No Oppo Supporters General AFL discussion and other club news

[DogDaySonny]

So the AFaiL are more or less admitting Dale Lewis was right with his claims 25 or so years ago (about illicit drug use being rife in the industry)?

They aren’t just admitting that it’s rife, they are admitting that it’s by their own hands that it’s rife. They are admitting that they are themselves enabling and perpetuating the footy drug culture.


The most damning aspect of this for the AFL is that Joel Smiths are so rare. Literally all of the drug use in the AFL is managed by the AFL. All but one player who it got away from. Ever since West Coast nearly collapsed under a cloud of player addictions, the AFL has managed to keep this all under wraps. But it looks like MFC simply overwhelmed the handlers. Too much, too fast, too loose.

When the house of cards falls, it falls fast.

 

[Brucie Buffer]

Is it his Myki holding hand or his rolled up tenner holding hand?

He ain’t using a tenner unless he is hanging with the boys from Arden Street

 

[HedgeFund]

So the AFaiL are more or less admitting Dale Lewis was right with his claims 25 or so years ago (about illicit drug use being rife in the industry)?

 

[DogDaySonny]

Dale Lewis: Drug use is rife and the players need help.

AFL: Help evading the watchdogs, right? Right?

AFL for the next 25 years to the public: See how good our drug program is? No one is using because no one is getting caught.


You know who also used the argument that he couldn't be breaking the rules because he was the most tested athlete in history and nothing had ever been found?

 

[H00t]

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

And today’s revelation is that at least 100 players are having their drug use managed by the AFL and are not subject to the three strike policy. Minimum five players a club are users under the AFL’s tutelage. Call Gil in the middle of the night after pounding the snort like Tony Montana and the AFL will help you avoid detection through your whole time in the league.

Now I know why people on these boards insist casual narcotics consumption is just a natural part of footy and people need to accept it. It’s because it is an integral part of this football league. When the employer is facilitating and excusing drug use (not to mention peer and social pressure), then what chance does a draftee have in that environment? I guess we also now know why Kennett so insistently demanded the AFL reveal which players they knew were users. He seems to have known that there were some secret number of players who the AFL was helping cover up rules violations for and not informing the clubs. If my guess is accurate, then he won’t be staying quiet long on this.

Anyway, SIA is investigating these allegations and making no comment. We’ll see what that means, if anything.

We already knew it was bad when there was the hair test data that came out a few years ago showing a significant number of players had used in the off-season.

This exposes a bit more of how big the drug culture has gotten in the AFL when 1 in 8 is using so consistently that they need to be tested just to make sure they are clean during the season.

 

[DogDaySonny]

We already knew it was bad when there was the hair test data that came out a few years ago showing a significant number of players had used in the off-season.

This exposes a bit more of how big the drug culture has gotten in the AFL when 1 in 8 is using so consistently that they need to be tested just to make sure they are clean during the season.

Just to correct, not tested to ensure they are clean but tested to ensure they aren’t caught. The faked injuries don’t prevent usage, they prevent discovery.

 

[QuietB]

They aren’t just admitting that it’s rife, they are admitting that it’s by their own hands that it’s rife. They are admitting that they are themselves enabling and perpetuating the footy drug culture.

The AFL are not enabling or perpetuating anything.

The easiest thing for them to do would be to simply wipe their hands of the whole thing and hand it over to WADA. If WADA catch you - bad luck. You get two years - career over for 95% of players.

The AFL cannot be held responsible for what 700 footballers do in their spare time. It is ridiculous to think they can.

You can find studies online that have Australia as high as Number 2 in the world - only behind the USA - for elicit drug use.

What the hell can the AFL do except education and hope.

 

[DogDaySonny]

The AFL are not enabling or perpetuating anything.

The easiest thing for them to do would be to simply wipe their hands of the whole thing and hand it over to WADA. If WADA catch you - bad luck. You get two years - career over for 95% of players.

The AFL cannot be held responsible for what 700 footballers do in their spare time. It is ridiculous to think they can.

You can find studies online that have Australia as high as Number 2 in the world - only behind the USA - for elicit drug use.

What the hell can the AFL do except education and hope.

First, 95% of players are not taking drugs. We already know the number is around 100 because that’s how many the AFL are managing and 700 others are not failing SIA tests.

Second, absolutely the AFL is enabling and perpetuating usage by helping players avoid the consequences of usage.

Third, if one or two players got caught and suspended for four years, I guarantee other players would clean up their acts overnight. I bet after Joel Smith was pinged the AFL had a nice uptick is self-reporting, just to make sure SIA doesn’t catch someone else out.

Fourth, no one is holding the AFL responsible for what players do on their spare time. People are holding the AFL responsible for undermining WADA rules that maintain the drug use integrity of sport (narcotics, PEDs or otherwise prohibited).

Fifth, leaving this to WADA is exactly what the AFL should be doing. Vlad, Gil and the new guy created this scheme back in 2005 apparently to undermine the WADA scheme while claiming the AFL was even tougher. The blow-up at Melbourne has shown that this was a use management scheme, not a use prevention scheme as the AFL claimed. They should have left it to WADA. Player welfare would be better off if they had. Instead of 100 users evading detection with AFL help, every player would be well aware of the serious career consequences of casual drug usage as a professional athlete when they see a colleague ruin his football dream with a night of irresponsibility.


Lastly, that was an amazing prediction of exactly the damage control arguments the AFL will make as their backs are increasingly against the wall on this issue. Well done.

 

[QuietB]

First, 95% of players are not taking drugs. We already know the number is around 100 because that’s how many the AFL are managing and 700 others are not failing SIA tests.

Second, absolutely the AFL is enabling and perpetuating usage by helping players avoid the consequences of usage.

Third, if one or two players got caught and suspended for four years, I guarantee other players would clean up their acts overnight. I bet after Joel Smith was pinged the AFL had a nice uptick is self-reporting, just to make sure SIA doesn’t catch someone out.

Fourth, no one is holding the AFL responsible for what players do on their spare time. People are holding the AFL responsible for undermining WADA rules that maintain the drug use integrity of sport (narcotics, PEDs or otherwise prohibited).

Fifth, leaving this to WADA is exactly what the AFL should be doing. Vlad, Gil and the new guy created this scheme back in 2005 apparently to undermine the WADA scheme while claiming the AFL was even tougher. The blow-up at Melbourne has shown that this was a use management scheme, not a use prevention scheme as the AFL claimed. They should have left it to WADA. Player welfare would be better off if they had. Instead of 100 users evading detection with AFL help, every player would be well aware of the serious career consequences of casual drug usage as a professional athlete when they see a colleague ruin his football dream with a night of irresponsibility.


Lastly, that was an amazing prediction of exactly the damage control arguments the AFL will make as their backs are increasingly against the wall on this issue. Well done.

My point was 95% of players who get caught will lose their careers - not that 95% of players take drugs.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

The rabbit hole could be very deep on this. Once you’re facilitating one cover-up, why not another? Once you have convinced yourself that you’re doing the right thing evading WADA rules regarding narcotics, it becomes very easy to convince yourself that it’s OK to evade other rules on other substances. The goal here is to avoid in-competition violations, right? It would be negligent for the AFL not to test for every in-competition violation and fake up an injury to avoid it, right? They only have the player’s interests at heart, yeah?

And even beyond WADA. Perhaps the league should supply the drugs to make sure players aren’t getting crap off the streets? Or maybe the league should test a player’s supply to make sure it’s not contaminated with something even more dangerous. Maybe inform players which dealers are the ‘good ones’? After all, if the AFL is helping the players consume outside WADA detection, surely the AFL has a “duty of care” (the new favourite pet phrase that magically justifies anything) to make sure the players are consuming good product, right? Yes, the rabbit hole could be very deep indeed.

I daresay it has been happening for a very long time. If some of the things Budwah used to get up to came to light at the time... The players are the product, the AFL cannot afford for the best players to be outed publicly.

 

[DogDaySonny]

My point was 95% of players who get caught will lose their careers - not that 95% of players take drugs.

I see, I misread that. Plus, if a player gets caught then it’s four years. It’s only two years with mitigating circumstances like I was drinking from my friend’s glass and didn’t realise he had laced it with whatever.

Anyways, it’s up to each player to decide whether a little partying fun is worth the risk to their career. The AFL, on the other hand, has an obligation to follow the WADA rules. And the Australia sporting authorities have an obligation to hold the AFL to its obligations. And access to the whole world of sport, not to mention all the money, hinges on WADA certifying that everyone is in compliance with their obligations. It will be very interesting to see what SIA and WADA make of this. WADA stepped in when ASADA and the AFL tried to manage the Essendon PED scheme to avoid consequences. I wonder how they will view this scheme that seems to be a league-wide effort to avoid WADA detection and sanctions, something that on the face makes Essendon’s little shenanigans pale in comparison.

 

[DogDaySonny]

I might add that it’s possible that WADA says this sort of testing scheme is OK. I don’t know what they tolerate elsewhere in the world so maybe this is legit. I would be surprised, but that wouldn’t be an unusual occurrence.

If it is legit, then the AFL only has to deal with the fallout of enabling 100 players to use drugs and avoid detection by testing authorities through fake injury claims, all for the purpose of brand and betting market maintenance. That, at least, has less dramatic (if any) legal consequences and can be better handled by a complete revamp of the rules around how the AFL is run and managed by the Commissioner and CEO, perhaps including the interests of clubs and their presidents in AFL operations. And who is in those roles.

 

[QuietB]

First, 95% of players are not taking drugs. We already know the number is around 100 because that’s how many the AFL are managing and 700 others are not failing SIA tests. See my other post

Second, absolutely the AFL is enabling and perpetuating usage by helping players avoid the consequences of usage. There are no consequences for out of competition use. It is allowed under WADA rules.

Third, if one or two players got caught and suspended for four years, I guarantee other players would clean up their acts overnight. I bet after Joel Smith was pinged the AFL had a nice uptick is self-reporting, just to make sure SIA doesn’t catch someone else out. Smith got caught in competition - NOT out of competition. Again, out of competition is allowed.

Fourth, no one is holding the AFL responsible for what players do on their spare time. People are holding the AFL responsible for undermining WADA rules that maintain the drug use integrity of sport (narcotics, PEDs or otherwise prohibited). Again, out of competition is allowed - no one is undermining WADA.

Fifth, leaving this to WADA is exactly what the AFL should be doing. Vlad, Gil and the new guy created this scheme back in 2005 apparently to undermine the WADA scheme while claiming the AFL was even tougher. The blow-up at Melbourne has shown that this was a use management scheme, not a use prevention scheme as the AFL claimed. They should have left it to WADA. Player welfare would be better off if they had. Instead of 100 users evading detection with AFL help, every player would be well aware of the serious career consequences of casual drug usage as a professional athlete when they see a colleague ruin his football dream with a night of irresponsibility. Absolutely some players are working the system. The AFL are between a rock and hard place here though. They turned a blind eye to West Coast and we all lost out minds. They are now trying a system based on player welfare and we are all losing our minds. It is impossible.


Lastly, that was an amazing prediction of exactly the damage control arguments the AFL will make as their backs are increasingly against the wall on this issue. Well done.

I think we need to be careful not to let the perfect get in the way of the good.

All the major US sports are not even signatories to WADA - we are streets ahead of that. And the out of competition testing the AFL does is entirely voluntary as agreed with the AFLPA and the players can walk away from that at any moment.

My take is ultimately we have no right to the information, we have no right to see the medical records or know the intervention. It is not our business. Just like we had no right to know Kate had cancer and we only found out because she chose to tell us.

Governments and agencies and societies the world over have been trying to ban elicit drug use for all time and no one has succeeded yet. Expecting the AFL to is completely unreasonable.

 

[Blackhawk42]

I'm as anti-drug as they come, but I'm looking at this a little differently to most, at least as far as the AFL is concerned.

1. Patient/doctor confidentiality exists.

2. The AFL would prefer players miss games for fake injuries than play with drugs in their system and blow their heart up in the process. From a legal and ethical standpoint, the latter is playing with fire.
Also, I can understand why the 'our hands are tied' argument would be used here considering point 1.

3. I still wish more players would have their careers ended (like Sam Murray) for the stupidity of ignoring their contractual obligations. It would have a flow on effect at some point.

 

[cryptor]

Even if the result of this whole thing is that AFL/club managed testing is addressed then it will just result in players getting tested privately (which is still confidential) and then withdrawing from games for unmeasurable things like general soreness and mental health.

 

[DogDaySonny]

I think we need to be careful not to let the perfect get in the way of the good.

All the major US sports are not even signatories to WADA - we are streets ahead of that. And the out of competition testing the AFL does is entirely voluntary as agreed with the AFLPA and the players can walk away from that at any moment.

My take is ultimately we have no right to the information, we have no right to see the medical records or know the intervention. It is not our business. Just like we had no right to know Kate had cancer and we only found out because she chose to tell us.

Governments and agencies and societies the world over have been trying to ban elicit drug use for all time and no one has succeeded yet. Expecting the AFL to is completely unreasonable.

I can see your point and I think we’re talking past each other. I agree with you that the AFL and public have no right to private information. I disagree with you on the consequence of that belief.

I think that belief means players are responsible for what they put in their bodies and when. Although I don’t think drug usage is smart, good or should be encouraged, that has no bearing on the point I’m making here which is that the AFL under the guise of helping players not use drugs, was actually helping them use by avoiding the consequences of failing a SIA test. And, further, avoiding those consequences though deceit, faking injuries apparently with the assistance of club doctors.

As to out-of-competition usage, again I believe that is a stupid choice, but that has no bearing on this question. The AFL is helping avoid in-competition violations. Their agreement with the players may be that the AFL will do out-of-competition testing in addition to the in-competition scheme, but that’s irrelevant to me. I could care less what the AFL and players agree to do out-of-competition as it relates to this in-competition scheme.

Let me ask you this: If the AFL is also helping players avoid in-competition failures on non-narcotic substances, say blood oxygenisers, is that legit or not on the face?

 

[DogDaySonny]

Even if the result of this whole thing is that AFL/club managed testing is addressed then it will just result in players getting tested privately (which is still confidential) and then withdrawing from games for unmeasurable things like general soreness and mental health.

True, possibly, but then it wouldn’t be the AFL running a scheme across the whole league and would be limited in scope to individual players. Also, I think the number of players that would be disciplined enough to organise a private testing scheme, but undisciplined enough to need it in support of their coke habit is low.

 

[DogDaySonny]

Another question, if club doctors are willing to work with the AFL to lie about player health with faked injuries in order to avoid external scrutiny in this case, then what other cases are club doctors willing to lie for the AFL? Concussions?

 

[Flukey!]

3. I still wish more players would have their careers ended (like Sam Murray) for the stupidity of ignoring their contractual obligations. It would have a flow on effect at some point.

The fear of being caught and the associated shame that comes with it is why most people follow the rules and are good citizens.
These two young AFLW players in Sydney I bet would not have bought drugs knowing they would be front page news if they did.

There should be repercussions for poor behaviours, but the AFL is preventing that from happening for now.

 

[cryptor]

True, possibly, but then it wouldn’t be the AFL running a scheme across the whole league and would be limited in scope to individual players. Also, I think the number of players that would be disciplined enough to organise a private testing scheme, but undisciplined enough to need it in support of their coke habit is low.

I still think it would be good to get the AFL and clubs out of the picture on this. It's a terrible look having it being sanctioned by them.

Just pointing out that the underlying activity is unlikely to change. And I'm not sure there is a basis for suggesting those players who use illicit drugs in their free time are undisciplined. At least not to the point that they aren't capable of taking the necessary action post-session to safeguard their career and livelihood. Even those players who seem to lack much in the way of executive functioning could probably still rely on their manager to setup the appointments for them.

 

[QuietB]

I can see your point and I think we’re talking past each other. I agree with you that the AFL and public have no right to private information. I disagree with you on the consequence of that belief.

I think that belief means players are responsible for what they put in their bodies and when. Although I don’t think drug usage is smart, good or should be encouraged, that has no bearing on the point I’m making here which is that the AFL under the guise of helping players not use drugs, was actually helping them use by avoiding the consequences of failing a SIA test. And, further, avoiding those consequences though deceit, faking injuries apparently with the assistance of club doctors.

As to out-of-competition usage, again I believe that is a stupid choice, but that has no bearing on this question. The AFL is helping avoid in-competition violations. Their agreement with the players may be that the AFL will do out-of-competition testing in addition to the in-competition scheme, but that’s irrelevant to me. I could care less what the AFL and players agree to do out-of-competition as it relates to this in-competition scheme.

Let me ask you this: If the AFL is also helping players avoid in-competition failures on non-narcotic substances, say blood oxygenisers, is that legit or not on the face?

This argument is kind of similar to the pill testing argument at festivals.

If the government sanctions pill testing, are they promoting illicit drug use or are they providing a service to hopefully stop kids overdosing?

Sure you can make an argument they are facilitating drug use, but the purpose of pill testing is to stop people dying. Same argument can be made for safe injecting centres - they facilitate drug use but that is not their primary purpose.

People are going to take drugs, it is inevitable. The AFL are trying to deal with that reality as best they can. Meanwhile the NBA, NFL, MLB, EPL etc. are all running their own programs independent of WADA - ie. allowing all sorts of substances.

Regarding your last point, blood oxygenises are not allowed in competition or out of competition so it is moot point. WADA can ban players at any time for using them.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Let's not confuse why the sporting integrity bodies are against drug use in sport
It isn't about "fairness," it's about making sure organised crime doesn't get involved in sport

And let's not pretend the afl, or any other organisation care about mental health. Their concern is someone having a heart attack while on the gear, or hurting another player while on the gear. All about optics

 

[peetoo]

So the AFaiL are more or less admitting Dale Lewis was right with his claims 25 or so years ago (about illicit drug use being rife in the industry)?

Yes Dale was lambasted (probably even by media types who like a snort themselves now and again)

Another aspect of this is impressionable draftees are mandated to go wherever the draft sends them. The AFL aids clubs to impose a drug culture on these players. In one extreme case as a ‘hazing’ or rite of passage. Hopefully this is no more, but it has happened.

 

[HedgeFund]

Another aspect of this is impressionable draftees are mandated to go wherever the draft sends them. The AFL aids clubs to impose a drug culture on these players. In one extreme case as a ‘hazing’ or rite of passage. Hopefully this is no more, but it has happened.

Are you seriously suggesting that AFL clubs “impose a drug culture” on their recruits.

Which ones?

How have the presidents, CEOs and their boards managed to get away with imposing this drug culture?

 

[peetoo]

Are you seriously suggesting that AFL clubs “impose a drug culture” on their recruits.

Which ones?

How have the presidents, CEOs and their boards managed to get away with imposing this drug culture?

Sorry I meant so called senior players, while blind eyes were applied
You don’t think board members are int ‘hazing’?


Bit I think you really knew what I meant. And I’m not into naming, but think of the club and player who comes to mind. Long retired