Hot Topic Off The Books Illicit Drug Test Claims in Bombshell AFL ‘Cover-Up’ - Injuries Faked To Evade Game Day Detection

[katmanblue]

I wouldn't say no movement towards it.
Pot is now legal in a lot of the US for example.
Also drugs like MDMA and magic mushrooms being used as clinical treatments.
It sure is slow, though.

It's mostly because those that are stridently opposed have no idea what they are talking about and have zero experience with responsible drug users.

Much like those most against immigration being from communities which have no immigrants. There only experience is the scare tactics used.

Sent from my SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[OldBlueFan]

I wouldn't say no movement towards it.
Pot is now legal in a lot of the US for example.
Also drugs like MDMA and magic mushrooms being used as clinical treatments.
It sure is slow, though.

I guess I should have prefaced my comment with "apart from cannabis ...". But the beneficial aspects of cannabis so far outweigh the negatives, that it was almost inevitable. Despite that, it's still taken more than 50 years. So yeah, I'm still not holding my breath for a truly rational approach to the illicit drug "problem".

 

[BlueGum]

I can't get past how stupid Joel Smith was.

 

[Aphrodite]

I can't get passed how stupid Joel Smith was.

I didn’t even realise he is Shaun Smith’s son.

 

[Revenant1965]

'We're all really surprised': Voss joins chorus of disappointment of drugs policy as AFLPA defends process

Carlton coach Michael Voss shares his disappointment with the AFL's illicit drugs policy, as the AFLPA defends how positive tests are handled.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Aphrodite]

https://archive.md/qm45l

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

Dusty out with a calf again…..

 

[Aphrodite]

https://archive.md/uXuk2

 

[sparkybagger]

Good luck to anyone with a 1-week injury or is a late withdrawal moving forward, whether legitimate or not.

The easiest solution operationally is probably zero tolerance if you want to send a message to players but that opens up a different can of worms. If it really is a minority of players, you're probably better off going that route in the long run at the expense of a few idiots.

The alternative is the NFL way, which is protectionism of the revenue streams at all costs but that's at the expense of the welfare of all and mostly makes the lawyers even richer. During my time there we had 2000 lawyers on retainer....

 

[My Hat]

He blew the whistle on the AFL drugs scandal. Here is what Melbourne’s ex-club doctor wants to change

Zeeshan Arain says he documented a disturbingly high prevalence of illicit drug use among players at the Melbourne Football Club and wanted to expose a cultural problem, not blow up the league’s drugs policy.

www.theage.com.au

https://archive.md/0DNYE

 

[Gethelred]

The other side of it is also that, from this point, any player who is either withdrawn from a match or withdraws themselves is going to find an ASADA official waiting for them with testing kit in hand now.

Wilkie has all but ensured that this particular method of doing things is now untenable.

 

[My Hat]

The other side of it is also that, from this point, any player who is either withdrawn from a match or withdraws themselves is going to find an ASADA official waiting for them with testing kit in hand now.

Wilkie has all but ensured that this particular method of doing things is now untenable.

Not at all sure that's true. All the reporting I've seen is that ASADA has no interest in testing athletes for the kind of recreational drugs we're talking about if they are not competing on that day.

If you've come across reports to the contrary then I'd be interested to see them.

 

[Gethelred]

Not at all sure that's true. All the reporting I've seen is that ASADA has no interest in testing athletes for the kind of recreational drugs we're talking about if they are not competing on that day.

If you've come across reports to the contrary then I'd be interested to see them.

You miss the point.

If they - the AFL, the Players Association, or an individual player - wanted to do this again at any point, they are now running the risk of an ASADA officer showing up to confirm the trend of attempting to hide positive tests.

The issue is not solely whether they're interested in recreational drugs, but an established systematic process to avoid legitimate testing, which is what they would be objecting to.

 

[My Hat]

You miss the point.

If they - the AFL, the Players Association, or an individual player - wanted to do this again at any point, they are now running the risk of an ASADA officer showing up to confirm the trend of attempting to hide positive tests.

The issue is not solely whether they're interested in recreational drugs, but an established systematic process to avoid legitimate testing, which is what they would be objecting to.

I think it's you that's missing the point.

The tests were 'hidden' not to conceal them from ASADA but to conceal them from clubs and the media etc. If the exact same tests were happening but the AFL was shouting from the rooftops about it, even to the extent of revealing which players tested positive and when, what would ASADA do about it? As far as I can tell, precisely nothing.

'Legitimate testing' means different things for different substances. The alleged activities appear to lie within the rules for recreational drugs. If the response is, well, that wouldn't be OK for other substances so therefore ASADA needs to do more testing, that seems like an overreaction.

But let's say you're right. Let's say a player is withdrawn, an ASADA officer shows up and administers a test. Since the player is not competing on that day, the test will not check for recreational drugs, because that's ASADA's policy. So the test will only be for other substances. And the player will be clean for those substances, so the test will come back negative.

I'm not seeing anything in that sequence of events that will cause the current practice to cease.

 

[DangerousD]

You miss the point.

If they - the AFL, the Players Association, or an individual player - wanted to do this again at any point, they are now running the risk of an ASADA officer showing up to confirm the trend of attempting to hide positive tests.

The issue is not solely whether they're interested in recreational drugs, but an established systematic process to avoid legitimate testing, which is what they would be objecting to.

I’m not really seeing your point or why any player who removes themselves from a match would be concerned by an ASADA officer rocking up and testing them.

If they withdraw from the game and don’t play, they aren’t in breach of any ASADA rules.

What would ASADA be gaining from this?

 

[Gethelred]

I think it's you that's missing the point.

The tests were 'hidden' not to conceal them from ASADA but to conceal them from clubs and the media etc. If the exact same tests were happening but the AFL was shouting from the rooftops about it, even to the extent of revealing which players tested positive and when, what would ASADA do about it? As far as I can tell, precisely nothing.

'Legitimate testing' means different things for different substances. The alleged activities appear to lie within the rules for recreational drugs. If the response is, well, that wouldn't be OK for other substances so therefore ASADA needs to do more testing, that seems like an overreaction.

But let's say you're right. Let's say a player is withdrawn, an ASADA officer shows up and administers a test. Since the player is not competing on that day, the test will not check for recreational drugs, because that's ASADA's policy. So the test will only be for other substances. And the player will be clean for those substances, so the test will come back negative.

I'm not seeing anything in that sequence of events that will cause the current practice to cease.

But that's the point: when they test, they have to test for everything, including recreational drugs.

From an AFL/PA perspective, a test of a player which comes up positive in any case - whether we're talking recreational drugs or otherwise - is a massive no-no. They receive funding from the government, and that comes with strings attached; one of those strings is adherence to an instituted rehabillitation model for recreational drugs; the AFL do not want any situation in which that money is jeopardised, and/or any situation in which a positive test goes public purely because it makes them look bad.

The optics of a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules - even if it doesn't exactly break them - is almost as bad as breaking them outright, and the media do not even need to report a positive test. The media could simply report 'Player X was confronted by ASADA officials at their home after the game on Friday, after their late withdrawal on hamstring awareness. ASADA and Player X's management have not made a comment at this time as to what substance was suspected, and Player X's club has refused to make a comment.'

The situation is completely untenable.

 

[My Hat]

But that's the point: when they test, they have to test for everything, including recreational drugs.

Why?

This seems to be at the heart of our disagreement, so I'd like to understand why and in what sense you believe this to be true.

They don't have to test for everything from a technology perspective. They choose what they do or don't test for.

They don't have to test for everything from an ASADA/WADA policy perspective. In fact it seems that ASADA's policy, perhaps for very good reasons, is specifically not to test for certain substances at certain times.

Obviously they don't have to test for everything as a matter of law.

As far as I can tell, it seems like what you're actually saying here is that in your opinion, you think they should have to test for everything every time instead of doing what they do now.

If so, the question becomes: who is 'they'?

ASADA's mandate is to prevent players from playing with performance enhancing drugs or the effects thereof in their system. ASADA seems to believe that its current policy meets that goal. So it appears that what you are advocating for is either for ASADA to expand its policy beyond its current remit (under what justification? just for AFL or for all athletes in all sports?) or for some other body to come in and conduct these additional tests (who? under what authority?)

The optics of a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules - even if it doesn't exactly break them - is almost as bad as breaking them outright, and the media do not even need to report a positive test. The media could simply report 'Player X was confronted by ASADA officials at their home after the game on Friday, after their late withdrawal on hamstring awareness. ASADA and Player X's management have not made a comment at this time as to what substance was suspected, and Player X's club has refused to make a comment.'

I think that's a pretty huge overstatement. First, calling this a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules is at least as heavy on interpretation as it is on fact. As stated above, ASADA's mandate is to prevent players from playing with performance enhancing drugs in their system. There's no suggestion that anyone has tried to circumvent that, undermine that, or achieve anything in contradiction to that.

Second, actually breaking these rules would be a massive, massive deal, far beyond anything we've seen in the last week.

 

[Gethelred]

Why?

This seems to be at the heart of our disagreement, so I'd like to understand why and in what sense you believe this to be true.

Because drugs testers are constantly playing catchup, always working on a picture that they know is incomplete.

You test for everything because you don't know exactly what might indicate - in six to twelve months - a positive result. .

If so, the question becomes: who is 'they'?

Any regime of drug testing actually interested in stopping performance enhancing drugs in sports or keeping sport clean.

I recognise that might not include ASADA; any organisation involved with the AFL might be more compliance based (and thus not as interested in achieving the overarching goal) but if 'they're' fair dinkum about their organisational approach they'd be testing pretty broadly every time they make a test.

There's also the circumstantial evidence of a willingness by individuals to conceal or otherwise obscure their misdeeds causing a circumstantial suspicion towards those individuals, but expecting ASADA to use such as evidence in future is potentially unlikely.

ASADA's mandate is to prevent players from playing with performance enhancing drugs or the effects thereof in their system. ASADA seems to believe that its current policy meets that goal. So it appears that what you are advocating for is either for ASADA to expand its policy beyond its current remit (under what justification? just for AFL or for all athletes in all sports?) or for some other body to come in and conduct these additional tests (who? under what authority?)

... the problem is they're testing for a hydra, one in which once they locate one head another twelve alternatives have already appeared that they don't know about and know they don't know about.

So, they test for everything that is within their financial/ethical wherewithall.

I think that's a pretty huge overstatement.

You're welcome to.

First, calling this a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules is at least as heavy on interpretation as it is on fact.

It reads as though it's a deliberate effort to avoid the optics around positive tests hitting their own policies and the media, as well as to prevent ASADA registering some player's history of positive tests.

Are you telling me you think there is no part of the AFL's policy here that is involved with keeping ASADA out?

As stated above, ASADA's mandate is to prevent players from playing with performance enhancing drugs in their system. There's no suggestion that anyone has tried to circumvent that, undermine that, or achieve anything in contradiction to that.

Second, actually breaking these rules would be a massive, massive deal, far beyond anything we've seen in the last week.

The policy of concealment is the problem.

 

[My Hat]

Because drugs testers are constantly playing catchup, always working on a picture that they know is incomplete.

You test for everything because you don't know exactly what might indicate - in six to twelve months - a positive result. .

Any regime of drug testing actually interested in stopping performance enhancing drugs in sports or keeping sport clean.

I recognise that might not include ASADA; any organisation involved with the AFL might be more compliance based (and thus not as interested in achieving the overarching goal) but if 'they're' fair dinkum about their organisational approach they'd be testing pretty broadly every time they make a test.

There's also the circumstantial evidence of a willingness by individuals to conceal or otherwise obscure their misdeeds causing a circumstantial suspicion towards those individuals, but expecting ASADA to use such as evidence in future is potentially unlikely.

... the problem is they're testing for a hydra, one in which once they locate one head another twelve alternatives have already appeared that they don't know about and know they don't know about.

So, they test for everything that is within their financial/ethical wherewithall.

But is that really how it works? WADA issues a list of prohibited substances, and then local bodies like ASADA test for them. You may feel that the world anti-doping order needs to change, and if so you're welcome to that opinion, but I don't think this event is going to be the catalyst for such a change.

And even if they did test for everything, even if they got a positive indication for a recreational drug on a day when the player wasn't competing, as far as I can tell, nothing would happen. No rules would have been broken, no announcements would be made, and no penalties would be issued. All the testing you could wish for would result in no difference at all in who played each game each week, because there's been no actual wrongdoing on a doping or testing level.

It reads as though it's a deliberate effort to avoid the optics around positive tests hitting their own policies and the media, as well as to prevent ASADA registering some player's history of positive tests.

Are you telling me you think there is no part of the AFL's policy here that is involved with keeping ASADA out?

Yes. If I thought otherwise, I'd want the AFL to change its policy.

At this point I don't see any evidence that ASADA wants anything more from the AFL than they are receiving. Nor do I see any alleged action that undermines anything that lies within ASADA's remit.

If ASADA responds to this situation by saying they expect to be informed of non-matchday positive tests to recreational drugs, and offers a good explanation of the reasons why, I'll expect the AFL to comply. But at this point, given ASADA's remit and policies, I don't expect them to say that.

 

[Dramoth]

I'm struggling a bit with this one.

Players are allowed, in fact encouraged to self report. These are counted as strikes...do we know for a fact these did not count as strikes for the players concerned?

What's the alternative...player A comes to the club and says "I took some cocaine last night"...is the club just supposed to say "too bad", let them play and take their chances and risk a possible 4 year ban?

The only thing wrong here that I can see is the possibility these did not count as strikes and it was a systemic cover up of repeat offenders...I haven't read the articles so please correct me if I am wrong.

Buddy Franklin and his mental health breaks. I've always thought they were sus.

 

[Dramoth]

What about the ones we traded/delisted? What's our responsibility there?

We also traded out someone with a "pre-existing" condition back in 2015. He apparently had two strikes against him already before we traded him. But he was supposed to get a new start at another club. He took 12 months off because of "mental health" issues and soft tissue injuries to his hamstrings. He spent one day at his new clubs preseason the following year and they reached an agreement to part company.

It's not right what we did... but sometimes a shift to a new environment can make a difference to someone. Taking the 12 months off was to get his head into a better space, but with a bunch of his family all suffering from substance abuse issues, the person didn't have a chance.

The way that the AFL has set up it's drug policy is total crap. It's built to protect big name players from punishment. There is no out of competition testing like there is in other sports and they give lip service to anti-drug legislation. The club has been very good on the zero tolerence policies towards substance abuse and have outright sacked immediately, traded, or delisted players come the end of the year who came down on the wrong side of the fence. Norman and Angwin anyone? Fev? There are undoubtedly been other players over the years who's delisting has come as a shock to supporters

At the end of the day, we have all seen the videos of players doing phat lines of a white substance while on their end of year trips and we've all seen them getting a slap on the wrist. The players also see this and think well, what's the worst that can happen to me? In one possible case, it was death.

There are reasons why banned substances are also on the prohibited substances list at WADA.

But cocaine use & possession is illegal?

Ye, it is illegal... unless you're an AFL player. Then you get a strike and sit out a few games on a mental health diversion. Marc Bosnich, former Socceroo goalkeeper, got randomly tested and was found to have coke in his urine. He got a 9 month ban from playing sports. He wasn't even making it onto the bench at Chelsea at the time and was sitting in the grandstand most of the time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For all the people who are saying "but they aren't playing"... they are salaried employees of the club and the AFL. If you showed up at your work and they did a random drug test and you got pinged, you'd more than likely lose your job. If you heard that there was going to be drug testing on a particular day and you called in sick, what's the bet that the drug testers would rock up to your door?

And we're supposed to say "oh, they didn't play so it's all good because they didn't play"? During the season in any other sport... drug testers could randomly show up at a club and go around collecting samples. In Aussie Rules, they only do it on game day. Why? So the players have time to get drugs like coke or speed out of the system from the lash up the weekend before.

We expect to see the best players out there every week... if one of the better players suddenly drops out with a "strain", it's actually robbing the supporters who want to see that player strutting their stuff.

So, at the end of the day... what the AFL is doing is straight up wrong. Not to mention encouraging illicit behaviour in the players. They're buying illegal drugs.

 

[slashin_velvet]

The problem with this closed shop mentality at the AFL is that it brings all other players with genuine injuries into disrepute. The way the club handled the E.Hollands situation is exactly what should occur in all of these instances. Open stance on the fact that the player did the wrong thing and will miss multiple weeks of football as a result of their transgressions.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant in this area for mine. The best way to decrease these instances from occurring is for there to be reputational consequences for those who have broken the AFL policy and get strikes on their record.

I'm under no illusions that drug taking is a common occurrence amongst young men - moreso when you are trying to avoid the weight gain associated with alcohol, and have increased disposable income - and this is why a policy that doesnt actively discourage it is a bad policy.

 

[Gethelred]

Pursuant to this...

Have a good look at the current furore around the last two minutes of our game this week. This is an example of how the AFL manipulates the fanbase's attention, where they want people looking. Once upon a time - before a 24 hour news cycle - people would still be discussing the Joel Smith and Melbourne FC drugs revelations, people would be able to stay on it long enough to understand it and get over their knee jerk feelings and through to a genuine impression of the problem. Fact is, what you feel immediately might be likely to stick with you, but the longer you think about the better your reasons for thinking it become. For a lot of people, logic is what we call the reasoning we use to tell us why we think what we already thought; no-one's immune from confirmation bias.

The AFL look for these little controversies - and don't mistake what I'm saying, there will always be another controversy next week or the week after that; the AFL don't need to manufacture what will happen naturally - and use them to redirect attention or criticism.

 

[lily of laguna]

Pursuant to this...

Have a good look at the current furore around the last two minutes of our game this week. This is an example of how the AFL manipulates the fanbase's attention, where they want people looking. Once upon a time - before a 24 hour news cycle - people would still be discussing the Joel Smith and Melbourne FC drugs revelations, people would be able to stay on it long enough to understand it and get over their knee jerk feelings and through to a genuine impression of the problem. Fact is, what you feel immediately might be likely to stick with you, but the longer you think about the better your reasons for thinking it become. For a lot of people, logic is what we call the reasoning we use to tell us why we think what we already thought; no-one's immune from confirmation bias.

The AFL look for these little controversies - and don't mistake what I'm saying, there will always be another controversy next week or the week after that; the AFL don't need to manufacture what will happen naturally - and use them to redirect attention or criticism.

That basically sums up the role media in general play. There is very little room to sit and ponder the issues and so we end up with partial truths and conspiracy.

As the old saying goes “a little knowledge is very dangerous”!!!

The outrage and immediate need to blame someone leads to very combative stances taken.




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Aussie in exile]

All gone very quiet on this which suggests that AFL house have been successful with their tried and tested policy of broom, sweep. and rug and and not giving any thought to players welfare.