New AFL Drug Direction Policy

[Slartibartfast]

Yes you have, governments have zero influence over AFL illicit drug code.

 

[marty36]

Yes you have, governments have zero influence over AFL illicit drug code.

Really!!!! you arent that naive are you?

 

[Muggs]

Really!!!! you arent that naive are you?

Why would governments get involved?

Getting the AFL/NRL involved in WADA gives ASADA and its labs legitimacy, helps in economies of scale etc.

Why would the government want to step into the political minefield that's illicit drugs?

 

[marty36]

Why would governments get involved?

Getting the AFL/NRL involved in WADA gives ASADA and its labs legitimacy, helps in economies of scale etc.

Why would the government want to step into the political minefield that's illicit drugs?

Didnt say they would get involved but they would without questtion be speaking to the AFL about what they are trying to acheive with their own polcies and be asking or suggesting the AFL in some way support them with their own. How they do that is up to the AFL. But considering the amoount of $$$$ that is given to AFL, Im sure they would be sympathetic to what the government suggests.
No diffreent to the AFL being part of the WADA code, would probably be at the reconmendation of the government, not that they have to follow that, but its certainly within their inetrests to do so.

 

[sameolds33]

Why would governments get involved?

Getting the AFL/NRL involved in WADA gives ASADA and its labs legitimacy, helps in economies of scale etc.

Why would the government want to step into the political minefield that's illicit drugs?

Governments are already involved at a state level. See:

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/what-ungass-2016

This year there's a significant lobby to decriminalise drugs along the lines of the drug policies in Portugal: http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-y...-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.UmTREZFtM

This new approach is already affecting how drugs are dealt by governments and will, in turn, affect how sporting bodies address illicit drugs. A change for the better, in my view.

 

[Cylon7]

State and federal sports bodies run a mile from any contentious sports related issues. They don't show any leadership. They're insipid and gutless. They fall on the easy side--that of sports administrators and heads of sporting organisations.

Athletes deserve an independant body or union...a sporting ICAC.

 

[marty36]

Governments are already involved at a state level. See:

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/what-ungass-2016

This year there's a significant lobby to decriminalise drugs along the lines of the drug policies in Portugal: http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-y...-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.UmTREZFtM

This new approach is already affecting how drugs are dealt by governments and will, in turn, affect how sporting bodies address illicit drugs. A change for the better, in my view.

Would be a brave government to do that, if I was punting on that I would back that they won't! Too much risk on the general populations views which could see them destroy any chances if re election

 

[Slartibartfast]

Didnt say they would get involved but they would without questtion be speaking to the AFL about what they are trying to acheive with their own polcies and be asking or suggesting the AFL in some way support them with their own. How they do that is up to the AFL. But considering the amoount of $$$$ that is given to AFL, Im sure they would be sympathetic to what the government suggests.
No diffreent to the AFL being part of the WADA code, would probably be at the reconmendation of the government, not that they have to follow that, but its certainly within their inetrests to do so.

Here is what you waffled Marty.
The AFL haven't just got themselves to consider, whilst they are so reliant on the Australuan Government there will be influence from them on what policies they should adopt. Whilst they use stadiums owned by the govt you would think they don't have too many choices!

Why would the AFL feel intimidated to change thier illicit drug code by the Australian goverment?
From what you say they have no choice. Why would any goverment want to force them to make it more strict?
The illicit code is a voluntary adopted policy by the AFL that exceeds most workplaces.
Can just see Dan Andrews at the next election saying, we will ban the AFL from playing at my MCG because they won't make thier illicit code more strict. I am doing this because my good friend PM Malcolm Turnball has asked me to do this as I own the MCG.
Bwah,hahaha.

 

[Muggs]

Governments are already involved at a state level. See:

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/what-ungass-2016

This year there's a significant lobby to decriminalise drugs along the lines of the drug policies in Portugal: http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-y...-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.UmTREZFtM

This new approach is already affecting how drugs are dealt by governments and will, in turn, affect how sporting bodies address illicit drugs. A change for the better, in my view.

I'm not denying some governments are doing it. However it's an area that there are clear divisions between countries as that first link highlights.

The counties that are supporting laws based more on education, health etc are the countries run by socialist parties/governments. Australia at present is too conservative for this type of approach, as shown by the most dominant faction in our "left" party being the labor right, many members of which are more conservative than Turnbull....

Even our labor governments both state and federal are taking a hardline approach on crime, asylum seekers etc because that's where the majority of the votes are. While privately many on both sides of politics (worked in politics in my younger days and have friends that still do including MPs) would support this approach either on ideological grounds or economics (it's cheaper) not being seen hard on drugs/crime is currently seen as suicide in Aussie politics.

There is no way an Australian goverment would get involved, if they did they need to take a harder line than the AFL. Neither can they be seen to support the AFL education/health based program as it runs counter to their tough on drugs stance. As both sides of politics leak like a kitchen sink with no plug they won't even talk to the AFL about this on anything more than a informal personal basis, nothing even approaching remotely official. Which is why I disagree with marty36. They don't want to be involved at any level.

The AFL approach is the kind of program that can change community attitudes to this area (something at least parts of both sides might like to happen), governments don't need to interfere and its bad politics.

 

[sameolds33]

Would be a brave government to do that, if I was punting on that I would back that they won't! Too much risk on the general populations views which could see them destroy any chances if re election

Agree that change like this doesn't happen overnight and nothing will happen here before the next election - and possibly the one after that. However, there is increasing support for decriminalisation of drugs around the world, mainly due to the failure of the "war on drugs" and the extremely high costs involved in policing it. It will be interesting to see consequences of the UN summit in member states, in particular if there are policy changes about treatment and rehabilitation of drug offenders which, in turn, will affect the regulation of drug policies of organisations such as sporting bodies, as we're now seeing with the AFL. It's a positive step in line with global thinking. Footballers don't live in a social vacuum.

 

[marty36]

I'm not denying some governments are doing it. However it's an area that there are clear divisions between countries as that first link highlights.

The counties that are supporting laws based more on education, health etc are the countries run by socialist parties/governments. Australia at present is too conservative for this type of approach, as shown by the most dominant faction in our "left" party being the labor right, many members of which are more conservative than Turnbull....

Even our labor governments both state and federal are taking a hardline approach on crime, asylum seekers etc because that's where the majority of the votes are. While privately many on both sides of politics (worked in politics in my younger days and have friends that still do including MPs) would support this approach either on ideological grounds or economics (it's cheaper) not being seen hard on drugs/crime is currently seen as suicide in Aussie politics.

There is no way an Australian goverment would get involved, if they did they need to take a harder line than the AFL. Neither can they be seen to support the AFL education/health based program as it runs counter to their tough on drugs stance. As both sides of politics leak like a kitchen sink with no plug they won't even talk to the AFL about this on anything more than a informal personal basis, nothing even approaching remotely official. Which is why I disagree with marty36. They don't want to be involved at any level.

The AFL approach is the kind of program that can change community attitudes to this area (something at least parts of both sides might like to happen), governments don't need to interfere and its bad politics.

But then we see the clubs take matters into their own hands as we have seen players named shamed and suspended for drinking alcohol! I suppose it's effectively the clubs that control the AFL so I'm sure we will see a change more along these lines

 

[marty36]

Agree that change like this doesn't happen overnight and nothing will happen here before the next election - and possibly the one after that. However, there is increasing support for decriminalisation of drugs around the world, mainly due to the failure of the "war on drugs" and the extremely high costs involved in policing it. It will be interesting to see consequences of the UN summit in member states, in particular if there are policy changes about treatment and rehabilitation of drug offenders which, in turn, will affect the regulation of drug policies of organisations such as sporting bodies, as we're now seeing with the AFL. It's a positive step in line with global thinking. Footballers don't live in a social vacuum.

As long as either government can gauge the generals publics views they will not change anything, too much of a risk at being elected.

 

[Muggs]

But then we see the clubs take matters into their own hands as we have seen players named shamed and suspended for drinking alcohol! I suppose it's effectively the clubs that control the AFL so I'm sure we will see a change more along these lines

A lot of the naming and shaming due to media finding out, and being seen (forced?) to react to satisfy the public.

I do wonder how many players have been caught doing the wrong thing, but never becomes public, thus never get named and shamed..

Personally think both the clubs and the goverment are more than happy to wash their hands of this and leave it to the AFL. They don't want to be involved, certainly the impression I got from Collingwood after Robbo named them.

 

[marty36]

Here is what you waffled Marty.
The AFL haven't just got themselves to consider, whilst they are so reliant on the Australuan Government there will be influence from them on what policies they should adopt. Whilst they use stadiums owned by the govt you would think they don't have too many choices!

Why would the AFL feel intimidated to change thier illicit drug code by the Australian goverment?
From what you say they have no choice. Why would any goverment want to force them to make it more strict?
The illicit code is a voluntary adopted policy by the AFL that exceeds most workplaces.
Can just see Dan Andrews at the next election saying, we will ban the AFL from playing at my MCG because they won't make thier illicit code more strict. I am doing this because my good friend PM Malcolm Turnball has asked me to do this as I own the MCG.
Bwah,hahaha.

You take things to the extreme, don't you?

If you honestly don't believe the AFL and the government discuss topics like drugs that affect not only the football community but general community, then you are kidding yourself.

As for the AFL as we see the clubs taking matters into their own hands in relation to name and shaming and suspending, that will be adopted as policy as we all know the clubs are ultimately responsible for the AFZl commision in the fact they vote it in!

 

[marty36]

A lot of the naming and shaming due to media finding out, and being seen (forced?) to react to satisfy the public.

I do wonder how many players have been caught doing the wrong thing, but never becomes public, thus never get named and shamed..

Personally think both the clubs and the goverment are more than happy to wash their hands of this and leave it to the AFL. They don't want to be involved, certainly the impression I got from Collingwood after Robbo named them.

Simple facts are we have seen plenty of players named and shamed and suspended by their clubs, cannot be disputed! They chose to suspend these players no one else!

 

[Muggs]

Simple facts are we have seen plenty of players named and shamed and suspended by their clubs, cannot be disputed! They chose to suspend these players no one else!

Not disputing it, what I'm asking is how many have not for the same offence...

 

[marty36]

Not disputing it, what I'm asking is how many have not for the same offence...

None!

As for Atkins and crouch getting named and shamed and suspended for a few drinks at the fringe! I doubt the club was forced into that, they chose their actions as the power did with Krakour and Geelong did with motlop

 

[Muggs]

None!

As for Atkins and crouch getting named and shamed and suspended for a few drinks at the fringe! I doubt the club was forced into that, they chose their actions as the power did with Krakour and Geelong did with motlop

How do you know none? We got no way of knowing what we don't know. How many times aa General soreness covered a misdemeanour?

Thought it was at Clipsal, pretty public venue..

 

[marty36]

How do you know none? We got no way of knowing what we don't know. How many times aa General soreness covered a misdemeanour?

Thought it was at Clipsal, pretty public venue..

For the same reason you don't know if their has, so we have to take it at face value.

If we don't know either way, how else do you determine the answer?

 

[Muggs]

For the same reason you don't know if their has, so we have to take it at face value.

If we don't know either way, how else do you determine the answer?

We can't, I just don't assume the answer is we know everyone, it's possible, also possible it's the other way.

 

[Laphroaig]

Didnt say they would get involved but they would without questtion be speaking to the AFL about what they are trying to acheive with their own polcies and be asking or suggesting the AFL in some way support them with their own.

Your faith in the deep consideration of important issues by government, and leaving no stone unturned in the quest for integrated outcomes is touching.

The reality is somewhat different.

 

[marty36]

Your faith in the deep consideration of important issues by government, and leaving no stone unturned in the quest for integrated outcomes is touching.

The reality is somewhat different.

Not in my opinion, but in your opinion.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Just can't understand why you think any politician or party would be wanting to lecture the AFL on illicit drug policy in the workplace.
They do more than most.
But as for having influence on the AFL, not a chance.

 

[jenny61_99]

Here is what you waffled Marty.
The AFL haven't just got themselves to consider, whilst they are so reliant on the Australuan Government there will be influence from them on what policies they should adopt. Whilst they use stadiums owned by the govt you would think they don't have too many choices!

Why would the AFL feel intimidated to change thier illicit drug code by the Australian goverment?
From what you say they have no choice. Why would any goverment want to force them to make it more strict?
The illicit code is a voluntary adopted policy by the AFL that exceeds most workplaces.
Can just see Dan Andrews at the next election saying, we will ban the AFL from playing at my MCG because they won't make thier illicit code more strict. I am doing this because my good friend PM Malcolm Turnball has asked me to do this as I own the MCG.
Bwah,hahaha.

Um, didn't Government pressure the AFL to adopt the WADA code? Pretty sure there were threats to withdraw funding if they didn't. I have no doubt that there would be consultation between govt and AFL over social policy issues but can't see them withdrawing use of grounds, rather cuts to funding/access to schools for Auskick etc. if their policies/approaches differed drastically.

 

[Laphroaig]

Um, didn't Government pressure the AFL to adopt the WADA code?

Indeed they did, and what a cynical little battle that was on both sides.

In the Red Corner the AFL desperate to retain its carefully conceived in house system which pretty much ensured that no footballer ever got an unexpected drug test. In the Blue Corner a government looking at the perception disaster of a Commonwealth games in Melbourne with the biggest sport in that city, and in the nation, running around making public statements that WADA compliance was irrelevant - because we got in a slab of beer and a couple of pizzas and dreamed up a better way on our own.

It's not a normal situation. To infer from that, that this level of government interest and involvement is routine or even ongoing, is not correct. Government interest in sport is about photo opportunities and reflected glory - with a dash of the usual aversion to anything which makes the politicians look bad. ANd that's why the AFL got done over on WADA compliance.