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.

 

[pattymalone00]

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

Apparently SIA are currently investigating if it’s in breach of there code so could explain the silence from them…

 

[Timewaster]

I did wonder why Jimmy Krakouer hasn't been selected for a while ...

 

[Altum Volantes]

Cuz just used to jump over walls/into rivers to avoid his tests.

These new guys have it all.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Ok, I'm going to give this one more go, and them I'm out.

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 way 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.

If the testing and pulling out of AFL clubs occurs on matchday, it is a breach of the code.

We don't know whether the AFL's own testing and pulling out players on match day or the day before or not, but by definition the AFL's press release is deceptive:

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.

But this release by the AFL is actually a misrepresentation of the code, and it's carefully worded. "fundamental premise on which it is founded that any players who takes the field" might be a technically true statement, but it's irrelevant. The code isn't concernred whether they take the field, it's whether it's in their system on match day, which according to the code begins at 11.59 the day before.

The thing is the AFL understands this distinction in other parts of their statement release:

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).

Those two sections of the press release smell to me. Why do you need to make the statement about the fundamental premise of the code of match-day performance, because it's irrelevant to the code itself ticking over match day at 11.59pm? Unless there actually has been anti-doping breaches because players are being tested and pulled out on match day itself, which is a breach.

 

[skipper kelly]

fool me once, shame on you ..........

 

[Crankyhawk]

That’s different to lying though

You don’t think the Dr usually tells the club why the player isn’t fit to play? So when he suddenly doesn’t then they wouldn’t know something’s up?

Well they’re acting like they don’t know this happens so what do they think at those times?

Depends. A club doctor might.
A non club doctor would be unlikely to tell the club.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Patient-client confidentiality is only applicable in some instances and I’m pretty sure doing something illegal has to be reported unless it’s only affecting you. Surely cheating in professional sport falls under the report category?

But it's not cheating.

 

[Bluelegs]

If only this could be directly linked to a non Victorian club, they are the ones with the illicit drug problems worth really digging into and exposing.

Are we meant to just give Melbourne another * for their premiership to go with the COVID one?

I mean the AFL have openly admitted this happens at every club, but sure.

 

[PhatBoy]

Doing cocaine is still illegal isn't it, the whole AFL policy seems to ignore this, but player welfare, yeah. * players who do coke. If I did coke and couldn't do my job for a week I guarantee my employer would not be saying "hey just go to the doctor and get a certificate that says you've got a hammy and we'll pretend we know nothing about it". Players need to grow the * up or face the consequences and the AFL needs to stop enabling them.

This.
I get it, the consequences health wise and lifestyle wise really aren’t much different to alcohol despite the differing social stigmas but at the end of the day one is legal and one isn’t, and one you legitimately can sit there and have 1, 2, 3 of (doesn’t happen a lot but it does happen) and it means nothing. The other is an illegal narcotic and for better or for worse - and yes I can understand some of the arguments for just throwing the hands up and legalising it - it is illegal and quite simply if you need to do lines to have a good time you have issues that need addressing.

As you said, grow the f**k up and be professional

 

[SBYM]

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.

No chance any Baggers are involved in shenanigans.

They're afraid Vossy would crack their heads open with those massive, drug-fuelled biceps.

Do as I say, not as I do.

#Flaggers

 

[Demonic Ascent]

One of the most ridiculous posts I’ve ever read.

Oh why is that, because it doesn't conform with your preconceived biases?

 

[memoryofmchale]

But it's not cheating.

If you break a rule, you are cheating.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

If you break a rule, you are cheating.

They're not breaking a rule. They are actually avoiding breaking a rule.

 

[Devington]

No chance any Baggers are involved in shenanigans.

They're afraid Vossy would crack their heads open with those massive, drug-fuelled biceps.

Do as I say, not as I do.

#Flaggers

Not North either. First of all we're too poor to pay for extra drug tests, second of all the AFL didn't tell us about the option in the hopes half our squad gets pinged and then they can finally shut us down or ship us off.

 

[memoryofmchale]

They're not breaking a rule. They are actually avoiding breaking a rule.

Which in turn is (more than likely) breaking another rule about not doing that.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Which in turn is (more than likely) breaking another rule about not doing that.

No, it's (more than likely) not.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

No, it's (more than likely) not.

The AFL's Anti-Doping code bans:

• Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample
• Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method
• Evading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection by an Athlete
• Whereabouts Failures by an Athlete
• Tampering or Attempted Tampering
• Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Athlete Support Person
• Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking
• Administration or Attempted Administration
• Complicity or Attempted Complicity by an Athlete or Other Person
• Prohibited Association by an Athlete or Other Person
• Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to Authorities

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I highly doubt Melbourne are the only club involved in this.

We had a guy on our list that missed plenty of games for mysterious reasons 2 years in a row before he was asked to look for a trade. Not much was made of it in the media which seemed weird at the time.

He didn't happen to come to Melbourne did he?

 

[Jazny]

A bunch of alcoholic AFL supporters getting super upset about AFL players taking drugs in their free time

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The AFL's Anti-Doping code bans:

• Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample
• Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method
• Evading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection by an Athlete
• Whereabouts Failures by an Athlete
• Tampering or Attempted Tampering
• Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Athlete Support Person
• Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking
• Administration or Attempted Administration
• Complicity or Attempted Complicity by an Athlete or Other Person
• Prohibited Association by an Athlete or Other Person
• Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to Authorities

Yep like I said, not breaking any rules. Thanks for clarifying

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yep like I said, not breaking any rules. Thanks for clarifying

You don't think the AFL's self-admitted removal of players who may have performance enhancing substances on match day and pretending that they have an injury could be breaching one of those dot points?

 

[Present Not Past]

I’d be absolutely staggered if a current AFL player has ever done heroin.

How would anyone know if it's covered up so comprehensibly by the clubs?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Reporting and being arrested and charged are different things. I can’t believe you seem to think people can do illegal things and get away with it and it is of no concern unless it affects you personally. Your ignorance must be bliss .People need consequences to their actions, those that don’t become entitled.

Don't be a wowser.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

You don't think the AFL's self-admitted removal of players who may have performance enhancing substances on match day and pretending that they have an injury could be breaching one of those dot points?

No.

 

[Mootsy]

fool me once, shame on you ..........