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.

 

[Area51]

How would WADA be fine with this, isn't cocaine used as a masking agent for some PED's?

 

[Crankyhawk]

I've said this once, and I'll say it again...

Taking illicit drugs is NOT a health issue the first time you do it. You made a bad choice. As much as people say 'drugs are no big deal, everyone does it, it's no different to beer, etc.' - whilst that all may be true, fact is that you cannot get addicted to drugs if you never try them.

The AFL should name and shame those that are caught the first time. There should be punishment followed by education.

It would definitely be a deterrent.

It only becomes a health issue when it is a dependence or an addiction. Those that are caught multiple times should NOT be named and shamed. These guys should be treated as people with health issues.


If the AFL adopted this model, they would save themselves an enormous amount of trouble.

though the loophole/ logic flaw is that it is likely those caught the first time are not using for the first time - ie it has perhaps already become a health issue.

 

[Muddiemoose]

My issue is that it circumvents the AFL’s own illicit drugs policy and use it as a way to hide the issue away

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Surely they should unban the 2 AFLW players? You cant say it doesnt matter on one hand and ban them with the other

 

[Ari]

It would be multiple clubs

Says the guy hoping. How does it feel that your club is knee deep in the middle of it now?

Intentionally averting authorities. Yikes.

 

[SBYM]

Huh?

The AFL response reported above suggests this isn't going to be the über-scandal it looked like becoming.

 

[3207]

The AFL response reported above suggests this isn't going to be the über-scandal it looked like becoming.

More querying your actual comments’ meaning.

Never heard “nothingburger” before. Ever.

Trying to see how that is “appropriate parlance”

 

[Makeshift Park]

Wilkie gave the statement after 7pm.

Most sport journos and their editors were already at the pub mate.

Of the rest... not sure how many make a habit of spending their evenings enjoying a little bit of Hansard.

It'll be everywhere in coming days.

MP Andrew Wilkie uses parliamentary privilege to accuse Melbourne Demons players of evading illicit drug tests with AFL help - ABC News

amp.abc.net.au

Andrew Wilkie tells parliament of alleged secret drug tests on AFL players | Australian politics | The Guardian

Allegations include ‘prevalence of drug abuse’ across the sport, MP tells House of Representatives

amp.theguardian.com

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

You think the AFLPA would agree to that? They'd just say aiight, we don't agree to any illicit drug testing anymore.

You're right

But I would say that the AFL do get what they want. If and when push comes to shove, the AFLPA do what the AFL says.


I don't think the AFL want it personally, let alone the AFLPA.
The AFL are all about the product, and the brand.osing gun players week in week out to drug suspensions is not what they want. As such, their illicit drug policy has always been about controlling the outcome, rather than deterring drug use or protecting players from harm.

 

[Vindicater]

How would WADA be fine with this, isn't cocaine used as a masking agent for some PED's?

WADA would not be fine with it. This is AFL in damage control

 

[Cudi_420]

Wilkie is talking to it as a drug problem that could compromise the sport's integrity and betting. Warner is reporting it as a scandal. They are very different angles. Of course this is the AFL's policy? What so you expect them to do if a player self-reports? Let them play?

 

[SBYM]

More querying your actual comments’ meaning.

Never heard “nothingburger” before. Ever.

Trying to see how that is “appropriate parlance”

Everything was a 'nothingburger' during the SAGA.

I think even Robbo used it once.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Wilkie is talking to it as a drug problem that could compromise the sport's integrity and betting. Warner is reporting it as a scandal. They are very different angles. Of course this is the AFL's policy? What so you expect them to do if a player self-reports? Let them play?

Telling lies about why a player is not playing is hurting the sports integrity for sure and the players. Its very simple for people to wake up today and say "Has Doedee hurt his knee or is he in drug rehab"

Thats kind of the narrative they are parroting here

 

[SBYM]

I'm just looking forward to lots of hand-wringing about blokes doing blow by blokes who all do blow.

 

[branedotorg]

so uhhh, if the 2006 premiership has an * as we've heard a million times...what does Melbourne's have?

it's got a line through it

 

[kickazz]

So I'm not sure this is the huge issue some are making it out to be*


Basically, cocaine in the system on game day equates to doping. The AFL don't want this. As a preventative measure, they do mid-week testing and advise folks who are in danger of testing positive to not play that week. Essentially, stopping "cheating" before it happens rather than punishing it when it does. And that is why WADA are ok with it.




*From a doping perspective, cocaine abuse and it's long and medium term effects (and illegality) is a different matter.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The AFL shouldn’t do anything except educate. No naming and shaming no testing.

Let ASADA handle the testing for performance enhancing drugs.

Let the club doctors handle any illicit drug issues in confidentiality. Most players can handle themselves and do not need to be named and shamed.

I think the AFL have an obligation to not allow drug affected people to take the field in a collision sport.

I think it's an actual legal obligation they have.

Let's say, hypothetically that Peter Wright tested positive to an illicit substance last week - and the AFL didn't have a policy in place to prevent it? Him cannoning into the head of an opponent would become a far, far more serious incident from a legal perspective.

It would be disastrous.

It has nothing to do with doctors. It's not a health problem if you make a bad choice.

You don't consult your doctor as to wether you should abort a child or not. You only get their input for the medical aspect of it.

The whole 'it's between the doctor and the player' thing is just an out for the AFL to allow the to manage the outcome.

The only reason the doctor is even involved at all is because a medical procedure is required for the test. But the outcome of the test and the process thereafter has nothing to do with a medical doctor.

 

[Andyy]

How would WADA be fine with this, isn't cocaine used as a masking agent for some PED's?

No, it's technically a PED as an amphetamine/stimulant.

Masking drugs include things like diuretics (frusemide, spironolactone etc) which accelerate your kidney function, which excretes the substances (after they are absorbed in your gastrointestinal tract and metabolised in your liver).

 

[3207]

Everything was a 'nothingburger' during the SAGA.

I think even Robbo used it once.

Fk I’ve never heard that word before

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

So I'm not sure this is the huge issue some are making it out to be*


Basically, cocaine in the system on game day equates to doping. The AFL don't want this. As a preventative measure, they do mid-week testing and advise folks who are in danger of testing positive to not play that week. Essentially, stopping "cheating" before it happens rather than punishing it when it does. And that is why WADA are ok with it.




*From a doping perspective, cocaine abuse and it's long and medium term effects (and illegality) is a different matter.

As if they are just testing for cocaine also.

Thats just a assumption people are making here. It would be a overall test looking for everything.

If you wanna test just for cocaine, you dont use a labaratory for example, cocaine has in house testing you can do

 

[BomberManU]

So I'm not sure this is the huge issue some are making it out to be*


Basically, cocaine in the system on game day equates to doping. The AFL don't want this. As a preventative measure, they do mid-week testing and advise folks who are in danger of testing positive to not play that week. Essentially, stopping "cheating" before it happens rather than punishing it when it does. And that is why WADA are ok with it.




*From a doping perspective, cocaine abuse and it's long and medium term effects (and illegality) is a different matter.

WADA might be ok with it, but should we be ok with it?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

So I'm not sure this is the huge issue some are making it out to be*


Basically, cocaine in the system on game day equates to doping. The AFL don't want this. As a preventative measure, they do mid-week testing and advise folks who are in danger of testing positive to not play that week. Essentially, stopping "cheating" before it happens rather than punishing it when it does. And that is why WADA are ok with it.




*From a doping perspective, cocaine abuse and it's long and medium term effects (and illegality) is a different matter.

I think maybe the headlines have gotten away from the actual story.

They are not evading completion
testing.

They are literally taking the player out of competition if they volunteer that they have something in their system.

 

[Obzerva]

Sam Edmund reports like he's on an AFL retainer.

ha Garry Lyon breathlessly making sure he puts it out there "it's not a Melbourne issue, it's a league issue"

the huge blind spots ex players (and some journos) have on their own club is just frustrating sometimes.

 

[Andyy]

As if they are just testing for cocaine also.

Thats just a assumption people are making here. It would be a overall test looking for everything.

If you wanna test just for cocaine, you dont use a labaratory for example, cocaine has in house testing you can do

You can be sure they are testing for any banned substance - PED, amphetamines, HGH, diuretics, metabolic modifying agents etc etc.

Anything that ASADA/WADA would issue a show cause notice for.

 

[blackshadow]

What’s really interesting is that Bartlett is one of the whistleblowers.

I know he’s got a beef with how he was dumped from Melbourne but he appears to have been one of the AFL boys club and now that he’s been kicked out he’s willing to spill the beans.

Also it surely spells the end of Goyder.