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

[teagueyubeauty]

Regarding the three strike policy, my understanding is that it operates separately to game day testing, e.g. when Ginnivan got his second strike it had nothing to do with game day testing. So avoiding games is neither here nor there with respect to the three strike policy.

I do agree that the three strike policy is not really doing what it claims to do. It seems the AFL's 'medical model' has taken precedence over the three strike policy to the extent that almost nobody gets a second strike, let alone a third. Some sort of review is clearly needed to bring policy and reality more into line with each other. What that change should be is probably a whole other discussion.

How do you know a player hasn’t had a second or third strike?
Better than even money chance in my book Buddy back in 2015 out of the game for months with “mental health” issues was one such possibility, Oliver last year with a 3-4 month hamstring and then the subsequent fallout once the season finished.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Revenant1965]

The AFL runs two drug policies side-by-side for its players. Here's how they work

When it comes to illicit substances, the AFL runs two drug policies side-by-side — one to prevent doping and one to protect its players.

www.abc.net.au

Nothing in this article that hasn't already been mentioned elsewhere, but a good summary.

For me, a couple of questions:

1) To what extent does the AFL IDP (Illicit Drug Policy) actually 'allow' (not the right word, but my brain is tired) for a 'permission giving culture for Illicit drug use? If a player perceives they have a 'safety net' with the IDP to not get caught 'in competition', to what extent does that give a player 'confidence' to take an Illicit drug? I am guessing not a great deal (as Illicit drugs are a societal issue, and AFL/ AFLW players also have education programs as well), but I suspect the IDP in some way does give some perverse 'confidence' if a player chooses to take an Illicit Drug.

2) To what extent does how the IDP apparently (as suggested in media reporting) for false / misleading 'injury reporting' impact betting and the like that relates to revenue for the AFL? Again, I guess not much (as those betting agencies probably have factored in 'unexpected injuries').

I have some other thoughts, but that will do for now...

 

[Accidental genius]

Wow here’s me thinking the booze cruise was bad

Young men with s**t loads of money….i wonder what could go wrong

 

[Soapy V]

Sadly just shows how much a problem drugs are in todays society

IMO, The fact is it’s ILLEGAL and should be treated as such

 

[bigm386]

Sadly just shows how much a problem drugs are in todays society

IMO, The fact is it’s ILLEGAL and should be treated as such

It is a major issue in today's society.

I do think that if a player wants to play football they need to make the choice to not be on drugs.

The drugs is only part of the issue for me. I mean you have young kids coming into clubs and toxic environments. You have the potential to be blackmailed. How far away is a player who has an addiction from being taken advantage of to fix a game for example....

I think it's really simple, support players mental health sure. But if you are drug dependent you should not be playing AFL or in a club environment.

 

[DirtyLeeds]

In regards to players being traded to clubs with 'known' substance abuse, Mrs Dirty compared it to the Bishop sending Ridsdale from St Alipius Ballarat to Mortlake, and not telling anyone who and what was coming.....
It's a good analogy because it depicts a large corporation and it's self indulgent attitude to the rest of us! All about optics people, forget the 'welfare' shite!

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

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

Singapores drug system relies on the death penalty for (relatively) minor offences.

From Amnesty International:

“Singapore’s punitive drug policies have failed not only to tackle the use and availability of drugs in the country, but also failed to offer effective protection from drug-related harm.”

The zero tolerance crowd tend to have zero understanding of the problem they are trying to fix.

People’s attitude to drugs is difficult to understand some times. In terms of health outcomes and adverse impacts on society, alcohol is as bad as anything (worse in some cases). Only difference is the legality issue, which is an arbitrary legislative decision. Now, there is nuance in all that (weed is not the same as heroin, for example). But far out, I can’t believe this debate hasnt evolved further than it has.

 

[RAPPA]

The system should not be premised on supporting players who take drugs. Fundamentally, the starting point should be deterring any illicit drug use. The model is flawed by prioritising the former over the latter.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

The system should not be premised on supporting players who take drugs. Fundamentally, the starting point should be deterring any illicit drug use. The model is flawed by prioritising the former over the latter.

Depends what you are trying to achieve I’d say.

I’ve got no issue with there being higher expectations of young men who take money from a league and sponsors worried about reputational issues. But I’d argue a supportive system is just as likely to manage that risk as a punitive one. And ultimately, that’s the only difference between their job and any other.

 

[Gethelred]

Let's be honest here. No-one of an adult age or temperament is terribly surprised about this.

The AFL are huge spinners of everything. Their manipulation of the media and the public is frankly second to none; they control what we talk about, where the attention goes, what people think or want to see. We don't like excessive free kicks in game because we've been told for years it's undesirable; we don't like rule of the week adjudications because we're told we want consistency. Opinion is framed on Monday, ushered off the stage by Thursday. The Essendon thing was the first real test of the AFL's spin, and frankly it worked entirely too well; it kept Essendon supporters engaged with and around the club despite the club, the coach and the players having lied to the fans and the public at large. Their control and highly structured narrative around when and how information was released - specifically, to undermine ASADA and any inquiry into the situation - had the opposite of a demarketing effect; people who didn't follow AFL followed the scandal, and some continued following the sport afterward.

The AFL's bottom line was always money, and in this way the outcome before the players were hit by WADA was their best of both worlds: they got to hit Essendon with a punishment commensurate (in their opinion) with the crime but the players were able to play, which is the point of the off site recreational drugs testing under scrutiny now. When WADA came through they shrugged and changed the narrative again; instead of the best of both worlds, they got their carrot and manage the players from this point until they retire to ensure compliance and that the full sordid details never come out.

This thing we're looking at now is only in front of us because Wilkie used parliamentary privilege to get around the lawsuits and/or NDA's involved, and it's absolutely cheating in the eyes of ASADA/WADA.

It's the deliberate hiding of positive tests under a smokescreen of injury. Of course it's going to get their back up.

Whether it's actively against the rules though is another thing. This looks as though they commissioned their legal team to find a loophole or a series of them and once found deliberately built an unofficial policy around it, complete with a layered series of unawareness perfect to allow each individual involved to say one of two things: "I cannot tell you who was tested," and "I am protected by doctor-patient confidentiality".

The other side of it is, the AFL - the spiders they are - will absolutely have built a playbook about how to try and spin this. In all situations, the camera lens serves as a focus both towards something and away from something else. It's going to be interesting to see when and where they try and lure the eye to see and what they try to tear our attention away from.

 

[passmark]

The level of moral panic on here is astounding.

Your children will be fine people.

 

[Gethelred]

The level of moral panic on here is astounding.

Your children will be fine people.

Ah, but what if we're like the AFL: one rulebook in public, another behind closed doors?

 

[DangerousD]

So tell me, how do I explain this to my 8 year old when asked the question, especially when they are already getting educated about what’s right and wrong??

If you do something wrong, you need to be accountable.

Just out them and let them deal with the fallout just like Elijah Holland had to when caught in possession!

You could tell your 8 year old that, when they go to the doctor and get told they are unfit for school, the school, your neighbours, their friends, friends parents, random kids at the park or anyone else, has no business in knowing why you’re off sick.

You can tell them that in Australia doctors or medical practices aren’t allowed to share your personal details with anyone unless you want them to.

You can then teach them however you like about drugs, just like you would have regardless of any story written about footballers.

Who are you outing? Are you suggesting all club doctors out their patients, break their trust, break the law, lose their license, so people can feel less resentment to fortunate people? Elijah Hollands got caught by police with cocaine and was charged, of course he was outed, same as any player who gets caught with drugs.

 

[DangerousD]

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

As Stamos pointed out in a previous post, you are not dodging a breath test by not driving your car, you’re not driving so you dont get caught drink driving.

Cocaine is not a banned substance unless you play, if you dont play then you haven’t committed an offence.

 

[DangerousD]

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

The AFL aren’t sending players for any tests and aren’t making any decisions based on the results. The tests are done by the players and they are deciding in conjunction with their doctor what to do if they test positive.

What do you think off the books testing means?

All the AFL has admitted to is, being aware that this is happening

 

[DangerousD]

Bullshit. I’m a Dad and FFS I don’t want my kids hearing how easy it could be to “escape a ban”
Happy to have any AFL player that has made a commitment to his / her club and fans stand in court if required for doing the wrong thing. It’s hard work but they get paid pretty well to play the game he or she loves.
I’m already having awkward conversations about strikes and drug use in AFL with them. It shouldn’t be confusing.

What part do you think is BS?

Im at dad too, good stuff.

Im more than happy for players to stand in court for doing the wrong thing, one of our players just did. To stand in court you need to be arrested for a crime, no one has been arrested here and when they do, they will face the music.

What people earn doesnt remove their rights to Dr patient confidentiality.

Awkward conversations with children are normal and need to be had regardless.

 

[TwiggleyFanClub]

Do damaged mucosa come under "soft tissue complaint"?

 

[DangerousD]

The system should not be premised on supporting players who take drugs. Fundamentally, the starting point should be deterring any illicit drug use. The model is flawed by prioritising the former over the latter.

What do you suggest as an improvement?

 

[bigm386]

What part do you think is BS?

Im at dad too, good stuff.

Im more than happy for players to stand in court for doing the wrong thing, one of our players just did. To stand in court you need to be arrested for a crime, no one has been arrested here and when they do, they will face the music.

What people earn doesnt remove their rights to Dr patient confidentiality.

Awkward conversations with children are normal and need to be had regardless.

The concept that this is about player welfare and confidentiality is insulting and frankly insane.

It's simply about money and the AFL's image, because a bad image impacts sponsorship and players off the park impacts the product.

Realistically if it was about player welfare the AFL wouldn't have implemented a system to avoid drug testing protocols which is essentially what they have done.

Let's not pretend its about anything else.

 

[bigm386]

What do you suggest as an improvement?

Testing in season, which occurs in most professional sports and a heap of industries.

Don't need to name and shame but you do need to create an environment where players are clean or not AFL players. If they are not AFL players anymore due to drugs the AFL MUST support these players transitioning out of the game.

 

[Stamos]

Testing in season, which occurs in most professional sports and a heap of industries.

Don't need to name and shame but you do need to create an environment where players are clean or not AFL players. If they are not AFL players anymore due to drugs the AFL MUST support these players transitioning out of the game.

The AFLPA would rightly never agree to this.

 

[DangerousD]

Testing in season, which occurs in most professional sports and a heap of industries.

Don't need to name and shame but you do need to create an environment where players are clean or not AFL players. If they are not AFL players anymore due to drugs the AFL MUST support these players transitioning out of the game.

The AFL already test in season dont they? Isn’t that where the 3 strikes policy comes in? I would have no problem with the AFL testing more regularly and having a stronger drugs policy that penalises players, although i dont think naming and shaming when they do is in the best interest of the player or the game.

On your previous reply to me, i think the AFL are more than happy there is a way for players to find out if there’s a chance of breaking the WADA rules and removing themselves from games but unless I’m mistaken the AFL hasn’t implemented anything here, the tests are being done at a private clinic by members of the public who are entitled to the same privacy and protection as anyone else who walks in.

For them its a win win, very few people have tested positive through WADA which as you said protects the games $$$$$ and it protects the players $$$$$$, there’s improvements that could be made to the illicit drugs policy Im sure.

The privacy stuff is still a big part of this, people are allowed to see a doctor or go for a test, make decisions based on the results and not have their rights infringed. Even if you had a stricter testing policy from the AFL which the AFLPA would have to agree to, you can’t stop people from doing what has been reported to have happened.

 

[bigm386]

The AFLPA would rightly never agree to this.

Then the AFLPA support drug taking and putting players health and wellbeing at risk. So clap clap for them.

 

[bigm386]

The AFL already test in season dont they? Isn’t that where the 3 strikes policy comes in? I would have no problem with the AFL testing more regularly and having a stronger drugs policy that penalises players, although i dont think naming and shaming when they do is in the best interest of the player or the game.

On your previous reply to me, i think the AFL are more than happy there is a way for players to find out if there’s a chance of breaking the WADA rules and removing themselves from games but unless I’m mistaken the AFL hasn’t implemented anything here, the tests are being done at a private clinic by members of the public who are entitled to the same privacy and protection as anyone else who walks in.

For them its a win win, very few people have tested positive through WADA which as you said protects the games $$$$$ and it protects the players $$$$$$, there’s improvements that could be made to the illicit drugs policy Im sure.

The privacy stuff is still a big part of this, people are allowed to see a doctor or go for a test, make decisions based on the results and not have their rights infringed. Even if you had a stricter testing policy from the AFL which the AFLPA would have to agree to, you can’t stop people from doing what has been reported to have happened.

This system is avoiding the 3 strike policy because it's self reporting and therefore not a strike is my understanding. This is a loophole in a Swiss cheese equivalent system.

Authorities only test on match day hence the fake injuries so you don't get actual reprocussions. Just encouraged to continue the same behaviour to protect the $$$$'s.

 

[Stamos]

Then the AFLPA support drug taking and putting players health and wellbeing at risk. So clap clap for them.

This view is so so simplistic that it is just plain wrong.