Training Know your AFL drug codes?

[76woodenspooners]

There seems to be a lot of confusion between the AFL’s two different drug codes ...

Illicit drugs policy
Anti-Doping code

So can you tell them apart?

Questions below, answers are either:
- ‘Roided up body builder (Anti-Doping code)
- Mia Wallace powdering her nose (Illicit drugs policy)
- The Joker (Neither)
- Taco girl (Both)

(1) Easy question to kick it off, which drug code has Willie Rioli just fallen foul of?

Spoiler: “Answer”

Wiilie Rioli has just been pinged under the Anti-Doping code for allegedly interfering with a sample

(2) An AFL athlete gets suspended from competition for four years!! Which code has he/she been suspended under?

Spoiler: “Answer”

Anti-Doping code.

By contrast the maximum suspension under the illicit drugs policy is only 12 weeks.

There is a huge difference between the two codes - it matters which is which.

(3) Which code addresses duty of care issues for the health of the athlete?

Spoiler: “Answer”

Both.

Both illicit drugs and performance enhancing drugs can be dangerous to the health of the athlete.

(4) Which drug code addresses the issue of cheating in sport by athletes either taking a performance enhancing substances, or by them taking measures to conceal the use of performance enhancing substances?

Spoiler: “Answer”

Anti-Doping code

(5) Which drug code has a so-called three strike policy?

Spoiler: “Answer”

The illicit drugs policy has the so-called three strikes policy.

Strike 1: Suspended $5000 fine, no suspension from playing, player remains anonymous to the public and their club
Strike 2: Fine, 4 week suspension, player is named
Strike 3: Fine, 12 week suspension, player is named

All strikes involve counselling.

(6) In February 2015 (out of competition) Josh Thomas and Lachlan Keeffe allegedly took an illicit drug at the St Kilda festival. Which code did the pair fall foul of?

Spoiler: “Answer”

Despite having allegedly taken an illicit drug out of competition, it was the anti-doping code that they fell foul of because the illicit drug was allegedly cut with clembuterol, a prohibited substance under the anti-doping code.

That’s a warning kiddies - if you put illicit drugs in your system you’ve really got NFI what you’re really taking.

(7) In 2004 Carlton players Laurence Angwin and Karl Norman turned up to training under the influence of the illicit drug esctasy. Which drug code were they sanctioned under?

Spoiler: “Answer”

Neither, Carlton largely handled it in-house. Angwin was sacked. Norman was handed a one match ban. It pre-dated the AFL’s illicit drugs policy, and it became the catalyst for the AFL to introduce the policy.

(8) For a first time offence of having marijuana detected in the system one of the drug codes has a suspended $5000 fine and the other a twelve months suspension from competition. Which one has the $5000 fine?

Spoiler: “Answer”

Illicit drugs policy. The AFL sanctions for taking an illegal recreation substance are far less than the sanctions for cheating by taking a prohibited performance enhancing substance.

(9) In 2007 Ben Cousins was suspended from competition for 12 months, under which code?

Spoiler: “Answer”

Neither. He had been busted by the police for being in possession of drugs and refusing to take a blood test. The AFL suspended him under the catch-all clause of ‘bringing the game into disrepute’.

(10) Which code applies out of competition testing?

Spoiler: “Answer”

Both

(11) Which code applies in-competition testing?

Spoiler: “Answer”

Anti-Doping code

(12) In 2013 Essendon was embroiled in the supplements scandal. They were fined $2 million, booted out of the finals, and had their Senior Coach and Football Manager serve lengthy suspensions under which code?

Spoiler: “Answer”

Neither. Whilst Essendon players were later sanctioned individually by ASADA / WADA under the anti-doping code, those specific sanctions listed in the question were handed down to Essendon club and officials for the catch-all of ‘Bringing the game into disrepute’.

(13) In August 2018 Collingwood player Sam Murray was allegedly found to have traces of cocaine in his system on matchday. Which code did he get suspended under?

Spoiler: “Answer”

”Matchday” is the key word in this one. He was sanctioned under anti-doping code because cocaine is considered a performance enhancing substance when used in competition. He received a 18 month ban. If instead he had been tested positive on a non-match day he would have received a strike under the illicit drugs policy (a fine, counselling, and either 0/4/12 match suspension depending on whether it was a 1st, 2nd or 3rd strike.

(14) In 2010 Travis Tuck was found unconscious in his car by police and treated for an alleged drug overdose. The AFL later declared that Tuck didn’t have a recreational drug problem, but rather it was a result of clinical depression. He suspended anyway under which code?

Spoiler: “Answer”

Illicit drugs code. Currently (Sept 2019) Travis Tuck remains the only player to have received 3 strikes under the illicit drugs code.

(15) In July 2013 St Kilda player Ahmed Saad had a prohibited substance detected in his system that was consumed as part of a pre-workout protein powder by ‘Viking Protein’ called ‘Before Battle’ . Which code did he get suspended under?

Spoiler: “Answer”

This one is pretty obvious. Ahmed Said was banned for 18 months under the Anti-Doping code. ASADA appealed, trying to get it extended to 2 years, but the AFL threw out the appeal. WADA did not appeal the decision.

(16) In September 2015, Swans player Lance Franklin had a seizure in public, which code did he fall foul of?

Spoiler: “Answer”

Neither. The Swans revealed that Franklin suffers from anxiety and mild epilepsy, which was the claimed cause of his seizures.

(17) In September 2014, Fremantle player Ryan Crowley was sanctioned under which code after taking a painkiller?

Spoiler: “Answer”

Anti-Doping code. The painkiller contained a prohibited substance.

 

[Markfs]

Two questions.
1. Both codes are for duty of care? OK for the AFL policy but are you be patronising or is ASADA/WADA being patronising about the doping system? I cant see how a sport has a duty of care to athletes beyond having safe tracks/safe equipment/yada yada...

2. Franklin was sanctioned for having a seizure? Was he told not to have a seizure again? or to control his seizures?

 

[Chameleon75]

Two questions.
1. Both codes are for duty of care? OK for the AFL policy but are you be patronising or is ASADA/WADA being patronising about the doping system? I cant see how a sport has a duty of care to athletes beyond having safe tracks/safe equipment/yada yada...

2. Franklin was sanctioned for having a seizure? Was he told not to have a seizure again? or to control his seizures?

Yea but wada don’t want players keeling over in competition either as has been the case in the past, particularly when marathon runners were using “runners wine”.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

Two questions.
1. Both codes are for duty of care? OK for the AFL policy but are you be patronising or is ASADA/WADA being patronising about the doping system? I cant see how a sport has a duty of care to athletes beyond having safe tracks/safe equipment/yada yada...

2. Franklin was sanctioned for having a seizure? Was he told not to have a seizure again? or to control his seizures?

I don't think ASADA's duty of care is to the individual (at least not directly). Their sole purpose is to ensure fair competition. They couldn't care less what unsafe s**t you are up - as long as it doesn't give you an unfair advantage. Once you talk about an unfair advantage in competition (or in training- but a smaller group of substances) - then it matters.

The AFL have a completely different set of guidelines to live by. They are a massive organisation, and effectively the employer of all these athletes. Their income is also solely generated by the public nature of the sport. (Get rid of crowds, tv and sponsorship, and the AFL wouldn't exist). As such they have a much bigger responsibility to their employees (not just players) but also a responsibility to the public nature/image of the game. The AFL's (pretty poor, IMO) illicit drugs policy is an attempt to comprimise between all parties.

 

[Markfs]

Yea but wada don’t want players keeling over in competition either as has been the case in the past, particularly when marathon runners were using “runners wine”.

ASADA says on its website "Australian sports are the custodians of the anti-doping rules for their sport and are responsible for adopting and applying policies consistent with the World Anti-Doping Code. Australian athletes rely on their sport’s anti-doping policy to protect their health, the integrity of the competition and their right to compete against clean athletes."

In other words, the AFL is the responsible party - ASADA does the testing. It tests the athletes. It doesnt have a duty to care for them.