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.

 

[garlic munchers]

How about it’s none of your bloody business?

Just like it’s none of your business who they sleep with, what they cook for dinner, if they’re an alcoholic etc.

Hilarious that you think you are entitled to know about players lives.

Hope you can recover from the horrific ordeal of knowing there are people out there doing illegal drugs. The horror…..

Bad call, silly call Hutchy PP34, in the AFL who you sleep with can have consequences:



It even matters when you say they have nice 5318008, just ask Rossy Lyon!

 

[Corleone]

It’s not that at all.

It’s just the AFL exercises common sense and understands some of their players will take drugs.

Banning players left, right and centre is a ridiculous approach and not something any sporting code in the world does.

They are also not there to be the police.

The police in Victoria don’t even care about drug use either. There’s a reason safe injection rooms exist and aren’t shut down by the police.

But no one is asking the AFL to ban anyone ... The AFL are circumventing WADA.

The AFL aren't being asked to be the police here, they are being asked why are they guiding players on how to avoid the police (WADA) and still be able to commit the "crime" so that they don't get caught.

I hope they are also running classes on how to coerce women into not reporting sexual assault because the last thing anyone wants is for a swarth of players being banned for doing what hundreds of young men do every year. Be reasonable.

 

[DragoDelph]

Why? It's not like they're operating heavy machinery they're playing a game for a living. Do you expect everyone in society to be subject to mandatory drug testing? Clock on, piss in this jar, sit at your desk.

Consider that they signed up to the policy, and are dodging it due to an AFL mandated loophole.

Is it better to be an environment that pressures you to not take drugs and remain clean and able to do your job, or one that pressures you into taking drugs and risking your job, personal relationships and more?

And no, I don't expect everyone to be subject to it, however I do expect myself and employees to be able to follow the rules and guidelines set out before them, and to be able to function on a week to week basis.

 

[HairyO]

Love to see a vote on this board on who thinks the league is openly corrupt

Actual fans massively yes, AFL and media sock accounts massively no.

More than open, brazen. They dont give a *.

The only reason to be an AFL Exec is to get into the club for the multi million dollar side business deals.

They dont give a s**t about the long term game.

 

[memoryofmchale]

Why? It's not like they're operating heavy machinery they're playing a game for a living. Do you expect everyone in society to be subject to mandatory drug testing? Clock on, piss in this jar, sit at your desk.

It’s because of the integrity issues of using drugs. They’re not party drugs. These are banned substances, rules apply. Often cut with illicit drugs, can be used to mask other substances, therefore banned.

I don’t know why the AFL needs to make special rules when other sports leagues seem to be able to comply.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

No you've got this backwards. They took coke or speed or whatever that unbeknownst to them had PEDs cut with it. They didn't take PEDs as a matter of course and then use coke on the weekend to throw off ASADA.

But then by your definition they did have PED's in their system and therefore broke rules by the fact they theoretically could have benefitted from it. If you're claiming it wasn't intentional, then that's the basis for the 24 to 18 month discount. Obviously it's not the reason why players are racking up, but the sequence of events has already happened - they were tested in the off-season and simultaneously got both a 'strike' each and a anti-doping suspension

 

[Some Idiot]

Life is very complicated and people make all sorts of choices for all sorts of reasons.

Expecting AFL players to act any differently from other human beings is nonsense and no I don’t care that they get paid more. There are high paid CEOs that do illegal things too.

In fact your compromise logic is exactly why players use cocaine. They can’t drink like normal people can so it’s not exactly surprising they go out and use drugs.

You can just admit you hate football if your solution is to end up with the EDFL U16s as the premier comp. Jesus ******* christ.

Plenty of corporates lose their job if they fail a drug test. Bigger consequences for off-field offences would be treating the players like normal people, covering up their crimes is not.

 

[PP34]

Plenty of corporates lose their job if they fail a drug test. Bigger consequences for off-field offences would be treating the players like normal people, covering up their crimes is not.

“Crimes”.

Good lord.

If the players are in the state of Victoria, the cops could care ******* less.

 

[Area51]

Just been reported on Mid Week Tackle that there are 100 players under the medical protocol and not subject to strikes. This came from the head of the AFL Drs association.

100 players out of how many on AFL lists? 18x44? =792. So that is 12% of players? An average of 5.5 players per club?? Far canal.

 

[memoryofmchale]

Plenty of corporates lose their job if they fail a drug test. Bigger consequences for off-field offences would be treating the players like normal people, covering up their crimes is not.

Very correct. Students at ADFA can’t have drugs in their system or they’re thrown out of defence. Most of them sit in a classroom for the day or do normal uni things on weekends. Drugs are decriminalised in the ACT and realistically, most uni classrooms have at least one student who abuses drugs. However, ADFA students have to remain clean: rules are rules and they’re enforced.

So it’s not an overstretch. There’s so many more examples here, too about why testing and asking for compliance is not a ridiculous or tough ask.

 

[memoryofmchale]

Just been reported on Mid Week Tackle that there are 100 players under the medical protocol and not subject to strikes. This came from the head of the AFL Drs association.

That’s some fairly startling numbers.

1/8 or thereabouts of the league with a drug problem, probably more who aren’t under the medical problem but could or likely will be.

Yikes.

 

[HairyO]

100 players out of how many on AFL lists? 18x44? =792. So that is 12% of players? An average of 5.5 players per club?? Far canal.

Even if you dont do lines just get on the list so if you change your mind and go mental one weekend you are protected.

 

[PP34]

But no one is asking the AFL to ban anyone ... The AFL are circumventing WADA.

The AFL aren't being asked to be the police here, they are being asked why are they guiding players on how to avoid the police (WADA) and still be able to commit the "crime" so that they don't get caught.

I hope they are also running classes on how to coerce women into not reporting sexual assault because the last thing anyone wants is for a swarth of players being banned for doing what hundreds of young men do every year. Be reasonable.

People are talking about the AFL’s illicit drugs policy in general so that’s what I’m talking about.

Like it or not plenty of people do not view doing illegal drugs and committing sexual assault as comparable crimes.

 

[PP34]

That’s some fairly startling numbers.

1/8 or thereabouts of the league with a drug problem, probably more who aren’t under the medical problem but could or likely will be.

Yikes.

You might want to go and check out the tests that have been done on Victorian’s sewage waste…..

 

[joe444]

Is the title correct? Are the clubs operating it when they, apparently, don't seem to know about it?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I feel like the pre-testing approach taken by Melbourne

Not Melbourne, the AFL.

 

[memoryofmchale]

You might want to go and check out the tests that have been done on Victorian’s sewage waste…..

It’s not surprising but it’s still high numbers for a professional sports league.

 

[RandB]

But no one is asking the AFL to ban anyone ... The AFL are circumventing WADA.

The AFL aren't being asked to be the police here, they are being asked why are they guiding players on how to avoid the police (WADA) and still be able to commit the "crime" so that they don't get caught.

What crime are they committing in context of WADA's anti doping code?

 

[Corleone]

People are talking about the AFL’s illicit drugs policy in general so that’s what I’m talking about.

Like it or not plenty of people do not view doing illegal drugs and committing sexual assault as comparable crimes.

Yeah and I actually agree.

I'm more concerned with the AFL picking and choosing when to follow WADA's and the SIA's codes and when they create a way to circumvent external regulatory bodies and their policies and processes to protect their commercial interests and brand. That's the real issue that's been brought to light today.

 

[memoryofmchale]

Is the title correct? Are the clubs operating it when they, apparently, don't seem to know about it?

They’d have to know about it. If you fake an injury, the physio, exercise physiologist, coaches would all need to know more. You can’t just have the doctor treating a bad ankle or a hamstring.

I would assume the psychologist would know about drugs. I would hope they’re told.

I would also want to believe the coach asks more about injuries than just face values.

Player development managers would also be informed.

 

[Corleone]

What crime are they committing in context of WADA's anti doping code?

Article 2 of WADA's Anti-Doping Rule Violations is publicly available. If you read this and think what has occured here is above board then so be it.

I will be interested to see if WADA and the SIA are fine with this practice.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Is anyone surprised?

Not really.
Just confirms what a a lot of people have thought for years and that is the game is drug friendly.

 

[76woodenspooners]

There are rarely ever any consequences for the highly paid CEO etc. That’s the point.

I don’t care what players do in their spare time.

The AFL’s policy is about player welfare more than anything. It sounds like it’s going to be changed so that will be interesting.

I just do not agree with this logic that players owe it to all of us to be these goody two shoes and holier than the rest of society.

I personally do not enjoy watching lower s**t levels of footy as much as AFL, so no I will not be endorsing for stupid policies that would remove players from the game.

Here’s the thing, whenever there’s any discussion about illicit drugs, there’ll be the usual spectrum between those who favour strict controls versus those who favour liberal controls …

… but then there’ll always be those who - for their own reasons - will:

• Treat the discussion as an invitation to totally normalise drug-taking, and present it as if it’s the most natural thing in the world.
• Do their level best to make those in the discussion who don’t take drugs / have never taken drugs to believe as if they’re in the minority, that they’re the odd ones.
• Utterly refuse to acknowledge that there exists nor should exist any consequences what-so-ever to anybody taking drugs.
• Usually point to some perceived hypocrisy of politicians, bosses, CEO’s, conservative voters or some other group they feel wronged by to justify why the system is gamed and why the system should be ignored.

 

[WillHayward]

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

On SM-S918B using BigFooty.com mobile app

And "managed"

 

[Aussie in exile]

AFL can just withdraw from WADA, problem is that would result in the loss of Government funding. As I have said, the AFL will just say this is part of their illicit drug program to help players.

Zero chance of the AFL withdrawing from WADA and losing all that government funding.