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.

 

[Turbochook]

Well I never, drugs and gambling coverups affecting sporting outcomes; I'm flabbergasted.

 

[Satan]

New Michael Warner piece out tonight in the Hun:

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/about-100-current-afl-players-have-secret-immunity-from-threestrike-drugs-policy/news-story/0578a619f1725a4e417814b37b8d27e9

Small excerpt below.

Tas is in clear

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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.

Workers on a large mining site with heavy machinery and high risk of death or serious injury if something goes wrong vs some blokes chasing a pigskin around a park for a couple of hours. Yeah I see the comparison.

 

[bradfisher14]

To use your analogy; they aren't taking a Taxi. Rather the AFL is telling them to take the back road instead to avoid the Booze Bus.

My point is that circumventing WADA testing doesn't just mean they don't just not find any naughty powder. It means WADA don't find ANYTHING because they aren't being tested at all.

Thanks for your time Champ.

Why would they test a player that isn’t playing?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

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.

This is a really good point that people are missing.

The AFL wants to avoid game-day performance enhancing positive tests, rather than telling players purely from a performance-enhancing point of view they take cocaine at their own risk. They then openly admit it in a press release.

Imagine if the UCI and the ASO organisation owning the Tour de France came out before the Tour de France and said, there's cyclists taking a race-day banned substance in training (that they're allowed to take if it's out of their system before the start of the race) but we have a mechanism in place to test them the day before the Tour de France and we pull them out of the race if the drugs are not flushed out of their system by race day. Maybe they haven't technically broken any anti-doping laws, but there would rightly be outrage and people would question the integrity and motivations of cycling governing bodies. But the AFL is admitting to effecitvely the exact same thing and trying to spin it as something other than what it is.

 

[Satan]

Workers on a large mining site with heavy machinery and high risk of death or serious injury if something goes wrong vs some blokes chasing a pigskin around a park for a couple of hours. Yeah I see the comparison.

Tech and cabin crew on airlines too are dobbed in by others if they suspect drunk or high

Delta pilot drunk with blood alcohol over twice the legal limit before flight to NYC learns fate

Lawrence Russell had a half-empty bottle of Jägermeister in his carry-on.

nypost.com

 

[RAPPA]

The average AFL lifespan is relatively short. AFLPA repeatedly pushing hard for more money. The peanuts know the risks. They shouldn’t get a get out of jail free card. If they want to deter this behaviour, then give them an adequate incentive in the form of public denunciation .

 

[The Feeder Club]

In the end, as was said many pages back, the fallout from this will depend entirely on the position the regulator i.e. SIA/WADA take and how much heat stays on them to make a call.
At present, on day 1, their position is to refuse to comment and hope it goes away. They have each been approached to comment on whether they support in principle a league sanctioned program to stop detection of banned substances on game day, and declined to do so.
If the heat stays on, they will eventually have to commit one way or the other. That either they are giving the green light to any sport anywhere in the world to do their own private testing in order to hide athletes from testing positive to prohibited substances, or they are against that and will sanction those doing it. End of story

 

[Sttew]

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.

Over 19 years?

 

[Euku]

I think politicians should do drug tests, they apparently run countries for the people who live in them , meant to be an important job I hear, I reckon the rate of positive tests maybe a little higher than the afl

 

[Corleone]

Why would they test a player that isn’t playing?

Because their role as a professional athlete isn't limited to game day. There are a plethora of rules that all athletes have to follow at all times.

The SIA and WADA are allowed to test any athlete at any time and any where. During a game. During the off season. At any time.

There are several points listed in the WADA code that describe in detail that players are not allowed to avoid being tested. Just recently Willie Rioli was punished for tampering with a test. To be clear; you cannot avoid being tested by WADA or the SIA - that in itself is a breach.

The league have developed an entire practice to avoid being tested.

Read what Wilkie said. This is the issue.

 

[Wray27]

Why is the pathology lab dodgy?

The testing kit is now supplied by the AFL and samples aren’t sent to the lab anymore according the Hun article.
Urine test with multiple illicit drug swabs. No need to send out so now completely in house and with no external record.
The Melbourne Dr named by Wilkie has been out of the system and doesn’t know the latest protocol.

 

[Turbochook]

So the club doc says 'so and so' can't play this week but I can't tell you why. And the coach and club can't add 1+1? I call bullshit. Either the doc lies to the club about the reason or the club lies to the public about an injury, either way the supporters and punters are getting screwed.

 

[The Feeder Club]

Because their role as a professional athlete isn't limited to game day. There are a plethora of rules that all athletes have to follow at all times.

The SIA and WADA are allowed to test any athlete at any time and any where. During a game. During the off season. At any time.

There are several points listed in the WADA code that describe in detail that players are not allowed to avoid being tested. Just recently Willie Rioli was punished for tampering with a test. To be clear; you cannot avoid being tested by WADA or the SIA - that in itself is a breach.

The league have developed an entire practice to avoid being tested.

Read what Wilkie said. This is the issue.

Whilst I am in agreement with your general position on this, I don't think it is true that WADA can test for coke outside game day, as coke is only listed as a prohibited substance if detected on game day. Unlike, say, a steroid, which WADA can test for all year round

 

[Cairnsman]

I’m pretty sure WADA’s testing is far more in depth than your kit from the chemist.

I’d stick with the pathologist. I’d hope the Carlton players would too, they haven’t been caught yet.

I've used the chemist Wharehouse kits on many occasion and they give you a really reliable result and confidence to dodge a positive test. Its only illegal if you get caught so good on the AFL for being progressive and providing a service to help players take drugs responsibly and avoid detection by WADA...it's much better from a PR perspective also.

 

[Sttew]

How are you not understanding that circumventing WADA testing is not acceptable conduct for a professional athlete.

This is actually the crux of the issue. It doesn't matter why they are avoiding WADA testing. They have developed a practice that enables them to avoid testing.

What if the player who self reports, tests positive and is sent to rehab by the Club or AFL thereby missing a game? That enables the player to circumvent WADA testing on game day

 

[Wray27]

Over 19 years?

No that’s currently listed players.

 

[Corleone]

McChins and Barrett on FC right now spinning the AFL narrative that this is a drug policy issue.

The AFL are signed up to WADA so they can obtain government funding. They want the money without the oversight from the regulatory body. They are actively avoiding having their players tested to keep that money coming in. That is fraud.

 

[76woodenspooners]

A player with coke in his system who pulls out of a match is avoiding a breach of the WADA code. I suppose you could say that he's "circumventing testing" in much the wayg that I'm circumventing the booze bus by getting a taxi home instead.

Not really.

It’d be more like trying to circumvent the booze bus by getting a taxi, only to have the booze bus pull the taxi over, breath test you in the back seat, discover you’re way over the limit, and so ban you from driving for four years anyway.

Out of competition testing is a thing.

 

[Corleone]

What if the player who self reports, tests positive and is sent to rehab by the Club or AFL thereby missing a game? That enables the player to circumvent WADA testing on game day

WADA and the SIA would be within their right to go to the rehab clinic and obtain a sample from the player.

The issue is the league are encouraging the players to circumvent the testers.

 

[Sttew]

No that’s currently listed players.

100 players who have self reported, been tested and returned positive? That is amazing.

 

[memoryofmchale]

So the club doc says 'so and so' can't play this week but I can't tell you why. And the coach and club can't add 1+1? I call bullshit. Either the doc lies to the club about the reason or the club lies to the public about an injury, either way the supporters and punters are getting screwed.

Most AFL coaches have a fairly short wick when it comes to lies.

 

[memoryofmchale]

McChins and Barrett on FC right now spinning the AFL narrative that this is a drug policy issue.

The AFL are signed up to WADA so they can obtain government funding. They want the money without the oversight from the regulatory body. They are actively avoiding having their players tested to keep that money coming in. That is fraud.

Well it might be time for that money to have some hamstring awareness.

 

[Timewaster]

Not to minimise the problem, but I'd love to see equivalent testing for politicians and journos

 

[Turbochook]

Just legalize all drugs and it's fixed, easy peasy.