4 million per year to drug test every player every game?

[lazy]

On the Couch seem to think it would cost 4 mill to drug test every player every game and this was well worth the money.

Thoughts? Is that figure correct? If so, seems well worth the money to protect the sport.

 

[Brilliant]

I thought it was $1000 a test.

So that's 44,000 x how ever many games.

 

[Matt Murder]

Take it out of Aker's pay.

 

[buggermedumplings]

I thought it was $1000 a test.

So that's 44,000 x how ever many games.

$8,140,000 inc. finals. Maybe the $4 million is for a bulk buy

 

[Ted Ed Fred]

I doubt it would be 4 million. From what I've heard would be a lot more than that to do every player every week. Then you've got to sort out the two types of tests - urine and blood. As far as I know it takes a blood test to test for EPO, and I doubt clubs and the AFLPA would be happy with every player being subjected to a blood test every week on training and medical grounds.

A practical start would be to increase the number of tests every year from 500 to 2000. 500 is far too low, and it means that some players won't be tested at all some years. With 2000 most players will be tested at least 3 times a year, should be a start.

I'd scrap the out of season testing for illicit drugs (as Tim Lane suggests) and ramp up in season testing for both PE and recreational drugs. I care far more about stamping out performance enhancing drugs than players letting off steam in the off season with a few tablets.

 

[bigdroppunt]

On the Couch seem to think it would cost 4 mill to drug test every player every game and this was well worth the money.

Thoughts? Is that figure correct? If so, seems well worth the money to protect the sport.

yeah that would be lucky just to cover west coast players.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Why every week? i mean targeting players who seem to be doing well+random tests, a player should be tested 3-4 times a year, not 22

 

[flamethrower]

I doubt it would be 4 million. From what I've heard would be a lot more than that to do every player every week. Then you've got to sort out the two types of tests - urine and blood. As far as I know it takes a blood test to test for EPO, and I doubt clubs and the AFLPA would be happy with every player being subjected to a blood test every week on training and medical grounds.
A practical start would be to increase the number of tests every year from 500 to 2000. 500 is far too low, and it means that some players won't be tested at all some years. With 2000 most players will be tested at least 3 times a year, should be a start.

I'd scrap the out of season testing for illicit drugs (as Tim Lane suggests) and ramp up in season testing for both PE and recreational drugs. I care far more about stamping out performance enhancing drugs than players letting off steam in the off season with a few tablets.

It is a venepuncture, not surgery!!! You get a small bruise around the vena cava if you're unlucky. Some hospital patients have blood taken multiple times per day, so I doubt fully fit AFL players would be "scarred" by a blood test 2 to 3 times a week.

EPO can be detected in urine, but serum or plasma is the specimen of choice for detecting drug cheats. (EPO is a naturally occurring substance in the human body BTW).

It wouldn't surprise me at all if it costs $4m to conduct that number of tests.
Some of the analysers used in pathology cost upwards of $0.5m and the test kits used on the analysers can cost well over $1000 (for 50 to 100 tests).

 

[HR Roughnstuf]

Do we care if any Richmond players are using EPO or anything else. NO!!! Why because they wont be stealing a premiership cup from a team with players that dont cheat. All finals teams should be targetted heavily, and teams at the top of the ladder more so

 

[Syd]

Do we care if any Richmond players are using EPO or anything else. NO!!! Why because they wont be stealing a premiership cup from a team with players that dont cheat.

Extremely short sighted viewpoint.

I suppose your opinion might change if a player suffered say a heart attack on the field due to the presence of a PFD.

 

[Wing Commander]

On the Couch seem to think it would cost 4 mill to drug test every player every game and this was well worth the money.

Thoughts? Is that figure correct? If so, seems well worth the money to protect the sport.

Looks like the villagers have found themselves some pitchforks.

 

[Clint Bizkit]

I'll do it for two million.

 

[Fred]

Extremely short sighted viewpoint.

I suppose your opinion might change if a player suffered say a heart attack on the field due to the presence of a PFD.

Seems a reasonable viewpoint to me. If a player had health problems as in your scenario it would be his own fault.

 

[grayham]

Even if it cost $20m, just sell the media rights to the annoucement when someone gets caught and that will pay for it easy.

 

[Ripper]

As I see it they need to collect a sample every game and test just some of them.

The players would be reluctant to try anything illegal then as they would not know if their sample was tested or not.

If anything came to light they could then go back and test the samples if needed.

 

[dales.girl38]

I doubt it would be 4 million. From what I've heard would be a lot more than that to do every player every week. Then you've got to sort out the two types of tests - urine and blood. As far as I know it takes a blood test to test for EPO, and I doubt clubs and the AFLPA would be happy with every player being subjected to a blood test every week on training and medical grounds.

A practical start would be to increase the number of tests every year from 500 to 2000. 500 is far too low, and it means that some players won't be tested at all some years. With 2000 most players will be tested at least 3 times a year, should be a start.

I'd scrap the out of season testing for illicit drugs (as Tim Lane suggests) and ramp up in season testing for both PE and recreational drugs. I care far more about stamping out performance enhancing drugs than players letting off steam in the off season with a few tablets.

I pretty much agree with everything there, blood tests every week is asking a bit much, but the amount of drug tests that are conducted each year is far too low.

 

[Gopies 2002]

You do not need to test every player every week. That is overkill.

However, every player should be tested at a minimum 4 times over the course of the year, including at least once in the preseason.

Assuming there are 640 players in the AFL, each tested 4 times that is approximately 2560 tests. If they are $1000 each that would cost the game $2.56mil. If we even tested each player 3 times each, it would cost around $1.9mil.

At least this would provide a real deterrent to those thinking of taking the easy option. However, we all have to understand that it comes at a cost. Club distributions & game development will have less funding. However to me its a cost of the game, and worth it to protect the integrity of the competition.

 

[sgbn77]

Urine testing every week...whatever. But if you are advocating that every player in the league submits to a blood test every week, then you'll be fighting a little bit of an uphill battle there.

A little pin prick in the arm may seem inconsequential, but you force players to undergo that every week, and yes you do end up with bruising around the area, and far out...track marks. Always a good look.

It's invasive, regardless of the "be a man" element out there, and not something I'd wanna deal with each week.

 

[Lidge]

If performance enhancing - we should be testing all players from each winning side during September. And be clear on the punishment.

Stripped of the win if any player tests positive - in addition to the sanctioned penalty to the player.

3-4 random tests (once per quarter) for Nov - Aug for all players outside of finals should be enough.

 

[lazy]

If performance enhancing - we should be testing all players from each winning side during September. And be clear on the punishment.

Stripped of the win if any player tests positive - in addition to the sanctioned penalty to the player.

3-4 random tests (once per quarter) for Nov - Aug for all players outside of finals should be enough.

Could the AFL PED budget look something like this:

2 million - WC Eagles
2 million - Rest of the teams

 

[Impunity!]

Some of the trolls on this site need some performance enhancing drugs.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Just sack Demetriou amd all the other dead wood in the AFL, and it's paid for.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Considering the 780million the AFL made in TV rights I am sure they can spare 40 million total for the 5 years to do drug tests. They have such a naive view that drug cheats only exist in cycling not AFL.

 

[FuManchu]

Hair sample at the end of the pre season to look for the longer term traces of endurance drugs, a blood test twice a year and a urine test every 5 or six weeks for every player. That would do it. It would be prudent to do a test in the month before the finals, because if any fitness regime is going to have a taper, that would be about the time for the heavy workload to cease and the players would be given a lighter workload leading up to finals. And if you are going to take any drug to give you that extra endurance, it will be in that period to cope with the workload and to reap the benefit.

They could save money by not testing Richmond and Carlton

 

[lazy]

There has been some good ideas on here to help stamp it out so why dont the AFL do it?

The question has to asked - Is the AFL drug policy there to find cheats or for PR only.

I think we know the answer.