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.

 

[Tex Danger]

This would all be true and relevant if the Dr is an employee of the afl and or the clubs.

From my understanding the afl is recommending they go get a test at that particular Dr. Ethically it’s questionable, but in that situation neither the afl nor the club have any right whatsoever to know the results of a test. It’s a private matter between the patient and the doctor

So the player is lying to the club about reasons for unavailability?

That would be huge

No matter what path you follow this is all shady as F

 

[Blind Turn]

Cute you've included Essendon there

The national supporter base of an underperforming club suggests you pull your head in. Considering the Crows have all of Sth Australia (aside from the slums in Port Adelaide) to get behind them you’re still trailing in our wake. Sleeping giant.

 

[PP34]

Can’t believe people didn’t think this was already happening.

Spoke to a player a few years ago about all the testing stuff and they basically implied players knew how to get around it.

It was obvious I would have thought. Barely anyone ever gets pinged, the three strike policy isn’t there to stop these players.

Anyone acting like it’s some AFL only problem is hilarious. Set foot in any pub, bar or club on a weekend and young people will be doing drugs.

Set foot into any local footy club function on a Saturday night and there will be coke there.

It may be a bit worse in the AFL then general society due to the amount of cash these guys have and because they simply can’t go out and drink a lot because the weight issues it can cause an athlete athlete.

 

[Tjblues]

So the player is lying to the club about reasons for unavailability?

That would be huge

No matter what path you follow this is all shady as F

The ethics is the story to me.

The players are being recommended to lie.

The clubs are at best wilfully ignorant.

The league probably takes steps to ensure it doesn’t know the names of player so they can avoid punishing

 

[1990crow]

The national supporter base of an underperforming club suggests you pull your head in. Considering the Crows have all of Sth Australia (aside from the slums in Port Adelaide) to get behind them you’re still trailing in our wake. Sleeping giant.View attachment 1941048

I'm just poking fun.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I don't have any comment on the topic itself, I'd just like to say I really hate the word "sanctioned", because it can mean totally opposite things. In this case, sanctioned means the league approves of it. But a club can also be sanctioned by the league, as in given a punishment for doing something the league disapproves of. Confusing.

 

[PP34]

This is simply a 'cat's out of the bag' moment.

Is it cheating? No. The whole point of these secret tests is literally to avoid the cheating charges. ASADA and WADA are not relevant here.

What all this does expose is that the 3-strikes policy is a load of bs, and that the AFL never cared about it from the beginning. There is no 3-strikes policy, it's all show.

If the AFL enforced the 3-strikes policy, a very large amount of players would get banned, it would attract a significant amount of publicity and it would become clear for everyone to see there is a drug culture among AFL players. The AFL doesn't want that, so what do they do? Act like they take a hard stance on drugs, but continue to enable it behind the scenes to avoid a scandal. It's a textbook case of having your cake, and eating it too.

If the AFL starts suspending players for repeated drug use, big marketable players start getting suspended and the AFL product is damaged. If the AFL admits they are ok with players taking cocaine so long as they don't get caught by ASADA (which the AFL helps out with), that sends a VERY bad message to all the kids playing auskick and their parents: "All your AFL heroes are snorting coke, but its OK! because we're is helping them get around the suspensions! Don't mind that you're letting your children enter a work environment with a drug culture, because we at the AFL will make sure they don't get caught by ASADA".

Yep. It’s simply always been the AFL having something in place to make it look like they are doing something.

The AFL simply views these blokes doing it as no different from some dude doing it after a week in the office on a Friday night.

It’s always been clear the three strikes thing has been there for player welfare more than anything. They don’t want another Ben Cousins. If a player starts getting involved with stuff and starts going off the rails they can pick it up with the three strike system. That’s what it is there for.

I have never got the vibe at all that the AFL cares about anything other than player welfare when it comes to this stuff.

 

[Aussie pie]

It’s alway been very simple from my point of view. You do illegal drugs and you get caught, you get punished. Using the excuse “but others in society are doing it.” wtf is that. If you choose to risk a high paying job playing footy which is a lifetime dream for many by doing drugs the the saying, “play stupid games win stupid prizes” comes to mind.

It’s not hard to say no and not put yourself in the position to have to say no. If you can’t do that then expect consequences and don’t whinge about them when it’s your choice what you put in your body.

 

[Sewer de Lance]

And then what?

I thought that would be self explanatory . Any player who can’t meet the standards set by WADA (which by the way, the AFL & all the players have signed up & consented to) should face the full consequences of their actions.

I don’t see what the controversy is here. Why should any highly paid professional athlete be afforded special privileges to mask their unprofessional conduct? If you want to snort **** up your nose, go right ahead, but don’t expect people to provide you protection if you get caught, & that’s exactly what the AFL are doing.

 

[memoryofmchale]

Can’t believe people didn’t think this was already happening.

Spoke to a player a few years ago about all the testing stuff and they basically implied players knew how to get around it.

It was obvious I would have thought. Barely anyone ever gets pinged, the three strike policy isn’t there to stop these players.

Anyone acting like it’s some AFL only problem is hilarious. Set foot in any pub, bar or club on a weekend and young people will be doing drugs.

Set foot into any local footy club function on a Saturday night and there will be coke there.

It may be a bit worse in the AFL then general society due to the amount of cash these guys have and because they simply can’t go out and drink a lot because the weight issues it can cause an athlete athlete.

Well yeah. If some of the AFL’s most notorious users or rumoured users can escape with no strikes, there had to be a workaround.

I wouldn’t be surprised if players have their own workarounds for gambling or other forms of dodgy conduct (not accusing anyone, just speculating).

 

[PP34]

Out - Recreational drug use

Why can't they say that?

How is it any different from when someone is out managed or for a personal matter?

The player is out regardless, it really doesn’t matter at all.

 

[Deepthroat]

Hung out to dry in the media???

West Coast's rampant cocaine use (and the long list of misbehaviours and scandalous news stories) is the reason why the AFL forced their "illicit drugs" policy on every club, you dill.

Every club has players messing around with cocaine, ice, ecstasy, etc, and sometimes testing positive. But nobody openly flaunted their drug use and carried like IDIOTS out in the public glare quite like the West Coast Cowboys did from 2004-2007... No club has caused the AFL more embarrassment.

It's always amazed me how you and few other long-time Eagles posters have failed to wrap your heads around this simple truth. Always acting like it was some witch-hunt or vendetta by the Melbourne media.



Just a few news stories that I can recall. There were probably a dozen more.

-- Ben Cousins and Michael Gardiner consorting with gangsters and bikies - crooks who were under police surveillance for drug trafficking, shootings and stabbings. e.g. John Kizon and Troy Mercanti. They were warned by police to stay away from these new "friends", which they both ignored.

The pair were even caught up in a brawl between the Coffin Cheaters and a street gang outside Burswood Casino. Then they refused to co-operate with police afterwards.

-- Ben Cousins punching teammate Daniel Kerr with a right hook, sending him tumbling down a flight of stairs and breaking his arm. Just another Saturday night out with mates.

-- Daniel Kerr's recorded conversation with a convicted drug dealer, buying a large quantity of Ketamine. All caught on a police phone tap and then splashed all over the media.

-- Chad Fletcher overdosing on an end-of-season footy trip to Las Vegas. No pulse. Revived by paramedics and taken to hospital.

-- Cousins quitting the Eagles captaincy after it was revealed he ran from a booze bus and swam across the Swan River

-- Cousins found collapsed and shivering outside a Melbourne nightclub at 2am... “He was sweating and paranoid. He had his hands over his face and was looking around as if he was frightened someone was chasing him,” the witness said. “I think I can tell the difference between drunk and drugs and I’d say he was tripping out bad — his brain was fried on some hard-core stuff.”

-- Cousins finally sacked by the Eagles after failing to pull over for police and leading them on a chase through Perth's suburban streets.

-- Cousins releasing a lurid documentary where he described in detail his drug abuse and football training regimen. Niiiice. It should've been retitled: How to smoke meth and win a Brownlow.

-- the infamous locker room punch-on between Andrew Embley and Daniel Chick after Embley called Chick out over drugs

-- Chris Mainwaring, dead at the age of 41 after overdosing on cocaine and having a seizure.







Why don't you listen to your own former CEO and former Chairman who both resigned in 2007 due to the West Coast drug culture.

The Eagles' dark days: More revelations and an explosive fight

Nisbett would hand back flag, and Embley details fight with Chick

www.afl.com.au

WEST Coast Eagles chief executive Trevor Nisbett has revealed the club would hand back the 2006 premiership for a healthy playing group, ripped apart by illicit drugs use.

Dalton Gooding, who stepped down as West Coast chairman at the end of 2007, said the club spiralled out of control following the club's third flag.

"In 2006 we had the Chad Fletcher hospital incident in Vegas," he said. "The players probably partied pretty hard, we started to get quite a bit of feedback, we had a think tank in November 2006 as a board where information was fed to the board and we then realised we had to take some serious action."

"We initially thought there was a minority (of players taking illicit substances), but what came out in (the planning session in) Broome in November 2006 indicated that wasn't the case. It was a lot more people than we thought."

Nisbett denied the club had a full understanding of the actions of its players, admitting they lied despite constant examination, particularly Cousins.

"I don't think so, I know so. You can only ask so many questions so many times and you expect a pretty straight and forthright answer," he said. "Unfortunately I didn't get it, we didn't get it and some of the people who were probing didn't get it either. There were worried signs before then and we were aware of them. We were aware of them as early as 2000-2001. It was a matter of how they'd escalated and Ben's behaviour at the time wasn't good."

That's because we're not allowed to talk about medical records one may find in the gutter outside a clinic....

 

[memoryofmchale]

How is it any different from when someone is out managed or for a personal matter?

The player is out regardless, it really doesn’t matter at all.

Because they are protecting a player from facing consequences that exist for the safety of all involved and for the integrity of a competition.

 

[Blind Turn]

I'm just poking fun.

All good

 

[Elixuh]

But it's in competition isn't it?

Thats deep. Life is but just one long in competition for old chief.

I don’t think the definition would be so broad.

 

[Muddiemoose]

So the player is lying to the club about reasons for unavailability?

That would be huge

No matter what path you follow this is all shady as F

& if players are lying to clubs there are potentially factors that would be with held from a contract negotiation standpoint

 

[Lance Uppercut]

It’s alway been very simple from my point of view. You do illegal drugs and you get caught, you get punished. Using the excuse “but others in society are doing it.” wtf is that. If you choose to risk a high paying job playing footy which is a lifetime dream for many by doing drugs the the saying, “play stupid games win stupid prizes” comes to mind.

It’s not hard to say no and not put yourself in the position to have to say no. If you can’t do that then expect consequences and don’t whinge about them when it’s your choice what you put in your body.

that certainly is a simple perspective.

The illicit drugs policy exists only with the consent of the players

 

[Chief]

Thats deep. Life is but just one long in competition for old chief.

I don’t think the definition would be so broad.

In between games during the season is in competition, isn't it?

 

[Handsome.B.Wonderful]

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

As a fringe player he might have weighed up whether getting tested and producing a positive would cost him a spot in the finals side, so he took the risk.

 

[memoryofmchale]

It’s alway been very simple from my point of view. You do illegal drugs and you get caught, you get punished. Using the excuse “but others in society are doing it.” wtf is that. If you choose to risk a high paying job playing footy which is a lifetime dream for many by doing drugs the the saying, “play stupid games win stupid prizes” comes to mind.

It’s not hard to say no and not put yourself in the position to have to say no. If you can’t do that then expect consequences and don’t whinge about them when it’s your choice what you put in your body.

As I said before, we ask 16 year old apprentices to remain clean even when their friends are using. They lose their jobs. They’re younger, less experienced and don’t have fully developed minds. Yet, they suffer the consequences of their actions. AFL player shouldn’t make you immune.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

so many rules to protect the rulebreakers

Except they’re not breaking any rules.

 

[Rotayjay]

Could this mean the AFL loses its WADA compliance certificate or whatever?

 

[PP34]

Because they are protecting a player from facing consequences that exist for the safety of all involved and for the integrity of a competition.

Safety?

They aren’t obligated to make players play just to abide to WADA. I’m sure they’ve done their homework on this.

Regardless, they have zero obligation to tell us why a player is out when it relates to a personal matter which is what it would be.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

 

[swingdog]

They are. They're telling players that they cannot play. That is a decision that has a significant effect on the outcome of a game.amd the season.

That's fine - they tell players that they can't play all the time due to concussion protocols, suspensions etc.

These are all decisions that influence the outcome of games and the season.


The difference is that they are transparent with the latter, and they lie about the former.

I'm trying to think through whether lying about a player's availability has any consequences for the audience the AFL is really concerned about: betting agencies.