News AFL Drugs Claims Bombshell
- Thread starter Mutineer
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 81,477
- 82,045
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
Wow, thought I would try talking footy for the 1st time in years... & 5 minutes of AFL cover-up is enough of their crap.
2 former recent captains Selwood & Cotchin both claim to not be aware of the ability of players to be tested by the AFL or aware of any players who have pulled out "injured".
If 2 captains didn't know of the policy, how the heck do the players know how to self report? Of course all players would be made aware otherwise no player would be doing it!
Also, they must think we are stupid if they want us to believe they never suspected any player of faking an injury due to drugs in their system.
This is a blatant attempt by the AFL to control the media messaging.
2 former recent captains Selwood & Cotchin both claim to not be aware of the ability of players to be tested by the AFL or aware of any players who have pulled out "injured".
If 2 captains didn't know of the policy, how the heck do the players know how to self report? Of course all players would be made aware otherwise no player would be doing it!
Also, they must think we are stupid if they want us to believe they never suspected any player of faking an injury due to drugs in their system.
This is a blatant attempt by the AFL to control the media messaging.
So about 5 from every club on average. Now this isn’t everyone, it’s only those that ran so close to the wind to test positive.
And we know those tested were those that the afl had reason to believe we likely offenders based on past events and experience I.e: it was unlikely that it was the first and only rodeo for those 100 players
I have only 1 word to that:
Stengle
We sure showed him
Has anyone had as many 'random' injuries as Rory
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 81,477
- 82,045
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
Nothing beats Parvovirus...Has anyone had as many 'random' injuries as Rory
Woof Woof
- Oct 6, 2012
- 13,003
- 25,587
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
There seems like a lot of lying going on.
Richmond and Geelong would have Pathology on speed dial
I have doubts about Tom Harley also saying that he didn't know anything about it
June 2022
He clearly doesn’t know anything about the opt out to match day testing altogether
And I suggest neither does anyone else!
“Since the revised policy was introduced in 2015, not one player has been banned or outed publicly. Hawthorn’s Travis Tuck is the only player to receive three strikes, back in 2010.
Smith’s senior coach, the Bulldogs’ Luke Beveridge, says the illicit drugs policy should “disappear”, as many codes worldwide don’t have a policy for illicit drug use.
Beveridge says: “None of us really feel it works.” Players with mental health issues don’t get strikes, which Beveridge says is a “chink in the actual process”.
And here Beveridge is talking about the policy not working and the mental health loopholeHe clearly doesn’t know anything about the opt out to match day testing altogether
And I suggest neither does anyone else!
October 2023
amp.theage.com.au
Again, these are the loopholes; nothing about the testing being used to circumvent external agency testing
It is assumed that a strike is recorded. So no one really knows anything.
And there is no mention anywhere by omission or not, what happens to them on game day. We now know they are clandestinely pulled so the external people don’t get hold of them
That’s not mentioned anyway
AFL illicit drugs policy: Is it working?
In 2013, it emerged that 20 players through 2012 had used a self-reporting loophole to avoid a strike – they admitted to possible drug use before being tested and were given counselling and nothing more.
Again, these are the loopholes; nothing about the testing being used to circumvent external agency testing
When a video circulates of a player allegedly taking illicit drugs such as occurred when footage appeared in 2018 of former Giant Shane Mumford out in 2015 it is assumed a strike is recorded, but the information is not made public.
It is assumed that a strike is recorded. So no one really knows anything.
And there is no mention anywhere by omission or not, what happens to them on game day. We now know they are clandestinely pulled so the external people don’t get hold of them
That’s not mentioned anyway
There’s a huge grey area in the illicit drugs policy about what happens on any of the following:
- First strike
- Self reporting to avoid a strike
- Mental health loophole to avoid a strike
The discussion surrounds hair testing which tells whether you have been on it - again with the implication that this is what the strikes are about I.e past use. And match day urine or similar testing to see if you’re on it currently.
It does not talk about testing to see if you’re on it, and then pulling you before external match day testing can test you too
If you’re on it; the assumption is that you’re at risk of being caught match day.
The strikes system is not intended to worry about match day consumption. But there is scope overreach to protect them from SIA and WADA.
Which must be news to them
There is a reason no one is getting 3 strikes or being caught on match day - testing is being used to by the AFL to avoid a PR scandal
Which to my mind is as big as the Essendon scandal, and with the systemic elements maybe bigger
And you wouldn't have had to have a sensitive nose to do that. THe whole AFL is Vicbias.
- Aug 5, 2013
- 2,240
- 1,959
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I've thought for a while that part of the reason the AFL's illicit drugs policy exists is to muddy the waters between very naughty boy recreational drug use and positive tests for performance enhancing drugs. I'd never considered that it would literally be used as a mechanism to avoid the latter.
It's strange to me that everybody discussing the current controversy seems to always steer the conversation back to the culture in the AFL. When it's pretty clear this current policy exists specifically to avoid negative press from positive SIA tests, and neither to punish, nor help the player involved.
Of course we're assuming WADA/SIA don't know this. Joel Smith is currently facing a 4 year ban for "trafficking", and the easiest/only way to reduce this would be to start naming names.
Think of the preconditions that would need to exist for this to be true I.e. That they know.
One of the biggest would be that they don’t really care or want to catch those violating the anti-doping code. Because that is what it means to be aware and looking the other way
Chinese walls between AFL, doctors, coaches etc creates this opaque mess where no one knows much at all - except the AFL and doctors who have patient care and confidentiality oaths to keep them silent
- Aug 5, 2013
- 2,240
- 1,959
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I meant that they might know if Joel Smith told them this, or enough info to find out, in recent months.
if they do know about it, I definitely can't see SIA/WADA knowing about the shadow-testing scheme before late last year at the very earliest.
Yep - first place my mind went too ... but don't forget Brad. We showed him too.
This SHOULD be an absolutely MASSIVE story that dominates the game. Is 2024 going to be another year with some * on the ladder at the end of the season?
Between concussion and illegal drug use, the game is more than knee deep in some pretty murky water.
I’d been rattling off the same positions on a dime. It’s pretty obvious stuff
3 regimes. WADA test = 4 years. AFL illicit policy tests = strikes. Club health check = don’t play.
People appear to be conflating the 2 external testing regimes with internal club doctor process. The testing regimes are random and outside of the control of the club.
If you test positive, on game day, as Smith did, then you’re caught up in the WADA system. If you test positive in an AFL out of comp test, you’re caught up in their 3 strikes policy. If you rack a few lines on Thursday night and turn up to work on game day Friday, do a piss test with Doc that shows substances, then they have a duty to pull you from the game.
Can’t see what’s wrong with this at all. No different to hundreds of workplaces around the country. That player was still subject to random testing by the other regimes.
If you test positive, on game day, as Smith did, then you’re caught up in the WADA system. If you test positive in an AFL out of comp test, you’re caught up in their 3 strikes policy. If you rack a few lines on Thursday night and turn up to work on game day Friday, do a piss test with Doc that shows substances, then they have a duty to pull you from the game.
Can’t see what’s wrong with this at all. No different to hundreds of workplaces around the country. That player was still subject to random testing by the other regimes.
The health check intervenes before any of this to ensure there is public match day test or positive result
It cuts across and through all other schemes to guarantee players don’t test positive
It’s Eastern bloc in its design
Don’t see the issue. By design, WADA is only concerned with athletes taking the field on match day with certain substances in their system. Their job is to keep competition clean. Players being removed assists that end, given the likelihood they’re WADA tested is pretty slim. And it wouldn’t stop a random AFL test as there’s no interaction between the player/doctor and the AFL’s contracted testing agency.
whoa_vardy
Rookie
- Oct 10, 2022
- 38
- 37
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Wada is concerned with any person within a registered testing pool, is taking prohibited substances at any time, in completion or out of competition.
From what it sounds like, the AFL and AFLPA have some from of policy that "random" testing only occurs after matches or within a certain time frame on match day (hence the teams can pull a player out before the test). From what I can gather the AFL testing is not random (other than maybe not all players are tested) and is not at any random time in or out of competition (which is that the WADA policy wants). This is similar to the NFL drug testing policy not fully complying to the WADA policy because the players don't want that.
The AFL is acting as cover for the players between them and the testing authority. This is the crux of the matter. They are not being subjected to the same scrutiny as other athletes who don't have a professional organisation providing that coverage (e.g. track and field athletes) and this has allowed a drug culture to continue in the competition. It's been going on for years, and I can name at least four players in the 00's (back when I was going out) I have seen doing drugs first hand.
Similar threads
