suggesting AFL officials are involved.”
Goldstein MP Zoe Daniel said the allegations were serious and went to the duty of care the AFL had to its players.
“The point of this debate is what drugs can do to clubs and players, a culture of normalisation of cocaine use and in some cases addiction,” she said.
“In his statement, Dr Zeeshan Arain says ‘at the end of the day, it’s a business and the players are treated as a commodity. There is no desire to address this issue because it’s a fickle world, particularly for people in power and people making money’,” she said.
“Ultimately, he says this is a management issue. The culture comes from management.”
The AFL did not comment on Mr Wilkie’s revelations after he revealed them on Tuesday night.
But about 11.30am Wednesday, the league issued a statement defending the regime, and the secrecy around it, saying “doctor-patient confidentiality” must be paramount.
The statement did not address how the previously undisclosed program tallied with its purportedly “tough” three-strike illicit drugs policy.
“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,” the league’s statement said.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...s/news-story/dbda79e50ae00283ca868cf3ab1a54c4

---

“Doctors may use those urine tests to obtain an immediate result to determine whether any illicit substance remains in a player’s system … if the test shows a substance is still in the player’s 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).
“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.
“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.
Shaun Smith, the father of Demons player Joel, who has been charged with using cocaine after recording a positive SIA match-day test and is under investigation for alleged trafficking to his teammates, said: “If my son was 17 right at the moment, I'd be saying you’re not going to AFL footy because obviously there’s a bad culture there.”

Detailing a statement from Smith in parliament on Tuesday, Mr Wilkie said: “Shaun maintains that his son had not been a cocaine user prior to joining the AFL and attributes his son’s situation to the AFL’s aiding and abetting of illegal drug use. To quote Shaun: Something is not right when you get so many broken players.”
A World Anti-Doping Agency spokesman said on Wednesday the agency had no comment “at this stage”.

10 bucks says Joel was doin some variety of illicit drugs before he made it to the AFL

 

[DarkPhoenix]

100 players doing drugs carte blanch without racking up any strikes. What a great policy you have there AFL. B-B-But muh medical issu- Oh so all 100 of these are actual drug ADDICTS who need medical help? Really? You'd be the biggest employer of drug addicts in the country if that was the case.

People often compare AFL to WWE and miss the mark by a fair way. But this is one that really compares to the early 00's in WWE where the big stars drug use was covered up and smaller employees getting caught was used as evidence that they were "totally committed to stamping out drugs".

They once asked Scott Steiner to take a random drug test, and he replied something along the lines of "Have Triple H [close to the biggest star at the time] pick me up in a limo and we'll take one together" - They never asked him to take a test again.

 

[lockheed]

About 100 current AFL players have secret immunity from three-strike drugs policy​

Footy insiders have revealed the extent of the clandestine scheme involving players from all 18 clubs who are given free rein to take drugs without penalty.

Michael Warner, Sam Landsberger and Jade Gailberger
March 27, 2024 - 9:14PM

About 100 current players have been granted secret immunity from the AFL’s three-strike drugs policy, clubs’ medical officials say, as the league is accused of “aiding and abetting” illegal drug abuse.
And the number of players given free rein to take drugs without penalty is climbing.
The football world was rocked on Tuesday night when federal MP Andrew Wilkie exposed evidence of “off the books” drug tests facilitated by the AFL, in revelations that stunned club chief executives, presidents and coaches.
Under the secret scheme, medico insiders have revealed to the Herald Sun that players who register a positive result in the days before a game are advised by their doctors to fake a minor injury or claim to have an illness so they are pulled from the team and cannot be caught by Sports Integrity Australia (SIA) tests on game day.

A defiant AFL declared on Wednesday that it was “unapologetic” over the emergence of the secret scheme, saying it was committed to “player wellbeing and welfare” and claiming because the players were not taking the field, they were not breaching anti-doping rules.
“We’re talking about a very small handful of players and it is private medical information,” league boss Andrew Dillon said.
But footy insiders said clubs were actively identifying cocaine users and placing them in what is called “the medical model”, where strikes are not counted.
“Even the cleanest clubs would have about five players on this so-called rehabilitation program,” one insider said.
“Some would have far more. Across 18 clubs we are talking maybe 100 players.”
Two other club medico sources confirmed the numbers.
One club insider described the whole program as “a mechanism to cover up drug use”.
Under the AFL’s three-strike drug policy, a second positive test outside match day would normally result in the player being named and shamed, fined $5000 and suspended for four games, with a third strike seeing them rubbed out for another 12 matches.

Positive match-day tests, which are overseen by SIA, could lead to a four-year ban.
SIA said on Wednesday it had started assessing allegations made by Mr Wilkie in parliament, but would make “no further comment at this stage”.
The drugs saga reignited in Canberra when the Albanese government stymied a second attempt by Mr Wilkie to table whistleblower documents relating to the revelations, after he was first blocked on Tuesday night.
A signed statement by former Melbourne Football Club doctor Zeeshan Arain, in which he details how the AFL’s former chief medical officer Dr Peter Harcourt facilitated clandestine testing for Demons players, is included in the documents.
“We now know that there’s a secret game happening behind AFL games, and the government needs to act urgently to stop this,” Mr Wilkie told the parliament on Wednesday.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the claims had been referred to SIA.
“My job is not to … control the Australian Football League,” Mr Albanese said.
Dees coach Simon Goodwin said he had no knowledge of the alleged secret tests or players faking injuries.
Coaching legend Mick Malthouse said: “I can’t describe how angry I am. This is almost on the same level as the Essendon (supplements) saga, in fact it might even go beyond that, because this is suggesting AFL officials are involved.”
Goldstein MP Zoe Daniel said the allegations were serious and went to the duty of care the AFL had to its players.
“The point of this debate is what drugs can do to clubs and players, a culture of normalisation of cocaine use and in some cases addiction,” she said.
“In his statement, Dr Zeeshan Arain says ‘at the end of the day, it’s a business and the players are treated as a commodity. There is no desire to address this issue because it’s a fickle world, particularly for people in power and people making money’,” she said.
“Ultimately, he says this is a management issue. The culture comes from management.”
The AFL did not comment on Mr Wilkie’s revelations after he revealed them on Tuesday night.
But about 11.30am Wednesday, the league issued a statement defending the regime, and the secrecy around it, saying “doctor-patient confidentiality” must be paramount.
The statement did not address how the previously undisclosed program tallied with its purportedly “tough” three-strike illicit drugs policy.
“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,” the league’s statement said.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...s/news-story/dbda79e50ae00283ca868cf3ab1a54c4

---

“Doctors may use those urine tests to obtain an immediate result to determine whether any illicit substance remains in a player’s system … if the test shows a substance is still in the player’s 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).
“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.
“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.
Shaun Smith, the father of Demons player Joel, who has been charged with using cocaine after recording a positive SIA match-day test and is under investigation for alleged trafficking to his teammates, said: “If my son was 17 right at the moment, I'd be saying you’re not going to AFL footy because obviously there’s a bad culture there.”

Detailing a statement from Smith in parliament on Tuesday, Mr Wilkie said: “Shaun maintains that his son had not been a cocaine user prior to joining the AFL and attributes his son’s situation to the AFL’s aiding and abetting of illegal drug use. To quote Shaun: Something is not right when you get so many broken players.”
A World Anti-Doping Agency spokesman said on Wednesday the agency had no comment “at this stage”.

So the AFL ran a program that ongoing enabled drug addiction. I should be surprised, but somehow I''m not.

The idea that AFL executives and staff be subjected to random drug testing is suddenly very appealing.

Tarryn is an incredible dickhead of a bloke, and I have no regrets that we've parted ways with him. But I wouldn't blame him if he's livid at the AFL's hypocrisy.

 

[ferball]

Cocaine is run through walls stuff? Lol ok. You have an uber amount of confidence thats for sure.. I think you are confusing it with meth amphetamine

Someone gave me some coke once and I walked across a road staring down a semi trailer quite confident it would bounce off me.

 

[krakouers]

Someone gave me some coke once and I walked across a road staring down a semi trailer quite confident it would bounce off me.

Sure ferball , blame the coke

 

[ferball]

We can certainly rule out any North Melb player then. If its such a performance enhancing drug, explain curtis taylor?

What about someone else who missed half a season?

 

[Makeshift Park]

What actually happens to an AFL player with a drug issue and why​

By Jake Niall​

March 27, 2024 — 6.03pm

Spoiler: article

When an AFL player is prevented from playing – unofficially suspended – due to drug use, we will often be told that the footballer has “personal issues” or has taken time away to deal with mental health problems.

There is a degree of misdirection involved, which arguably has led to the situation in which federal MP Andrew Wilkie has put forward allegations that suggest the AFL covers up drug use by players under its illicit drugs code.

One allegation, which Wilkie laid out, was that doctors were being asked to say that the player had an injury, rather than that he had a drug issue.
This masthead cannot confirm a specific example in which a player who was falsely said to have a hamstring injury or similar was really on a drug-related absence.

But what is well known is that “personal issues” or “mental health” have been deployed as cover stories for players who have been barred from playing while dealing with a drug issue; clearly, “personal issues” is a wide catch-all, and the overlap between drugs and mental health is sufficient to make that a plausible excuse for the player’s absence.

Note that many players who have personal issues and mental health problems are not dealing with a drug problem; unfortunately, they may be unfairly tarnished by catch-all language.
Here’s a basic sketch of how it unfolds, according to a source with an in-depth understanding of what happens to the player who has a drug issue, but speaking on condition of anonymity in what is a completely confidential process.
The player is placed in the care of his club doctor, who is responsible for his treatment. The doctor has a large degree of autonomy in how the footballer is handled. He can be sent to a clinic, for example, that specialises in drug treatment and tested regularly.

But those tests are “off the books” – the term Wilkie used in parliament – in the sense that they will not result in drug strikes or in public consequences; what happens will be between the player and the club doctor, although the AFL medical officer is also in the loop – he is in an overseeing role, rather than directly involved, and can recommend treatment or testing labs.
The player can be tested, at the behest of the club doctor and with the imprimatur of the AFL’s medical officer.

The player, if he is continuing to use cocaine or another substance, could be instructed to sit out of games for a period. The AFL’s doctor who runs the illicit drugs code, Dr Peter Harcourt (named by Wilkie in allegations that originated from an ex-Melbourne Football Club doctor), regularly consults the relevant club doctor.
The AFL’s view is that this is simply normal clinical practice: the player has an issue, he deals with the club doctor, who can refer him to drug experts for treatment if necessary. Drugs, thus, are treated as a health problem, not moral failure.

The AFL is unapologetic about the fact that it has effectively condoned or encouraged doctors to test players for illicit drugs with the aim of stopping players from having a positive test on game day – which brings severe repercussions, usually a lengthy suspension under the AFL anti-doping code (same as the WADA code).
But one source familiar with how this regime works noted that the doctor(s) would only organise for the player to be drug tested on Monday or Tuesday – early in the week – and not as late as two or three days before the game.

One reason for the test early in the week was that the tests used by the AFL/club doctor did not have the same level of hyper-sensitivity as those used by Sports Integrity Australia, which could pick up even a tiny presence of the metabolite for cocaine et al.
So, why has the AFL found itself castigated on the floor of federal parliament?

In part, as key people within the game acknowledge, there is a contradiction between a system that is designed to help players – the so-called “medical model” – and a legalistic approach that involves punitive action.

“You can’t throw the book at someone as well as look after them,” said one well-placed competition source with an understanding of the drug system, who was not authorised to speak.
The AFL, meanwhile, has a major brand protection imperative. It does not want to look like it’s soft on or tolerant of footballers openly taking drugs, in the manner of Ben Cousins and others in the past. There’s a pressure to be narcotically correct from governments and sponsors.
The AFL is trying to stave off match-day positives that will result in suspensions (confusing much of the public, as the illicit and WADA drug codes are conflated). It wants to protect the competition image/brand and also to reduce the prevalence and health risks of players using drugs.

Much of what goes on has been known to sections of the media, to the clubs and indeed, to informed members of the public for a long time, the AFL testing/rehabilitation system having existed since 2005.
But Wilkie’s revelation that, as outlined by the ex-Melbourne club doctor, players had been tested days before the game, with the goal of evading or circumventing a WADA code positive (and suspension) was probably unknown to most outside the medical fraternity in the game. This was the headline.

What this exposes is the vast gap between how the AFL presents its drug-testing regime – as one that has a genuine punitive element – and the reality that there are negligible public consequences for the player; what happens is hidden, unless he runs foul of Sport Integrity Australia.
The only players who bear a public consequence for illicit substance use are those who are filmed, such as Jack Ginnivan, or appear in court.

It is also part of what this column sees as a culture of concealment by the league.
One of the AFL’s underlying constraints is that the players will not agree to a system that puts them in the crosshairs of public admonishment or sanctions.

No player has ever been “struck out” by a second or third AFL-sanctioned positive test under the illicit drugs policy since it was introduced.
This fact – more than any contrary rhetoric from the AFL – confirms that the system is a medical one, that there are no “strikes” per se and that the league has wilfully allowed a false view of its illicit drug policy to flourish in the public’s mind.

On Tuesday night, Wilkie’s statement, with cover of parliamentary privilege, closed some of the gap between the reality of how a secretive drug-testing regime operates and what the football public knows.
Tellingly, the AFL’s response was hardly one of denial. The league defended its practices, rather than denying them.

 

[ferball]

10 bucks says Joel was doin some variety of illicit drugs before he made it to the AFL

Take it to the punting thread...

 

[ferball]

What about someone else who missed half a season?

Honestly I'm glad that somewhere in the back of my mind something still understood a little bit about physics.

 

[Ashley B]

Someone gave me some coke once and I walked across a road staring down a semi trailer quite confident it would bounce off me.

Did it bounce off? I suggest it did as you are still here lol

 

[ferball]

What actually happens to an AFL player with a drug issue and why​

By Jake Niall​

March 27, 2024 — 6.03pm

Spoiler: article

When an AFL player is prevented from playing – unofficially suspended – due to drug use, we will often be told that the footballer has “personal issues” or has taken time away to deal with mental health problems.

There is a degree of misdirection involved, which arguably has led to the situation in which federal MP Andrew Wilkie has put forward allegations that suggest the AFL covers up drug use by players under its illicit drugs code.

One allegation, which Wilkie laid out, was that doctors were being asked to say that the player had an injury, rather than that he had a drug issue.
This masthead cannot confirm a specific example in which a player who was falsely said to have a hamstring injury or similar was really on a drug-related absence.

But what is well known is that “personal issues” or “mental health” have been deployed as cover stories for players who have been barred from playing while dealing with a drug issue; clearly, “personal issues” is a wide catch-all, and the overlap between drugs and mental health is sufficient to make that a plausible excuse for the player’s absence.

Note that many players who have personal issues and mental health problems are not dealing with a drug problem; unfortunately, they may be unfairly tarnished by catch-all language.
Here’s a basic sketch of how it unfolds, according to a source with an in-depth understanding of what happens to the player who has a drug issue, but speaking on condition of anonymity in what is a completely confidential process.
The player is placed in the care of his club doctor, who is responsible for his treatment. The doctor has a large degree of autonomy in how the footballer is handled. He can be sent to a clinic, for example, that specialises in drug treatment and tested regularly.

But those tests are “off the books” – the term Wilkie used in parliament – in the sense that they will not result in drug strikes or in public consequences; what happens will be between the player and the club doctor, although the AFL medical officer is also in the loop – he is in an overseeing role, rather than directly involved, and can recommend treatment or testing labs.
The player can be tested, at the behest of the club doctor and with the imprimatur of the AFL’s medical officer.

The player, if he is continuing to use cocaine or another substance, could be instructed to sit out of games for a period. The AFL’s doctor who runs the illicit drugs code, Dr Peter Harcourt (named by Wilkie in allegations that originated from an ex-Melbourne Football Club doctor), regularly consults the relevant club doctor.
The AFL’s view is that this is simply normal clinical practice: the player has an issue, he deals with the club doctor, who can refer him to drug experts for treatment if necessary. Drugs, thus, are treated as a health problem, not moral failure.

The AFL is unapologetic about the fact that it has effectively condoned or encouraged doctors to test players for illicit drugs with the aim of stopping players from having a positive test on game day – which brings severe repercussions, usually a lengthy suspension under the AFL anti-doping code (same as the WADA code).
But one source familiar with how this regime works noted that the doctor(s) would only organise for the player to be drug tested on Monday or Tuesday – early in the week – and not as late as two or three days before the game.

One reason for the test early in the week was that the tests used by the AFL/club doctor did not have the same level of hyper-sensitivity as those used by Sports Integrity Australia, which could pick up even a tiny presence of the metabolite for cocaine et al.
So, why has the AFL found itself castigated on the floor of federal parliament?

In part, as key people within the game acknowledge, there is a contradiction between a system that is designed to help players – the so-called “medical model” – and a legalistic approach that involves punitive action.

“You can’t throw the book at someone as well as look after them,” said one well-placed competition source with an understanding of the drug system, who was not authorised to speak.
The AFL, meanwhile, has a major brand protection imperative. It does not want to look like it’s soft on or tolerant of footballers openly taking drugs, in the manner of Ben Cousins and others in the past. There’s a pressure to be narcotically correct from governments and sponsors.
The AFL is trying to stave off match-day positives that will result in suspensions (confusing much of the public, as the illicit and WADA drug codes are conflated). It wants to protect the competition image/brand and also to reduce the prevalence and health risks of players using drugs.

Much of what goes on has been known to sections of the media, to the clubs and indeed, to informed members of the public for a long time, the AFL testing/rehabilitation system having existed since 2005.
But Wilkie’s revelation that, as outlined by the ex-Melbourne club doctor, players had been tested days before the game, with the goal of evading or circumventing a WADA code positive (and suspension) was probably unknown to most outside the medical fraternity in the game. This was the headline.

What this exposes is the vast gap between how the AFL presents its drug-testing regime – as one that has a genuine punitive element – and the reality that there are negligible public consequences for the player; what happens is hidden, unless he runs foul of Sport Integrity Australia.
The only players who bear a public consequence for illicit substance use are those who are filmed, such as Jack Ginnivan, or appear in court.

It is also part of what this column sees as a culture of concealment by the league.
One of the AFL’s underlying constraints is that the players will not agree to a system that puts them in the crosshairs of public admonishment or sanctions.

No player has ever been “struck out” by a second or third AFL-sanctioned positive test under the illicit drugs policy since it was introduced.
This fact – more than any contrary rhetoric from the AFL – confirms that the system is a medical one, that there are no “strikes” per se and that the league has wilfully allowed a false view of its illicit drug policy to flourish in the public’s mind.

On Tuesday night, Wilkie’s statement, with cover of parliamentary privilege, closed some of the gap between the reality of how a secretive drug-testing regime operates and what the football public knows.
Tellingly, the AFL’s response was hardly one of denial. The league defended its practices, rather than denying them.

I'm not completely against aspects of this to be honest.

 

[ferball]

Did it bounce off? I suggest it did as you are still here lol

 

[krakouers]

Did it bounce off? I suggest it did as you are still here lol

Honestly I'm glad that somewhere in the back of my mind something still understood a little bit about physics.

 

[Ashley B]

Frank would have been able to inhale a bit of it, look at the size of the proboscis

 

[krakouers]

Frank would have been able to inhale a bit of it, look at the size of the proboscis

You really wouldn’t want to share a bag with him

 

[ferball]

You really wouldn’t want to share a bag with him

You might actually. Cos he wouldn't touch it but probably would kick you out of his band.

 

[zoomba23]

I'd love to play illicit substance bingo. Get as many of the 100 as you can with no prior info

 

[travelli]

Someone gave me some coke once and I walked across a road staring down a semi trailer quite confident it would bounce off me.

 

[danj]

Pretty sure the Fed gov required the AFL to do so as part of funding agreement conditions.
Could be wrong though.

Yes they were snookered by the Howard government but they also snookered themselves imo because they agreed to a model that doesn’t fit the ‘industry’ and almost immediately worked out a hack, it doesn’t matter how you turn it up they have been working around the WADA rules since then.