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.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

I’ve worked in Federal Government for 20 years. They don’t drug test. They have no power to do so. You’re talking crap.

There are no directives whatsoever for Government workers to stay ‘clean’ on weekends.

That is just simply not true. Could not be more untrue if you tried.

 

[memoryofmchale]

I’ve worked in Federal Government for 20 years. They don’t drug test. They have no power to do so. You’re talking crap.

There are no directives whatsoever for Government workers to stay ‘clean’ on weekends.

You can literally Google that certain federal government workers - in a range of roles - can be drug and alcohol tested.

 

[Proper Gander]

You can literally Google that certain federal government workers - in a range of roles - can be drug and alcohol tested.

Ah. So now it’s “certain” federal government workers.

 

[memoryofmchale]

Ah. So now it’s “certain” federal government workers.

No, actually it’s not. They’re just the ones publicised. See, different. You’ve just been told by two people that government workers can be - and routinely are - drug and alcohol tested in many and varied roles.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I don't know any industries where employers aren't allowed to drug test. Corporate drug testing is becoming more and more common.

I've never worked anywhere that has drug testing and frankly I wouldn't want to. Never heard anyone I know be subject to it either, corporate or government (state and federal).

 

[Demonic Ascent]

What's so funny Demonic Ascent ?

Lots of things in this thread, but mainly the pearl-clutching hysteria.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Matera92 can you imagine if SFA had midweek testing. You'd be 18 seasons in and still yet to debut.

 

[T2B_]

Lots of things in this thread, but mainly the pearl-clutching hysteria.

I guess a Dees fan would think that

 

[Proper Gander]

No, actually it’s not. They’re just the ones publicised. See, different. You’ve just been told by two people that government workers can be - and routinely are - drug and alcohol tested in many and varied roles.

Certain agencies only - and targeted to operational officers who mostly don’t reside in Canberra.

I’ve worked for Health, Education, Workplace Relations and Employment in Canberra for 15 years up until 5 years ago. No testing. No weekend visits. The enterprise agreements don’t permit testing.

A couple of agencies test and their primary operations are not at their Canberra location.

 

[Osho]

I've never been drug tested. Sometimes I would like a test for the gear I bought though.

I was asked by a doctor once if I was insane, to which I answered no, and he ticked a box, and I was clear to marry my fiance. I liked that Docror's testing methodology.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Obesity costs the economy and our health infrastructure more than Gambling and Alcohol combined but i dont see us telling McDonalds to %&^# off anytime soon.

Also, as usual on these forums, people are comparing Satsumas with pears.

 

[Matera92]

Matera92 can you imagine if SFA had midweek testing. You'd be 18 seasons in and still yet to debut.

Fold the Bears at that point.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Lots of things in this thread, but mainly the pearl-clutching hysteria.

DA, you seem like you have a similar feeling towards recreational drugs as me, and if it is only that, then whilst slightly dishonest, I don’t have a huge problem. But is it only recreational drugs they test for? They being the clubs in this case.

 

[Donakebab]

No, actually it’s not. They’re just the ones publicised. See, different. You’ve just been told by two people that government workers can be - and routinely are - drug and alcohol tested in many and varied roles.

Those "various roles" are a very small minority.

 

[memoryofmchale]

Certain agencies only - and targeted to operational officers who mostly don’t reside in Canberra.

I’ve worked for Health, Education, Workplace Relations and Employment in Canberra for 15 years up until 5 years ago. No testing. No weekend visits. The enterprise agreements don’t permit testing.

A couple of agencies test and their primary operations are not at their Canberra location.

Really? Must be a shocker to learn defence tests their students, recruits and office staff regularly. As do the AFP, border force. Even if all they do is sit at a computer and deal with the most basic tasks or sit in a lecture.

Health, workplace, etc is just one. Because federal departments like homeland security, foreign affairs (they even have a policy for it!) have policies that say this will happen, as does the government. Parliament House has drug testing, government agencies as well so your experience is not applicable to all.

https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ac48ce60-35fc-403d-9862-89f4490502fa&subId=671098

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I guess a Dees fan would think that

Why?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I’ve worked in Federal Government for 20 years. They don’t drug test. They have no power to do so. You’re talking crap.

There are no directives whatsoever for Government workers to stay ‘clean’ on weekends.

CPSU not on board with mandatory piss testing? I guess it's hard when they are wanting to enshrine permanent WFH, do the piss testers knock on your front door and follow you to your bathroom? Maybe they follow you on holiday overseas like they did to Dane Swan.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

DA, you seem like you have a similar feeling towards recreational drugs as me, and if it is only that, then whilst slightly dishonest, I don’t have a huge problem. But is it only recreational drugs they test for? They being the clubs in this case.

What benefit would there be for clubs to test for non-recreational drugs (ie PED's)? Think about it, WADA can still test players out of competition for PED's - it is only that recreational drugs are deemed a breach of the WADA code if found in the system on game day. So a player doesn't play and gets drug tested by WADA, if they have recreational drugs in their system it won't result in a ban, if they have PED's in their system it will.

I honestly think most of the drama in this thread is because people are not getting their head around two concepts - 1) recreational drugs are only prohibited on game day and 2) WADA testers can still test for PED's regardless of whether a player is withdrawn from the side or plays.

This AFL process is not circumventing WADA testing, WADA can still test - it is just that players won't face lengthy bans if that test finds recreational drugs in their system. They will face bans if other prohibited substances (PED's) are found though.

 

[memoryofmchale]

What benefit would there be for clubs to test for non-recreational drugs (ie PED's)? Think about it, WADA can still test players out of competition for PED's - it is only that recreational drugs are deemed a breach of the WADA code if found in the system on game day. So a player doesn't play and gets drug tested by WADA, if they have recreational drugs in their system it won't result in a ban, if they have PED's in their system it will.

I honestly think most of the drama in this thread is because people are not getting their head around two concepts - 1) recreational drugs are only prohibited on game day and 2) WADA testers can still test for PED's regardless of whether a player is withdrawn from the side or plays.

This AFL process is not circumventing WADA testing, WADA can still test - it is just that players won't face lengthy bans if that test finds recreational drugs in their system. They will face bans if other prohibited substances (PED's) are found though.

They are circumventing if you remove a player on game day or just before. You are performing an off-the-books test not for wellbeing reasons - because why do the test if the player has said they’re using? - they’re do it to save the image of the game and avoid WADA finding out.

Also, whilst WADA people can test any time, less likely to do so if injured. They simply do not have the resources to pick on everyone.

 

[B4Bear]

Really?

So my workplace that has a zero tolerance policy is telling lies is it?

I know of a very recent case of a young soldier whom I know was discharged for smoking dope out of hours.

 

[speedpeck23]

They are circumventing if you remove a player on game day or just before. You are performing an off-the-books test not for wellbeing reasons - because why do the test if the player has said they’re using? - they’re do it to save the image of the game and avoid WADA finding out.

Also, whilst WADA people can test any time, less likely to do so if injured. They simply do not have the resources to pick on everyone.

So the "image of the game" does not include player welfare ??

 

[B4Bear]

I would be inserting into every contract a clause stating the following:

If found to have an illegal substance and is deemed not fit to play, shall forfeit 1/24 of their yearly contracted salary.

It beggars belief that clubs are actually playing players who breach their contractual requirements and appear to impose no sanctions whatsoever. No wonder they are on the gear. They get paid regardless. If I was the coach I would be furious if this was to occur.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

This thread is divided between those who took illicit drugs before posting inane nonsense in it and those who need to take illicit drugs after reading it in order to cope.

 

[Wray27]

What benefit would there be to testing for non-recreational drugs (ie PED's)? Think about it, WADA can still test players out of competition for PED's - it is only that recreational drugs are deemed a breach of the WADA code if found in the system on game day. So a player doesn't play and gets drug tested by WADA, if they have recreational drugs in their system it won't result in a ban, if they have PED's in their system it will.

I honestly think most of the drama in this thread is because people are not getting their head around two concepts - 1) recreational rugs are only prohibited on game day and 2) WADA testers can still test for PED's regardless of whether a player is withdrawn from the side or plays.

Agree to the points you’ve made re the confusion on the board. I’m not going to debate drugs are good or bad in this post.
What I and few other posters have problem with is the that the AFL has seemingly( I say seemingly, as the transparency around this is very opaque) bypassed secretly its own Illicit Drug Policy. This goes to the core of the integrity of the AFL.
3 sources according to the HUN, 1 being the head dr of the AFL mwdical assoc have said there are approximately 100 players who are medical managed under the secret regime. That is not subject to strike and/or reporting if they reach the 2 strikes(previously 3)
This is a separate issue to the response from the AFL saying only 6 players have ever been withdrawn from games with an invented injury because they tested+ out of competition to banned ID.
Your are correct that it is only a problem if illicit drugs are found in a players system “in competition”. What isn’t as clear under the WADA code and this will be what SIA is looking into is whether the avoidance of being tested “in competition” by a secret testing regime “out of competition” has contravened the code.
The AFL also needs to provide clarity of when the Drs tests were conducted. Anytime after 11:59 the day before a Scheduled game and a player is then withdrawn because of a positive test, is a definitive breach of the code.

The AFL relies on huge sums of government money to support it. A withdrawal of WADA/SIA accreditation will see this funding disappear.
This is an issue for the AFL that goes beyond I care/don’t care whether elite AFL athletes take drugs recreationally or not.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

What benefit would there be for clubs to test for non-recreational drugs (ie PED's)? Think about it, WADA can still test players out of competition for PED's - it is only that recreational drugs are deemed a breach of the WADA code if found in the system on game day. So a player doesn't play and gets drug tested by WADA, if they have recreational drugs in their system it won't result in a ban, if they have PED's in their system it will.

I honestly think most of the drama in this thread is because people are not getting their head around two concepts - 1) recreational drugs are only prohibited on game day and 2) WADA testers can still test for PED's regardless of whether a player is withdrawn from the side or plays.

This AFL process is not circumventing WADA testing, WADA can still test - it is just that players won't face lengthy bans if that test finds recreational drugs in their system. They will face bans if other prohibited substances (PED's) are found though.

Certain PEDs don’t have a long detection period, and tests are easy to avoid if you aren’t playing.

Edit: a friend played very high level Rugby, and he certainly avoided off season tests