And this is the point. League/clubs happy to take high moral ground on issues such as drug use and mental health but less enthusiastic about meaningful change when there's a threat to winning/$$$$.
Hot Topic Off The Books Illicit Drug Test Claims in Bombshell AFL ‘Cover-Up’ - Injuries Faked To Evade Game Day Detection
- Thread starter Aphrodite
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Ah, zero tolerance, that old gem ...
Do a crime and you get put on a bus at sunset. Bus drives off into the distance. Arrives back in town at dawn the next morning ... empty. The bus driver is shot on arrival. Rinse and repeat until no crimes are committed.
Baffling why someone hasn't implemented this already.
Framing is such an interesting thing.
"AFL players pulled from games to evade positive drug tests": whoa, wtf, that sounds dodgy as hell
"AFL players missed games to ensure compliance with anti-doping policies": good, so they should, having them play would be unacceptable
"AFL players pulled from games to evade positive drug tests": whoa, wtf, that sounds dodgy as hell
"AFL players missed games to ensure compliance with anti-doping policies": good, so they should, having them play would be unacceptable
- Feb 11, 2011
- 533
- 2,860
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Minnesota Vikings
Clearly then the “right thing to do” in these situations is to self-report to the club and volunteer for a test with this doctor.
Elijah Hollands got outed because the police charged him with possession, once the drugs are consumed, there is no crime taking place, so the police have no reason to get involved.
It’s the AFLs way of minimising the problem. You may not agree with it, and it raises some ethical questions, but a zero tolerance/name and shame policy has its own problems.
Worth remembering that WADA and SIA don’t test for recreational drugs at all outside of match day, it’s the AFLs (flawed) way of managing the situation
StopAndDrain
Rookie
- Dec 13, 2011
- 28
- 42
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Yes they have, in many industries there is zero tolerance for unacceptable behaviour. There's Zero tolerance on violence against women and racism, yet being on blow is ok. It's funny how there are no safe injection rooms or cannibus bars in Singapore.......it can be done
Last edited:
So a player comes to the club and says they might have taken something that might violate the rules if it's still in their system on game day. Do you:
(a) not bother figuring out whether or not it's really a problem
(b) establish the facts as best you can
Obviously you choose (b), which in this case includes doing a drug test.
The test then comes back positive. Do you:
(a) shrug it off and let them play, it'll probably be fine
(b) tell them that for them to play this week would be in violation of the rules, so they'll have to miss
Once again the obvious course of action is (b). At this point no rules have been broken, in fact proactive steps have been taken to ensure that the rules that apply to game day will be followed.
It seems the contentious part is around what communication and/or fallout does or doesn't happen next. Obviously we all want transparency, and we certainly want to avoid any party making statements that are definitively untrue. But in this case there are also legitimate reasons not to publicise what has happened:
- Under the current system nobody but the player and their doctor know what has happened, and the doctor is reasonably expected to maintain doctor-patient confidentiality
- Publicising the true story is guaranteed to cause a media feeding frenzy, to the detriment of everyone, including the player who might be in this situation due to mental health issues that they are struggling with
- Everything to this point has only happened because the player voluntarily stepped forward to their doctor. If the system requires a greater degree of publicity then players will be less likely to come forward, increasing the risk of an actual positive test on game day, which is bad for everyone
My view is that it would be good if a player withdrawal for this reason could be described as something suitably general but not misleading, e.g. 'breaking team rules' or 'not meeting team standards', rather than making up a fake injury. That would sit much better with me. The challenge probably lies in finding a way to do that without looping so many people in that it discourages players from coming forward in the first place.
(a) not bother figuring out whether or not it's really a problem
(b) establish the facts as best you can
Obviously you choose (b), which in this case includes doing a drug test.
The test then comes back positive. Do you:
(a) shrug it off and let them play, it'll probably be fine
(b) tell them that for them to play this week would be in violation of the rules, so they'll have to miss
Once again the obvious course of action is (b). At this point no rules have been broken, in fact proactive steps have been taken to ensure that the rules that apply to game day will be followed.
It seems the contentious part is around what communication and/or fallout does or doesn't happen next. Obviously we all want transparency, and we certainly want to avoid any party making statements that are definitively untrue. But in this case there are also legitimate reasons not to publicise what has happened:
- Under the current system nobody but the player and their doctor know what has happened, and the doctor is reasonably expected to maintain doctor-patient confidentiality
- Publicising the true story is guaranteed to cause a media feeding frenzy, to the detriment of everyone, including the player who might be in this situation due to mental health issues that they are struggling with
- Everything to this point has only happened because the player voluntarily stepped forward to their doctor. If the system requires a greater degree of publicity then players will be less likely to come forward, increasing the risk of an actual positive test on game day, which is bad for everyone
My view is that it would be good if a player withdrawal for this reason could be described as something suitably general but not misleading, e.g. 'breaking team rules' or 'not meeting team standards', rather than making up a fake injury. That would sit much better with me. The challenge probably lies in finding a way to do that without looping so many people in that it discourages players from coming forward in the first place.
ESKIE
Keeping it Cool.
- Feb 28, 2009
- 31,816
- 53,446
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Ok….
- Mar 20, 2017
- 9,354
- 31,756
- AFL Club
- Carlton
If Glenn Bartlett was the president of the Melbourne Football Club from 2013 - 2021 and Dr Arain was the club doctor between 2012 - 2020 then wasn't Bartlett in charge during the period that Arain claims that players were deliberately taking off site tests and being "injured" as opposed to risk being tested? As president he is probably more complicit than the AFL in anything that happened at his club.
- Apr 4, 2018
- 15,096
- 29,374
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Thank you very much for this. I’m on the road and I didn’t catch the morning news.
Wowee hey…it’s great to have these whistle blowers. I hope our players aren’t involved. I doubt they are but can’t be certain I guess.
Rathdown_Redeemer
Rookie
- Aug 21, 2018
- 34
- 41
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Great logic.. Ok but I’m sorry, to me this sounds like the AFL is aiding and abetting the players to dodge a drug test that would find them guilty of violation of the WADA code. We saw what happened to Essendon (FYI I hate Essendon). If this was the Olympics or an athletic sport event, this would be viewed as cheating in order to avoid violation? The sanctions on the individuals and the organization/sport’s body/country involved would be huge…I’m not sure how the AFL can stand by the current policy? This looks like tampering to me and I’m surprised at the AFL is coming out and admitting it? I understand their participation in WADA is voluntary but as a supporter, I find this all pretty grubby!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
- Jun 4, 2016
- 12,022
- 36,487
- AFL Club
- Carlton
From a club dr at another club.....
It's really bad.
It's really bad.
You’re talking about a few very different things.
How would you be cheating in an Olympic event by not competing in it?
Rathdown_Redeemer
Rookie
- Aug 21, 2018
- 34
- 41
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Ummm … let’s say the day of the event you pull out with a calf injury or something other than that and you don’t compete and then you don’t get drug tested afterwards? The point being that you’ve had an internal of the books drug test by your organization that allows them to know that you would be in violation hence you make up some bullshit stories so you don’t compete… so basically you’re trying to school the system with your off Books pretest protocols. And the point being that you’re hiding the fact that you’re athlete is in violation of the drug code and trying to avoid the repercussions…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Think about what you’re saying.
If you don’t start the race, you can’t cheat in said race.
And you can’t violate an in-competition drug rule if you’re not in competition.
thebluenewdeal
Club Legend
- Oct 23, 2020
- 1,250
- 2,547
- AFL Club
- Carlton
This has all made me wonder if Claire from accounting was throwing back some nose beers 2 weeks ago when she pulled a sickie...
The purpose of the testing regime is not to get negative test results for their own sake. It's not to ensure that players never take drugs even if they don't play. It's not to enforce moral purity. The purpose is to prevent players from playing the game while under the effect of performance-enhancing substances.
'Avoid violation' is an accurate, albeit emotive term. Another, less emotive way to put it is 'following the rules'.
Love this post.
Still doesn’t help me decide which side of the fence I sit on.
- Aug 22, 2014
- 13,677
- 49,688
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Paints Marchbank as an absolute fiend...
Rathdown_Redeemer
Rookie
- Aug 21, 2018
- 34
- 41
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Hey My Hat, I totally get your point of view. I just don’t agree with it. Clearly it would be construed as a grey area but not for me personally. The fact that Andrew Wilke brought this out under parliamentary privilege lets you know that this is a dangerous topic that could potentially involve lawsuits. The fact that it’s made the news suggest that it doesn’t really pass the pub sniff test. The AFL is saying that this all about players welfare but if you’re looking at it from a long way away, it looks like tampering. Off the books drug test before games being played and then making up bullshit stories to remove the player from scrutiny is not a good look.. The fact that the AFL is now reviewing the policy suggest that with the spotlight on them, they understand there is a moral (cheating) dilemma here.. you brought up emotive - it’s actually not emotive for me at all. If it was a Carlton player, I would be doubly pissed… and then it would definitely be emotive…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Has another gone and created a list of all the one week injuries over the last few years?
For example: Bailey Smith has had at least 6 one week injuries during his career.
All above board I'm sure.
What about Jack Martin?
- Nov 27, 2016
- 17,568
- 33,966
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Why? They are ensuring players are not breaking the rules on GameDay.
It's not like the clubs are hiding players from testers.
Sent from my SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app
