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.

 

[DavyRed]

It's not 'the club', it's the club doctor, and it's confidential.

Hang on, so the player has an unofficial test and then, if they test positive, the club doctor will deliberately mislead the club and say, oh player x has a strained hammy, or whatever, and needs to sit out the next game?

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Jesus Christ he is a moron

 

[Daniel B]

Here's the Shovel's take on it.

Given the recent issues with boundary line umpiring decisions, perhaps the umpires are similarly confused?

 

[Altum Volantes]

It’s a way of avoiding the ‘official’ tests and reducing the risk of getting a strike or getting busted on game day.

Sure they aren’t playing if they are a risk of failing, but it’s literately designed to avoid the system that is in place.

I cannot imagine WADA (or who ever) would in anyway consider this to be something they are happy about. It just completely lacks integrity.

It’s self serving either way - the club/player like it because they avoid risking a ban, the league like it because they avoid the negative press, which is ultimately what they care about above all else.

 

[mcfazza28]

BS!!!
I this was the case then Alcohol and Cigs would be banned.....Alcohol is the worst drug by a loooooong way and the AFL still have a brewery as a major sponsor......and a bloody betting agency!
Probably worth looking up why LSD and Marijuana are illegal......ZERO to do with safety!

This is a societal issue and drug law reform based on harm is needed. Alcohol is a nasty drug that causes violence and anti social behaviour.

Gambling is a dangerous and life destroying addiction.

Ludicrous that alcohol and gambling are sponsors.

The bottom line on a harm basis is alcohol is at best equal to cannabis. Realistically, based on academic analysis it is worse.

Professor David Nutt advised the UK NHS that alcohol was far worse than cannabis. He was ignored and removed from his role.

Alcohol is legal and cannabis illegal due to societal norms and the impact cannabis sale would have on alcohol industry and its sponsorship.

Subsidised alcohol is sold in the bars in the UK Parliament!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Blue1980]

Ah so that's where the term general soreness came from

On SM-S918B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Or “managed”

 

[Andrew Mc]

Why the hell would any club do that? Why would they tolerate any player letting them down in that way and then simply allowing them to walk back into the team a couple of weeks later, regardless of how good they might be?

Quite honestly, they'll treat their top tier players differently to those that are further down the list.

The top tier players, they tolerate. The others, they'll simply not pick again and you'll see them delisted at season's end.

 

[yodellinhank]

It’s a way of avoiding the ‘official’ tests and reducing the risk of getting a strike or getting busted on game day.

Sure they aren’t playing if they are a risk of failing, but it’s literately designed to avoid the system that is in place.

I cannot imagine WADA (or who ever) would in anyway consider this to be something they are happy about. It just completely lacks integrity.

It’s self serving either way - the club/player like it because they avoid risking a ban, the league like it because they avoid the negative press, which is ultimately what they care about above all else.

And there's also a competition integrity issue, with players treated based upon their marketability within the game. Whole thing stinks to high heaven.

 

[memoryofmchale]

I’m not actually sure who’s dumber here.

Joel Smith for using and then playing.

Or Sam for explaining why this policy is so wonderful when there’s actually a much simpler solution, especially around finals.

 

[memoryofmchale]

Quite honestly, they'll treat their top tier players differently to those that are further down the list.

The top tier players, they tolerate. The others, they'll simply not pick again and you'll see them delisted at season's end.

I have my suspicions that a draftee from 2023 is already on under the mental health policy. He hasn’t even been in the system for six months.

 

[The Tilt]

Hang on, so the player has an unofficial test and then, if they test positive, the club doctor will deliberately mislead the club and say, oh player x has a strained hammy, or whatever, and needs to sit out the next game?

Yep. The system basically involves the Doctor lying to the club so that a) a player doesn’t breach the WADA code by playing with coke (or whatever) in his system, and b) the player’s confidentiality is maintained, with his drug use not revealed to the club.

Some comments from Paul Marsh (AFLPA) are helpful here:

“The club’s doctor knows and that, in our view, is the most appropriate person to know. We do not discourage the players from discussing this with their coaches, their CEOs, their presidents, if they want to.

“The players’ fear is that it will be used against them in contracting or whatever. We’re in the middle of club visits at the moment. I have had this conversation with at least six clubs and I catch up with the coach, CEO, footy manager. And we put this to them: ‘How can you use the information, how can you actually help the player and would you use it against them in contracting?’ And clubs are freely admitting that they would.

“ … They would say, ‘You can’t un-know that information when it comes down to the next contract, particularly if they’re not a superstar player. It’s pretty hard not to actually use that against them.’”

‘Incredibly small’ number of AFL players pulled from games for positive drug tests, union says

AFLPA head Paul Marsh says speculation missing the mark, while Sport Integrity Australia is now assessing allegations by MP Andrew Wilkie

www.theguardian.com

 

[The Tilt]

It’s a way of avoiding the ‘official’ tests and reducing the risk of getting a strike or getting busted on game day.

Sure they aren’t playing if they are a risk of failing, but it’s literately designed to avoid the system that is in place.

I cannot imagine WADA (or who ever) would in anyway consider this to be something they are happy about. It just completely lacks integrity.

Clearly WADA would prefer that AFL players breach WADA's drug code than that the league/clubs take steps to make this less likely. Obvs.

 

[Dees 87]

No.
They're not avoiding a test.
They're avoiding playing while positive.

Not playing so not going to be tested in competition for illicit substances. 100 %

 

[T2B_]

There's something wrong with society when so many people feel pressured, either by others or the pressures/stresses of life, to take drugs.

 

[CliffMcTainshaw]

No.
They're not avoiding a test.
They're avoiding playing while positive.

So you keep saying!

 

[Stamos]

So you keep saying!

Has it sunk in yet?

 

[LTT]

I’m saying that a sizeable number of players partake and a zero tolerance approach would be carnage for the league in terms of players missing.

A sizeable number is very vague

 

[LTT]

No.
They're not avoiding a test.
They're avoiding playing while positive.

Yes they are avoiding a possible test(that they know they will fail) by not playing because of a pretend injury

 

[Stamos]

Yes they are avoiding a possible test(that they know they will fail) by not playing because of a pretend injury

But the potential test is only relevant if they play.

Is a drunk person who gets an uber home avoiding a booze bus, or are they avoiding drink driving?

 

[Xtreme]

Ban all drug users for life.
Scum!

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Okay, there’s something I don’t understand about this.

So a player goes out on the town, snorts a few lines but, no worries, the club sends him off for a bit of unofficial pre-testing. Then if he comes back positive the club tells him, no problem, sit the next game out matey, put your feet up and we’ll see you again in a couple weeks.

Why the hell would any club do that? Why would they tolerate any player letting them down in that way and then simply allowing them to walk back into the team a couple of weeks later, regardless of how good they might be?

The clubs and coaches apparently dont know about it.

it's all done between the club doctor and the AFL.

Essentially the system allows players to admit they took drugs to the club doctor, then they go and do a drug test, if they return a positive test, they then fake an injury to then not risk testing positive on game day ergo getting a 2-year ban.

it essentially lets players take as many drugs as they want without delivering a match day sanction. its just a safety net for players. Its pathetic these people can't be treated as adults with consequences for their s**t decisions.

 

[caloschwaby]

Yep. The system basically involves the Doctor lying to the club so that a) a player doesn’t breach the WADA code by playing with coke (or whatever) in his system, and b) the player’s confidentiality is maintained, with his drug use not revealed to the club.

Some comments from Paul Marsh (AFLPA) are helpful here:

‘Incredibly small’ number of AFL players pulled from games for positive drug tests, union says

AFLPA head Paul Marsh says speculation missing the mark, while Sport Integrity Australia is now assessing allegations by MP Andrew Wilkie

www.theguardian.com

If this is the case, I think many are brushing by the unethical conduct of a doctor providing false diagnoses to the club (that is if the club doesn't outright outline this to the Dr already). Would like to think integrity begins there and we'd be seeing decent turnover of club doctors who won't go along in good conscience.

 

[Obeanie1]

Okay, there’s something I don’t understand about this.

So a player goes out on the town, snorts a few lines but, no worries, the club sends him off for a bit of unofficial pre-testing. Then if he comes back positive the club tells him, no problem, sit the next game out matey, put your feet up and we’ll see you again in a couple weeks.

Why the hell would any club do that? Why would they tolerate any player letting them down in that way and then simply allowing them to walk back into the team a couple of weeks later, regardless of how good they might be?

How can the club do anything if the club isn't informed about the truth. The AFL policy and process is for the player and club doctor to lie and mislead the club.

If the club knew the real reason it would act. That is what Eddie and the coaches have been saying for years. The AFL run this behind closed doors and the clubs are kept in the dark. Even though as Eddie said they get calls from pubs, clubs, security companies, police and fans informing them of their players behavior. Even with other reports the AFL are keeping it hidden under their management and control.

Heads will roll because of this AFL culture of lying and deception now being embedded into sanctioned policies. A terrible way to manage young people's lives in a highly paid a high stress environment.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

This is a societal issue and drug law reform based on harm is needed. Alcohol is a nasty drug that causes violence and anti social behaviour.

Gambling is a dangerous and life destroying addiction.

Ludicrous that alcohol and gambling are sponsors.

The bottom line on a harm basis is alcohol is at best equal to cannabis. Realistically, based on academic analysis it is worse.

Professor David Nutt advised the UK NHS that alcohol was far worse than cannabis. He was ignored and removed from his role.

Alcohol is legal and cannabis illegal due to societal norms and the impact cannabis sale would have on alcohol industry and its sponsorship.

Subsidised alcohol is sold in the bars in the UK Parliament!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

 

[The Tilt]

But the potential test is only relevant if they play.

Is a drunk person who gets an uber home avoiding a booze bus, or are they avoiding drink driving?

I for one am sick to death of these potential drunk drivers, sneakily avoiding detection by catching a cab home. And then they try pull the old “road safety” card. If they had a shred of integrity they’d drive completely sh!tfaced and wear the consequences of their actions.

Can’t imagine the police are much impressed with this “catching a cab home” business….