News AFL Drugs Claims Bombshell

[Bearded Clam]

So the AFL encourage players that have been using cocaine, to go to an AFL sanctioned site to be drug tested before a game. That way they can avoid testing positive on game day and having sanctions against them. And this is available to all players, in all States?

Sounds incredibly dodgy. They are literally encouraging players to cheat the system to avoid sanction from their own drug policies.

AFL: "Ok players, we are very serious about drugs in sport. We have introduced some of the most stringent drug policies in the World. No-one takes it as seriously as us. Oh and also, here is how you can do all the drugs you want, and we will help you cheat the system"

As always when it comes to the AFL it is ALWAYS about PR and zero to do with morals or equity or fairness.

I wish this would bring the corrupt Victorian pricks to their knees and result in a broom running through that stinkhole. Of course it won't though.

In most mining camps you’ll find breatho machines on the walls..

So if you think you are over the limit you can self test before you rock up to work and be formally tested..

This AFL policy seems to be similar..

They would rather you put your hand and say “im non negative” before being officially found to be..

 

[feenix67]

Apparently that isn't the case

"The In-Competition period commences at 11.59pm the night before a competition in which an athlete is scheduled to compete, through to the end of that competition and any sample collection process undertaken."

https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/what-we-do/anti-doping/prohibited-substances-and-methods/cocaine-use-sport

I would assume that means the competition is the match or event, not the entire season

Good pick up. That surprises me, given cocaine use has been shown to enable elevated performance which, you'd assume, would translate to training as well.

 

[1970crow]

What they conveniently don’t point out is the loophole of self reporting not attracting a strike against the out of competition code.

Do while they say this process only relates to a small number of targeted tests, they are deliberately being deception knowing it can also be these volunteer cases, which in essence are the ones that the report is actually focusing on

At this point it appears the out of competition testing policy is an elaborate scheme to allow them to prevent in comp positive tests

If the AFL were serious they’d at least remove that loophole of self reporting which means players then couldn’t use this testing in the way being exposed here

The players can do this testing themselves. You don’t think it’s better engaging with club medico?

 

[Brasher]

The issue for me is the AFL playing both sides.

On the one hand they have a three strikes drug policy and will happily suspend players when they are publicly caught in possession of drugs.

Simultaneously they are allowing and possibly even facilitating a system where players can avoid any penalties for drug use if they cover it up and lie (fake an injury). While also saying that's totally fine.

So which is it? Are drugs bad and worthy of strikes and suspensions? Or is it not a big deal so long as you test and don't play? Why have a system to issue penalties if you're going to undermine it secretly?

Yep. The AFL is putting lipstick on a pig and calling it the belle of the ball. The issue of what drug it is or what they do in their own time or when a player is in competition or not is secondary to the main issue.

The AFL publicly presents one thing but then isn't really serious about it because they apparently run a prescreening process to present a clean program that cracks down hard on offenders.

 

[ftmch]

The issue for me is the AFL playing both sides.

On the one hand they have a three strikes drug policy and will happily suspend players when they are publicly caught in possession of drugs.

Simultaneously they are allowing and possibly even facilitating a system where players can avoid any penalties for drug use if they cover it up and lie (fake an injury). While also saying that's totally fine.

So which is it? Are drugs bad and worthy of strikes and suspensions? Or is it not a big deal so long as you test and don't play? Why have a system to issue penalties if you're going to undermine it secretly?

Yeah, pretty much. This quote from one of the articles best sums it up (think it might have been from Gary Lyon):

“Until today it looked like only the likes of Bailey Smith and Jack Ginnivan felt the consequences of the illicit drug code.

“If you’re caught cold and you embarrass the brand you get a two-game ban.

“But if you had an illicit substance in your system in the lead up to a game you were banned from playing. And it was called a hamstring".

 

[George Kramer]

What’s clear is the club should never be concerned about a) not trading in a player and b) players like Crouch and Stengle if they get busted. They’ll never cop a 3rd strike and clearly the AFL will help them cover it up.

In terms of what influence they are on the rest of the players, given the high number of players who would be indulging who cares.

It really does make our treatment of Stengle really annoying given what we know now. If I was a player suspended by a club or the AFL over a breach I would be fighting it big time now given the AFL are helping others get away with it.

 

[Scorpus]

Yeah, pretty much. This quote from one of the articles best sums it up (think it might have been from Gary Lyon):

“Until today it looked like only the likes of Bailey Smith and Jack Ginnivan felt the consequences of the illicit drug code.

“If you’re caught cold and you embarrass the brand you get a two-game ban.

“But if you had an illicit substance in your system in the lead up to a game you were banned from playing. And it was called a hamstring".

If you were Smith or Ginnivan you'd have every right to feel pissed off

 

[spenze]

On private property?

If you are over .05 in a car with keys in the ignition you are considered to be in control of the vehicle ( which is funny because if they saw me drive they’d realize I am rarely in control). Private property whatever. Keys in the house ignition seals the deal

 

[1970crow]

On private property?

If it’s not secured ie maccas car park. But if the public doesn’t have access, then you can dui to your hearts content.

 

[1970crow]

If there's a policy saying "taking this drug is considered cheating" and clubs are taking steps to avoid players being tested knowing they'd be banned if they were caught... I mean that's a clear issue

I guess it depends whether WADA considers players exiting a competition to avoid a positive test as an issue



Apparently that isn't the case

"The In-Competition period commences at 11.59pm the night before a competition in which an athlete is scheduled to compete, through to the end of that competition and any sample collection process undertaken."

https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/what-we-do/anti-doping/prohibited-substances-and-methods/cocaine-use-sport

I would assume that means the competition is the match or event, not the entire season

The AFL illicit policy has never been about ‘cheating’, it’s always been about ‘health’. And even if it was, surely withdrawing the player so they didn’t compete in an enhanced state is the correct action. Otherwise what happens if they’re not tested by WADA that day?

 

[dogs105]

If it’s not secured ie maccas car park. But if the public doesn’t have access, then you can dui to your hearts content.

Not in any state in Australia.

South Australia
The Road Traffic Act 1961 allows police to conduct a breath test on private property. The test request can be made anywhere and at any time if the person:

is driving;
attempting to drive;
has recently driven;
is acting as a driver trainer;
is believed to have been driving a vehicle that was involved in an accident;
is committing a driving offence;
is driving in a way that suggests their driving ability is impaired.

 

[dogs105]

Not in any state in Australia.

South Australia
The Road Traffic Act 1961 allows police to conduct a breath test on private property. The test request can be made anywhere and at any time if the person:

is driving;
attempting to drive;
has recently driven;
is acting as a driver trainer;
is believed to have been driving a vehicle that was involved in an accident;
is committing a driving offence;
is driving in a way that suggests their driving ability is impaired.

NSW don't allow testing at your own residence. But all other states do.

 

[1970crow]

They keep going on about players private medical information and confidentiality.

But a regular WADA piss test would be the same but isn’t confidential?

If you work at the mines, you take a drug test and the employer gets the details?

Hell, I drive and get pulled over for a tongue scrape that finds meth in my system, it becomes a police matter.

Why is this different?

Obviously you’re kidding with these questions. At a mine site you’ve signed a contract of employment allowing the test which is paid for and owned by the employer. Your police tongue scrape is an act of parliament. The AFL players allowed an extra testing regime on the basis of player health. You want someone banned for 4 years, look to WADA. That’s not the design or intent of the AFL policy.

 

[1970crow]

Incorrect.

If you have a “non negative“ result on your piss test in the mining or oil and gas industry.. the sample still gets sent to a pathology lab for final analysis to determine exactly what substance is causing the non negative.

No, not incorrect. The non-negative test result prohibits the worker from performing duties. This would be no different, what the full analysis ultimately determines is irrelevant, the worker is stood down for that day.

 

[1970crow]

Not in any state in Australia.

South Australia
The Road Traffic Act 1961 allows police to conduct a breath test on private property. The test request can be made anywhere and at any time if the person:

is driving;
attempting to drive;
has recently driven;
is acting as a driver trainer;
is believed to have been driving a vehicle that was involved in an accident;
is committing a driving offence;
is driving in a way that suggests their driving ability is impaired.

Police officer told me very different in NT. Basically if there’s public access, ie your front driveway, then no good. But if you’re secured in your backyard then they have no power.

But police aren’t always the most law understanding persons. Another reminder to research myself.

 

[El Doederino]

Obviously you’re kidding with these questions. At a mine site you’ve signed a contract of employment allowing the test which is paid for and owned by the employer. Your police tongue scrape is an act of parliament. The AFL players allowed an extra testing regime on the basis of player health. You want someone banned for 4 years, look to WADA. That’s not the design or intent of the AFL policy.

No I'm not kidding

The AFL doesn't have to be involved in a player performing this pre-emptive drug test. If the player wants to do it themselves, then fair enough, no one has the right to access that information.

But if the AFL is a part of it, then absolutely it should be aware of the results, and not hide behind "private medical information". What you said about how it works on a mine site is exactly how it should be here if it is an AFL endorsed process.

I think they are using "private medical information" as an out. Dillon used it in every answer. He was obviously coached by PR in his responses. I call bullshit.

 

[El Doederino]

Police officer told me very different in NT. Basically if there’s public access, ie your front driveway, then no good. But if you’re secured in your backyard then they have no power.

But police aren’t always the most law understanding persons. Another reminder to research myself.

Obviously you're kidding.

If the police follow you home and know you were driving, they can test you in your private secured driveway.

 

[Scorpus]

The AFL illicit policy has never been about ‘cheating’, it’s always been about ‘health’. And even if it was, surely withdrawing the player so they didn’t compete in an enhanced state is the correct action. Otherwise what happens if they’re not tested by WADA that day?

How does banning players who break their three strikes policy help their "health"?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/simon-goodwin-to-face-media-after-off-the-books-drug-test-claims-aired-in-parliament/news-story/977aab478bae2bb52b63ad07914fdfae

Simon Goodwin responds to claims from former club doctor Zeeshan Arain of ‘off the books’ drug testing​

Melbourne coach Simon Goodwin has responded to a series of questions after damning allegations of ‘off the books’ drug testing facilitated by the AFL were aired in parliament.

Melbourne will ask the AFL for clarity on the league’s drugs policy as Demons coach Simon Goodwin deferred questions about whether clubs had pulled players out of games to avoid gameday positive tests, as alleged by an ex-Melbourne doctor.
Federal MP Andrew Wilkie on Tuesday told parliament he had received a signed statement from former Melbourne head doctor Zeeshan Arain accusing the AFL of facilitating clandestine drug tests before advising players to “fake an injury” and avoid a gameday test.

Goodwin on Wednesday said the bombshell allegations were “news to me” and he had no knowledge of any testing.

The coach said the drugs policy sat with the AFL and the league would have to answer to the allegations.

He said he had full trust in his doctor and medical staff and hadn’t questioned any late withdrawals.

Goodwin said “every club” would be searching for answers from the AFL following the allegations.


“I’m sure that is a given right across the competition and we are one of those (clubs).”

MORE TO COME

It would be niaive to think Goodwin didn't know the real reasons why players were late outs with injury, given there have been romours about particular players for sometime.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

People need to understand that the term "out of competition" does not mean any day but game day. It means off season. So during the season, regardless of game day or otherwise, is "in competition"

Which will make things very interesting if these positive tests come out & then penalties apply...

 

[Interloperer]

Which will make things very interesting if these positive tests come out & then penalties apply...

If any names do come out. They'll be in far more trouble for dodging mandatory tests than they would have been from a matchday positive

 

[whitey_1975]

Anyhow, not even surprised in the slightest. Hardly a bombshell for me the AFL clearly has no integrity.
Hiding stuff has been a hallmark of powerful institutions for like ever.

 

[Scorpus]

Accountability, responsibility. Not fun words these days but maybe just maybe there is something to it.

Except there is no accountability or responsibility when they use their secret loophole so it can't be that

 

[whitey_1975]

Except there is no accountability or responsibility when they use their secret loophole so it can't be that

Exactly. See my post above

 

[1970crow]

Obviously you're kidding.

If the police follow you home and know you were driving, they can test you in your private secured driveway.

And where did I mention that you were ok if you’d been driving on the road? Can you quote that bit please? I’m talking only about firing up your car in your secured back yard whilst under the influence. Nowhere else.