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.

 

[reg_lower91]

Am I the only one who thinks this is being turned in to a bigger deal than what it actually is?

• AFL permit tests to be performed on players prior to gameday to assess if they have illicit drugs in their system
• Doing so means said player cannot take the field, meaning they also avoid any potential ASADA tests and subsequent ban
• Should illicit drugs have been found in their system, they are withdrawan from the team under the guise of an injury or personal matter
• This is done because the doctor who is performing the test is under doctor/ client confidentiality and cannot divulge to the AFL or club executives as to why the player cannot play (we are all afforded this right - AFL players are no different)

Is this a loophole? Yeah, kind of.
Does it still stop the player from playing whilst the substances are still in their system? Yes.
Does it prevent the player from receiving a lengthy ban from the sport? Yes.

In my eyes, I think this is a smart way to approach the matter. I don't ever want to see a player be banned for having cocaine in their system from a night out. I understand others will have opposing views on this - and that's fine, it's subjective - but I don't think the punishment suits the "crime" for recreational drugs in a players' system.

I think this is by far the better approach than letting ASADA nab them. It stops them from playing. It protects their privacy. You can work with them on avoiding potential offences in future, without it eventuating in to them receiving a lengthy ban.

Most players do recreational drugs. Whether you agree with it or not, it's plain and simple fact. If ASADA nabbed them all, we wouldn't have a league. I think this is actually a smart way to approach the topic and is in-line with MOST community standards/ expectations.

 

[ahhhhhh]

Disagree, that's like saying teaching kids about STDs and safe sex and whatnot is encouraging 'fornication'.

It's just dealing with the reality that teens shag and young men with too much money will indulge in bags. Both are harm minimisation.

Is harm minimisation secretly going around their own drug policy and using a dodgy pathology lab?

I honestly don't have an issue with players using recreational drugs, as I'm well aware of their prevalence in society. That is not the issue here, though; my gripe is with the AFL and the secrecy, and I'll go as far as saying corruption is involved in covering this up. Not to mention taxpayer fraud and general integrity issues.

At the end of the day, this is corporate corruption to protect the AFL's bottom line.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

might be an unpopular opinion but I reckon it seems like a pretty sensible policy.

But then, I've never given a flying * what young men get up to in their down time. Either they roll the dice with their performance or they do ok. Certainly not a moral issue in my mind.

Funny thing is, anyone who is outraged by this kind of thing doesn't seem to understand that the alternative is that they would almost certainly have seen multiple players they really like in their own team wiped out of the game for a number of years, for the grand crime of doing a few rails here and there

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Any chance of these shills at the presser asking a pertinent question?

• How do the clubs know which players to pre-test?
• To your knowledge; How many times has this occurred?
• When was this "loophole" advertised to the clubs?
• How long has this been standard practice at the AFL?

That's a couple to start with.

Sports journalists struggle to string two words together

 

[DragoDelph]

How many times do you reckon your average, middle rung afl player can get away with being unable to play due to failing a voluntary, confidential drug test before getting the arse? Not many would be my guess. There are plenty of consequences.

How often do you think your average worker who is beholden to a drugs policy and d&a testing gets away with being able to work and earn a living?

Not once. Stood down without pay, or fired on the spot.

I don't think consequences outside missing games where you've got it in your system is completely necessary. If it becomes an issue for other players and you're missing too many games sure take punitive action. But throwing them out on the street is not the answer either. The AFL through trying to appease the media and Helen Lovejoy's have introduced the 3 strikes system when it should really be 'we will help you through this' approach. Sometimes there is only so much you can do though.

A few weeks without pay certainly wouldn't hurt.

Doing something is better than nothing. And this current practice is even less than nothing, it's giving the green light to illegal drug use. It's ok, the AFL will protect you. Keep using.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

people in general love the bags these days.

EFA

 

[3207]

EFA

True. I’m not young.

 

[Roogene]

might be an unpopular opinion but I reckon it seems like a pretty sensible policy.

But then, I've never given a flying * what young men get up to in their down time. Either they roll the dice with their performance or they do ok. Certainly not a moral issue in my mind.

Funny thing is, anyone who is outraged by this kind of thing doesn't seem to understand that the alternative is that they would almost certainly have seen multiple players they really like in their own team wiped out of the game for a number of years, for the grand crime of doing a few rails here and there

This is why society has broken down, people just don't care about the laws of the land anymore.

Drugs mess people up big time.

 

[Crankyhawk]

So what happened with Joel Smith then?

Did he not tell Melbourne and therefore jot get pre-tested because he wanted to play?

Or did he get tested and the club allowed a player they knew not to be WADA complaint to play because it was an important game?

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

they were playing hawthorn so doubt it was that important (would have anticipated to win smith or no smith - though the game was closer than expected). Does make newks' late withdrawal in that same game suss though...

 

[Lance Uppercut]

True. I’m not young.

you and me both brother sniffles

 

[Crankyhawk]

Because it's absolutely p*** weak and opportunistic by a bloke who has form in this regard. You've got evidence that the AFL covered up drug use (at my team or anyone else's), then have some balls and air those documents in public.

I take an active interest in politics, using PP for such petty/benign things (in the grand scheme of what government exists for) is a coward's way out.

Also, the bloke has several axes to grind with major sporting bodies, do you know what his major policy platform is by any chance?

killing pokies/ gambling - and I have no issue with it

 

[nut]

So what happened with Joel Smith then?

Did he not tell Melbourne and therefore jot get pre-tested because he wanted to play?

Or did he get tested and the club allowed a player they knew not to be WADA complaint to play because it was an important game?

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Joel failed to use an AFL approved supplier…

 

[branedotorg]

They don't have zero tolerance now. We all know the stories and if you're a high profile player the rules that apply to the 34th guy on a playing list don't apply to you.

Come on, that's just for 3rd party payments, internal club rules, sponsors events, PR and MRP grading.

 

[MP_]

How often do you think your average worker who is beholden to a drugs policy and d&a testing gets away with being able to work and earn a living?

Not once. Stood down without pay, or fired on the spot.

A few weeks without pay certainly wouldn't hurt.

Doing something is better than nothing. And this current practice is even less than nothing, it's giving the green light to illegal drug use. It's ok, the AFL will protect you. Keep using.

There now needs to be some transparency on what the clubs are doing when these test come up positive and the player is pulled from playing. Are they receiving the same advice that someone who gets a strike is?

 

[Sewer de Lance]

A friend of mine does drug screening tests for FIFO workers at a large mining site. Each rotation, a select group of employees are randomly chosen to provide a mandatory urine/saliva sample. If you fail the test without an adequate medical exemption, you are immediately escorted off the premises & your employment terminated.

There is no first strike policy, & there certainly is no courtesy heads up text messages or phone calls that you’re about to be tested. The AFL is a grubby organisation with serious integrity issues. It’s effectively endorsing an internal policy that enables players to cheat the system. I hope WADA throws the book at them.

 

[Devington]

might be an unpopular opinion but I reckon it seems like a pretty sensible policy.

But then, I've never given a flying * what young men get up to in their down time. Either they roll the dice with their performance or they do ok. Certainly not a moral issue in my mind.

Funny thing is, anyone who is outraged by this kind of thing doesn't seem to understand that the alternative is that they would almost certainly have seen multiple players they really like in their own team wiped out of the game for a number of years, for the grand crime of doing a few rails here and there

As someone with a club membership I'd be pretty ******* pissed if I found out one of my team's players missed a game purely because they didn't have the self control not to snort some lines during the season. Save it for the offseason.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

In my eyes, I think this is a smart way to approach the matter. I don't ever want to see a player be banned for having cocaine in their system from a night out. I understand others will have opposing views on this - and that's fine, it's subjective - but I don't think the punishment suits the "crime" for recreational drugs in a players' system.

I think this is by far the better approach than letting ASADA nab them. It stops them from playing. It protects their privacy. You can work with them on avoiding potential offences in future, without it eventuating in to them receiving a lengthy ban.

Most players do recreational drugs. Whether you agree with it or not, it's plain and simple fact. If ASADA nabbed them all, we wouldn't have a league. I think this is actually a smart way to approach the topic and is in-line with MOST community standards/ expectations.

I think you're misunderstanding the whole situation. ASADA have no interest in out-of-competition cocaine use. That's on the AFL with their illicit drugs policy. It's entirely fair for ASADA to suspend players if they test positive on match day, as it's impossible to know when the cocaine was taken and it could have been on match day. And the issue here is the AFL circumventing its own agreed policy with ASADA/WADA. There are ways to commit violations that are outside of just positive tests. The AFL can't help facilitate the avoidance of being tested by ASADA/WADA, in which their testing can include both in-competition and out-of-competition testing.

 

[matty lloyd the champ]

I think the fact that the AFL have kept this program on the down low indicates that there is some shadiness to the practice.

 

[Chief]

A friend of mine does drug screening tests for FIFO workers at a large mining site. Each rotation, a select group of employees are randomly chosen to provide a mandatory urine/saliva sample. If you fail the test without an adequate medical exemption, you are immediately escorted off the premises & your employment terminated.

There is no first strike policy, & there certainly is no courtesy heads up text messages or phone calls that you’re about to be tested. The AFL is a grubby organisation with serious integrity issues. It’s effectively endorsing an internal policy that enables players to cheat the system. I hope WADA throws the book at them.

Kind of sounds like the mining companies need to be better.

 

[DragoDelph]

I am under no illusion that players from every club enjoy some powder.
Off season, go for it, just don't get caught.
In season, you have signed onto a drugs policy under the AFL, under WADA etc. If you fail to adhere to those policies, you face the repercussions.

Any average joe/jodi in a workplace who signs onto these policies understands this. A few are stupid and get caught, and have to find alternate work for a few weeks, but quickly learn. They are certainly not protected by the employer, helping them to circumnavigate the policy. And if they are, both parties are then likely in breach of integrity, corruption etc. policies which carry greater penalties.

All while earning a *ton less, with less education, support and mental and physical health services available. We should absolutely be holding players to a higher standard. They get paid for it. Like it or not they are idolised by younger supporters.

/rant over

 

[Milanista28]

Am I the only one who thinks this is being turned in to a bigger deal than what it actually is?

• AFL permit tests to be performed on players prior to gameday to assess if they have illicit drugs in their system
• Doing so means said player cannot take the field, meaning they also avoid any potential ASADA tests and subsequent ban
• Should illicit drugs have been found in their system, they are withdrawan from the team under the guise of an injury or personal matter
• This is done because the doctor who is performing the test is under doctor/ client confidentiality and cannot divulge to the AFL or club executives as to why the player cannot play (we are all afforded this right - AFL players are no different)

Is this a loophole? Yeah, kind of.
Does it still stop the player from playing whilst the substances are still in their system? Yes.
Does it prevent the player from receiving a lengthy ban from the sport? Yes.

In my eyes, I think this is a smart way to approach the matter. I don't ever want to see a player be banned for having cocaine in their system from a night out. I understand others will have opposing views on this - and that's fine, it's subjective - but I don't think the punishment suits the "crime" for recreational drugs in a players' system.

I think this is by far the better approach than letting ASADA nab them. It stops them from playing. It protects their privacy. You can work with them on avoiding potential offences in future, without it eventuating in to them receiving a lengthy ban.

Most players do recreational drugs. Whether you agree with it or not, it's plain and simple fact. If ASADA nabbed them all, we wouldn't have a league. I think this is actually a smart way to approach the topic and is in-line with MOST community standards/ expectations.

But they used the word 'secret'
Must be really bad

 

[Muddiemoose]

Am I the only one who thinks this is being turned in to a bigger deal than what it actually is?

• AFL permit tests to be performed on players prior to gameday to assess if they have illicit drugs in their system
• Doing so means said player cannot take the field, meaning they also avoid any potential ASADA tests and subsequent ban
• Should illicit drugs have been found in their system, they are withdrawan from the team under the guise of an injury or personal matter
• This is done because the doctor who is performing the test is under doctor/ client confidentiality and cannot divulge to the AFL or club executives as to why the player cannot play (we are all afforded this right - AFL players are no different)

Is this a loophole? Yeah, kind of.
Does it still stop the player from playing whilst the substances are still in their system? Yes.
Does it prevent the player from receiving a lengthy ban from the sport? Yes.

In my eyes, I think this is a smart way to approach the matter. I don't ever want to see a player be banned for having cocaine in their system from a night out. I understand others will have opposing views on this - and that's fine, it's subjective - but I don't think the punishment suits the "crime" for recreational drugs in a players' system.

I think this is by far the better approach than letting ASADA nab them. It stops them from playing. It protects their privacy. You can work with them on avoiding potential offences in future, without it eventuating in to them receiving a lengthy ban.

Most players do recreational drugs. Whether you agree with it or not, it's plain and simple fact. If ASADA nabbed them all, we wouldn't have a league. I think this is actually a smart way to approach the topic and is in-line with MOST community standards/ expectations.

Devils advocate but it could also be doing players who have legitimate substance issues a disservice as well

I’m not talking about your “boys will be boys have a couple of lines” kinda thing that this might protect

But what about players like Oliver or Yaren who’s addiction may of been kept from the club and not given enough help or support and was able to skate along with zero consequences
Consequences don’t just need to be copping a ban or publicly named but actually some proper time and resources invested into them potentially avoiding a negative outcome or letting them to the wolves once they retire with a drug addiction that could of been avoided

 

[Lance Uppercut]

A friend of mine does drug screening tests for FIFO workers at a large mining site. Each rotation, a select group of employees are randomly chosen to provide a mandatory urine/saliva sample. If you fail the test without an adequate medical exemption, you are immediately escorted off the premises & your employment terminated.

There is no first strike policy, & there certainly is no courtesy heads up text messages or phone calls that you’re about to be tested. The AFL is a grubby organisation with serious integrity issues. It’s effectively endorsing an internal policy that enables players to cheat the system. I hope WADA throws the book at them.

you mean, a workplace where heavy machinery is operated and a drug ban is justified in an industrial and workplace safety context?

Fascinating

 

[Lance Uppercut]

As someone with a club membership I'd be pretty ******* pissed if I found out one of my team's players missed a game purely because they didn't have the self control not to snort some lines during the season. Save it for the offseason.

well I can absolutely guarantee you that players in your team, likely a lot of them, do not have the self control not to snort some lines during the season.

Sorry about that