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.

 

[Bombermania]

I’d like to know where the players are getting all this cocaine.
Are they buying it from dealers or are they getting it through more ‘legitimate’ means like the Club doctors as ‘medicinal use’.

There's a process for a person to go through before they can access drugs for medicinal use, and the AFL would have been quick to say that was the reason.

The players are around a social scene where it's easy-to-get drugs, and as they become regulars at certain nightclubs and overtime the players and dealers become known to each other. A mate that knows a few now retired AFL players, had his birthday at a well-known Melbourne nightclub, and at one point, he pointed out a dealer.

 

[memoryofmchale]

There's a process for a person to go through before they can access drugs for medicinal use, and the AFL would have been quick to say that was the reason.

The players are around a social scene where it's easy-to-get drugs, and as they become regulars at certain nightclubs and overtime the players and dealers become known to each other. A mate that knows a few now retired AFL players, had his birthday at a well-known Melbourne nightclub, and at one point, he pointed out a dealer.

Cocaine as a medicinal drug is in its infancy, as are most illicit substances. I doubt players are using for those reasons, as you say, and there are rules that allow it. Even anabolic steroids are legal if you have a script and a legitimate medical but I doubt any players in that boat - usually, they’re for people who are very sick.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Cocaine as a medicinal drug is in its infancy, as are most illicit substances. I doubt players are using for those reasons, as you say, and there are rules that allow it. Even anabolic steroids are legal if you have a script and a legitimate medical but I doubt any players in that boat - usually, they’re for people who are very sick.

Yeah I can't think of any situation where cocaine would be prescribed for medicinal use. It does have use as an option in ENT surgery but that would be the doctor using it, not the patient; and there are also other options for the same use I think (its not my area of specialty)

Substances such as cannabis, ketamine and LSD might have the therapeutic use question applicable though

 

[4Seasons]

Just legalise them, at the very least legalise cocaine in Sydney.The war is lost, too much overhead to enforce.

Winning the “war” would be easy, the government just aren’t overly interested in it.
They’re not going to just openly legalise drugs though. Mental illness is a big enough issue as it is.

 

[Osho]

Sherlock H loved a bit of snuff!

 

[memoryofmchale]

Winning the “war” would be easy, the government just aren’t overly interested in it.
They’re not going to just openly legalise drugs though. Mental illness is a big enough issue as it is.

If Australia legalises them, Australia has got to prepare for the nightmare of situations that occur once you do it and the increased demand. Like do we ask our drug companies to start producing meth?

Then the health problems for it and the addictions that kick in and the lives destroyed. I mean, everyone likes to think about the guys that do lines for fun but for many, it’s a serious, life-destroying, addictive action that has flow-on effects. Some might say this is the extreme but look at the DV and child abuse statistics and instances of drugs involved with it.

Most examples of legalisation point towards taxing the drugs (to the point they become inaccessible for most so the unregulated black market trade occurs) and having way more health facilities. Australia doesn’t have enough of that now, let alone with ice or coke being legal.

 

[4Seasons]

If Australia legalises them, Australia has got to prepare for the nightmare of situations that occur once you do it and the increased demand. Like do we ask our drug companies to start producing meth?

Then the health problems for it and the addictions that kick in and the lives destroyed. I mean, everyone likes to think about the guys that do lines for fun but for many, it’s a serious, life-destroying, addictive action that has flow-on effects. Some might say this is the extreme but look at the DV and child abuse statistics and instances of drugs involved with it.

Most examples of legalisation point towards taxing the drugs (to the point they become inaccessible for most so the unregulated black market trade occurs) and having way more health facilities. Australia doesn’t have enough of that now, let alone with ice or coke being legal.

Agree, but if people want to put forward a good argument why it would be a good idea for everyone to be methed up or smacked out, I’m all ears.
People who just say legalise it, the war on drugs is lost, are knuckleheads.
What war? Hardly anything has been done. No serious jail time for possession, no compulsory testing system with criminal consequence's. It would be a simple “war” to win.

 

[pattymalone00]

They are circumventing if you remove a player on game day or just before. You are performing an off-the-books test not for wellbeing reasons - because why do the test if the player has said they’re using? - they’re do it to save the image of the game and avoid WADA finding out.

Also, whilst WADA people can test any time, less likely to do so if injured. They simply do not have the resources to pick on everyone.

Did a look at the SIA code which I assume is the same as WADA code (the WADA website is a pain in the arse to navigate lol) but think the main issue is that its only considered performance enhancing on match day instead of all week long like other PEDs.... so I assume SIA have no juristiction to test for it or ban them mid week

 

[Aussie in exile]

I think the Enanced Games is where ultimately the AFL wants to end up.

Home - Enhanced Games. A Better Version of the Olympic Games.

Enhanced Games Home

enhanced.org

And lose government funding

 

[The Tilt]

Did a look at the SIA code which I assume is the same as WADA code (the WADA website is a pain in the arse to navigate lol) but think the main issue is that its only considered performance enhancing on match day instead of all week long like other PEDs.... so I assume SIA have no juristiction to test for it mid week

Correct: they won't test for Cocaine in a mid-week test, as cocaine use out-of-competition is not a breach of the WADA code. Of course, they can (and do) test at any time for the PEDs and other performance-enhancing drugs prohibited both out-of-competition and in-competition.

We can test either in-competition or out-of-competition. We can test at an athlete’s training venue or home address. We can test with No Advance Notice and sample collection can include the collection of urine, blood or both.

https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/what-we-do/anti-doping/athlete-testing

The upshot: for the claim that removing a player from a match amounts "eVadInG the tESt!" is absurd. Sitting out a match doesn't evade anything (though it does avoid a WADA breach for those with cocaine in their system): SIA don't limit their testing to players who take the field on a given weekend.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

They are circumventing if you remove a player on game day or just before. You are performing an off-the-books test not for wellbeing reasons - because why do the test if the player has said they’re using? - they’re do it to save the image of the game and avoid WADA finding out.

Also, whilst WADA people can test any time, less likely to do so if injured. They simply do not have the resources to pick on everyone.

But if they don't play they haven't breached the WADA code. So it is not circumventing, it is actually making sure they comply with the code by not playing with that substance in their system.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Really?

So my workplace that has a zero tolerance policy is telling lies is it?

I know of a very recent case of a young soldier whom I know was discharged for smoking dope out of hours.

A soldier with access to firearms and potentially confidential information is the same as someone playing sportsball.

 

[B4Bear]

A soldier with access to firearms and potentially confidential information is the same as someone playing sportsball.

You are wilfully missing the point here. A claim was made that government employees are never tested. I provided an example of where this is not true.

Contract law doesn’t care what the job is. It is all about the contract.

If a player is on the gear and can’t play because of it, they have broken their contract.

All the rest is bullshit and self justification.

 

[pattymalone00]

 

[Chief]

Yeah but are they much less likely to be tested out of competition?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Agree to the points you’ve made re the confusion on the board. I’m not going to debate drugs are good or bad in this post.
What I and few other posters have problem with is the that the AFL has seemingly( I say seemingly, as the transparency around this is very opaque) bypassed secretly its own Illicit Drug Policy. This goes to the core of the integrity of the AFL.
3 sources according to the HUN, 1 being the head dr of the AFL mwdical assoc have said there are approximately 100 players who are medical managed under the secret regime. That is not subject to strike and/or reporting if they reach the 2 strikes(previously 3)
This is a separate issue to the response from the AFL saying only 6 players have ever been withdrawn from games with an invented injury because they tested+ out of competition to banned ID.
Your are correct that it is only a problem if illicit drugs are found in a players system “in competition”. What isn’t as clear under the WADA code and this will be what SIA is looking into is whether the avoidance of being tested “in competition” by a secret testing regime “out of competition” has contravened the code.
The AFL also needs to provide clarity of when the Drs tests were conducted. Anytime after 11:59 the day before a Scheduled game and a player is then withdrawn because of a positive test, is a definitive breach of the code.

The AFL relies on huge sums of government money to support it. A withdrawal of WADA/SIA accreditation will see this funding disappear.
This is an issue for the AFL that goes beyond I care/don’t care whether elite AFL athletes take drugs recreationally or not.

You are correct however the AFL's illicit drugs policy is something they imposed themselves (ie not to comply with WADA or receive govt funding) and which the players voluntarily sign up to. My guess is the reason they even have it in the first place is for this very reason, to avoid players turning up on game day with substances still showing up in their tests. If the AFL tries to implement too stringent of a testing regime, the players will probably tell them to stick it.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Winning the “war” would be easy, the government just aren’t overly interested in it.
They’re not going to just openly legalise drugs though. Mental illness is a big enough issue as it is.

Psychedelics can probably help with that (in a clinical environment).

 

[Demonic Ascent]

You are wilfully missing the point here. A claim was made that government employees are never tested. I provided an example of where this is not true.

Contract law doesn’t care what the job is. It is all about the contract.

If a player is on the gear and can’t play because of it, they have broken their contract.

All the rest is bullshit and self justification.

Not really, the point was not that government employees are never tested, the point was that not ALL government employees are subject to testing. People working in certain departments such as the ADF, Border Force etc I can understand why they have testing (though I don't know if I agree with it).

AFL players are not going to be sacked en masse because they might get on the gear at some point. If anything the AFLPA is likely to push back against mandatory testing, 2/3 strikes etc if the AFL becomes too draconian with it.

 

[maskmcgee]

If anything the AFLPA is likely to push back against

Who cares? Ban the union, all the current players lose all their income, hold a new draft for players willing to play under the AFL's conditions. You'll have no shortage of people signing up.

 

[memoryofmchale]

A soldier with access to firearms and potentially confidential information is the same as someone playing sportsball.

No but the second year arts student studying at ADFA has far less responsibility and isn’t touching weapons for most of the year. By your logic, why do they need to remain clean apart from weapon’s week? The information you get access to is nearly nothing at that rank.

 

[Osho]

They are circumventing if you remove a player on game day or just before. You are performing an off-the-books test not for wellbeing reasons - because why do the test if the player has said they’re using? - they’re do it to save the image of the game and avoid WADA finding out.

Also, whilst WADA people can test any time, less likely to do so if injured. They simply do not have the resources to pick on everyone.

This is a very good observation which ruins the alibi. Well done.

 

[memoryofmchale]

Surely we’ve established that illicit drugs rules only apply on match days if you’re playing? Which means if you have a test beforehand, you and are taken out, this circumvents an interaction with WADA. Without the little back door, you’d be playing and get caught and suspended and create a nasty headline. But illicit drug rules don’t apply if you’re not playing.

 

[Present Not Past]

Surely we’ve established that illicit drugs rules only apply on match days if you’re playing? Which means if you have a test beforehand, you and are taken out, this circumvents an interaction with WADA. Without the little back door, you’d be playing and get caught and suspended and create a nasty headline. But illicit drug rules don’t apply if you’re not playing.

The use of illicit drugs and gambling is what the AFL stands for.
That's ******* outstanding for our national sport.

 

[Cairnsman]

And lose government funding

Quite the opposite, it turns out governments all over the globe are being manipulated by their sponsors to support the concept. Expect to see it be a thing in the real near future in fact.

 

[Osho]

Surely we’ve established that illicit drugs rules only apply on match days if you’re playing? Which means if you have a test beforehand, you and are taken out, this circumvents an interaction with WADA. Without the little back door, you’d be playing and get caught and suspended and create a nasty headline. But illicit drug rules don’t apply if you’re not playing.

Yep, it's a disingenuous argument. Testing keeps going but you avoid the matchday category. And avoid a strike as I understand it? Though get to rehab those achy calves. It's disingenuous.