Offseason illicit drug tests - now with new thread title

[Rusty Brookes]

Should we also drug test coaches, and officials?

And the AFL media. That would be fun.

 

[Vaple]

Should we also drug test coaches, and officials?

Why stop there? Lets also test the public. Tickets must be reserved a month in advance, and if a person fails the hair test they are not allowed into the stadium.

And test former players. Any positive results will have their names removed from the record books.

 

[Scottish Bob]

I've always thought the strike policy was a bit out dated and only really punishes the team if a player happens to get banned.

Keep the 3 strikes but the player should get a penalty with a single strike.
I propose written into every afl players contract should be a penalty of 10% deduction of yearly pay if they obtain a strike.

It's going to be enough of a penalty to discourse them, if they get two strikes a further 15%. A quarter of their pay gone just because they wanted some blow is not to be sniffed at (see what I did there!)

Then there is a 6 month ban unpaid after 3 strikes.

Money goes to a drug rehab charity or a fund for retired footy players who have had to leave the game though injury or personal means (not drug related obviously...)

 

[kingswood71]

1) So the AFL are now the police?

2) And may organisations don't have drug testing. Those organisations where having a clear mind is essential drug test. I'm certainly not drug tested and what I do on my own time is my business not my employer's.

3) Yes the AFL are protecting its image and doing a pretty horrible job of it.

4) If players got busted for drug driving, they would expect to be treated by the law (just like Luke Hodge was), just like anyone else would. It is the player's responsibility not their employer to comply with the laws of the land.

PS Notice I made my points without resorting to hitting the question mark key repeatedly?

While I basically agree in principle with all your replies to my points (especially point 3!), the fact remains (like it or not) that recreational drugs are illegal and the AFL is trying to protect its image. Of course they are not the police, but what players do does reflect on the AFL as a whole. The AFL has an understandable vested interest to make sure its employee's do not harm the brand.
PS Notice I made my points while hitting the question mark key repeatedly, because I was making a point to the poster I quoted?

 

[Topkent]

I've always thought the strike policy was a bit out dated and only really punishes the team if a player happens to get banned.

Keep the 3 strikes but the player should get a penalty with a single strike.
I propose written into every afl players contract should be a penalty of 10% deduction of yearly pay if they obtain a strike.

It's going to be enough of a penalty to discourse them, if they get two strikes a further 15%. A quarter of their pay gone just because they wanted some blow is not to be sniffed at (see what I did there!)

Then there is a 6 month ban unpaid after 3 strikes.

Money goes to a drug rehab charity or a fund for retired footy players who have had to leave the game though injury or personal means (not drug related obviously...)

Your kidding yourself if you think anyone would agree to that , for someone like buddy franklin that could be an 80,000 dollar fine

 

[Rusty Brookes]

While I basically agree in principle with all your replies to my points (especially point 3!), the fact remains (like it or not) that recreational drugs are illegal and the AFL is trying to protect its image. Of course they are not the police, but what players do does reflect on the AFL as a whole. The AFL has an understandable vested interest to make sure its employee's do not harm the brand.
PS Notice I made my points while hitting the question mark key repeatedly, because I was making a point to the poster I quoted?

Fair enough response and I was extracting the urine a bit with the question mark bit. I suppose that's where I find the AFL's stance disappointing - I thought the drug testing out of season was for health purposes and nothing with protecting the image of the AFL.

 

[kingswood71]

Fair enough response and I was extracting the urine a bit with the question mark bit. I suppose that's where I find the AFL's stance disappointing - I thought the drug testing out of season was for health purposes and nothing with protecting the image of the AFL.

It would be great if this were the case: The AFL, so concerned for the players health and welfare that they do rec. drug testing, so that those players can get counseling....Wishful thinking really
The AFL is a brand. It may talk the talk, but when it boils down to it, all they ultimately care about is brand protection. Make the brand "look bad" and face the consequences!!

 

[marty36]

While I basically agree in principle with all your replies to my points (especially point 3!), the fact remains (like it or not) that recreational drugs are illegal and the AFL is trying to protect its image. Of course they are not the police, but what players do does reflect on the AFL as a whole. The AFL has an understandable vested interest to make sure its employee's do not harm the brand.
PS Notice I made my points while hitting the question mark key repeatedly, because I was making a point to the poster I quoted?

Very similar to Cornes giving the bird to the crowd and being fined for it, it didn't harm or affect anyone, but it may have affected the image of the game. So he received a penalty. Players undertaking illegal activities whether they be for drink driving, stealing, taking illegal drugs whatever the crime there will be consequences. Usually fines but match bans also. The AFL with the clubs will be the ones who determine the severity of the sentence!

Remember the AFL is effectively the clubs!

 

[Angus Young]

Because recreational drugs are illegal????????????
Because many employers have a drug testing policy also, so why should AFL players be exempt???????????????
Because the AFL is trying to protect its image??????????????????????????
There was so much angst last year when Hodgy got busted for DUI...Imagine if 13 players all got done for Drug driving https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-rules/penalties/drug-driving-penalties

With the exception of point 2, Why are you using question marks when you are writing statements?

Thank you for answering my questions however.
Still I think it is a complete waste of time, money and people resources just like the war on drugs itself.

I don't know mate I just find it hard to give a s**t if an AFL player drops a pill or a line of coke at a party.

 

[kingswood71]

Very similar to Cornes giving the bird to the crowd and being fined for it, it didn't harm or affect anyone, but it may have affected the image of the game. So he received a penalty. Players undertaking illegal activities whether they be for drink driving, stealing, taking illegal drugs whatever the crime there will be consequences. Usually fines but match bans also. The AFL with the clubs will be the ones who determine the severity of the sentence!
Remember the AFL is effectively the clubs!

And a truer word has never been written! This is it exactly. The AFL is a brand. It likes to market the brand in a certain way. People involved with the brand are supposed to conform to what the brand wants. This means that behaviours that the brand doesnt like will not be tolerated.
Imagine if one of the players came out and showed support for Isis... Does anyone expect that the AFL (and probably everyone else!) would say "thats okay, what he does on his own time is none of our business?"
Brand protection! Non-conformity to expectations will result in some penalty.

 

[kingswood71]

I don't know mate I just find it hard to give a s**t if an AFL player drops a pill or a line of coke at a party.

Frankly, I dont really care either....But the AFL does !!!

 

[Stevi_Tigers]

ben cousins ahead of the time. shave your head etc hair test that

 

[marty36]

And a truer word has never been written! This is it exactly. The AFL is a brand. It likes to market the brand in a certain way. People involved with the brand are supposed to conform to what the brand wants. This means that behaviours that the brand doesnt like will not be tolerated.
Imagine if one of the players came out and showed support for Isis... Does anyone expect that the AFL (and probably everyone else!) would say "thats okay, what he does on his own time is none of our business?"
Brand protection! Non-conformity to expectations will result in some penalty.

Remembering the way the AFL and it's clubs manage their brand also affects the monetary gain the players receive. If the AFL stuff their brand up, it will mean less income as corporates will not hand as much $$$ over. The recently agreeance to do these tests was by the players which indicates they are also aware if brand image and want it maintained so they are rewarded.

The only ones complaining about this testing is a few supporters not the players!

Wonder why!

 

[JB1975]

Your previous narrow minded response is indicative of this country as a whole.

Artists, poets and social scientists have been straining to sum up the essence of Australia in their life's work, and you reckon a BF poster nailed it in a one-liner? Bloody marvellous!

 

[TheSierBear]

I've always thought the strike policy was a bit out dated and only really punishes the team if a player happens to get banned.

Keep the 3 strikes but the player should get a penalty with a single strike.
I propose written into every afl players contract should be a penalty of 10% deduction of yearly pay if they obtain a strike.

It's going to be enough of a penalty to discourse them, if they get two strikes a further 15%. A quarter of their pay gone just because they wanted some blow is not to be sniffed at (see what I did there!)

Then there is a 6 month ban unpaid after 3 strikes.

Money goes to a drug rehab charity or a fund for retired footy players who have had to leave the game though injury or personal means (not drug related obviously...)

So Lance Franklin or Dane Beams get a near $100K fine for a strike. That's too much.

 

[Prudster]

That high profile comes at a cost. The cost is that they are under more public scrutiny, they are role models for kids that look up to them as god like.

This is such a s**t argument. Anybody who looks up to footballers to the point that they mimic their every action with no thought or input from other role models is probably going to have a problematic life anyway. By the time i was old enough to even understand that players took illicit drugs, i was also old enough to understand that they were generally illegal, and in many cases dangerous. I was influenced infinitely more by friends, parents, and family than i was by a football player that i'd never even met. I would imagine someone is far, far more likely to take illicit drugs if their friends/family take them, than if their favourite footballer takes them. Nobody thinks Dad should be drug tested just because he's a role model to his son, so who gives a s**t what footballers do outside of competition.

On a side note, how come we don't drug test musicians who perform in Government funded stadiums, or people in the media who probably have more reach and influence than a footballer? So much of this argument is based on the demonisation of drugs, when the reality is that countries who decriminalise drugs see a reduction in the associated problems (abuse, addiction, etc.), and are better able to help those who do develop drug problems. Maybe we should take their lead and focus on actually helping players who have a problem, instead of having a hissy fit over the fact that players do, and always will, take drugs.

 

[grouse mate]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...r/news-story/ddb69907d91de13303139cafefe98ccd

POWERHOUSE AFL club Collingwood has an out of control illicit drug culture returning as many as 30 positives in the past 12 months.

It was revealed this week that 11 Collingwood players had tested positive over the summer but the Saturday Telegraph understands the number of players is more than double — “closer to 30 players” said one source.

A senior AFL insider said Collingwood have had a significant “overrepresentation” when it came to positive illicit drug tests in recent times.

They described their behaviour as “out of the norm in terms of the rest of the clubs’ illicit drug test results. They’ve got a cultural problem.’’

 

[Gralin]

So Lance Franklin or Dane Beams get a near $100K fine for a strike. That's too much.

Not really if they know they could be tested and it could cost them that it's their choice.

If rules are put in place up front and everyone agrees then it's fair game.
If the AFL decided to fine collingwood for bringing the game into disrepute because someone leaked private test results that would be crap.

I have no issue with the testing, the AFLPA agreed to the rules. This is the first year of the new testing and I suspect some players got caught thinking it wouldn't show up.

They know now and if it happens again they have no excuses. I reckon AFL and AFLPA are calling for time because they expect a lot less players to be caught next time now that they all know how effective the testing is, that or buzz cuts will become a lot more fashionable.

 

[marty36]

Not really if they know they could be tested and it could cost them that it's their choice.

If rules are put in place up front and everyone agrees then it's fair game.
If the AFL decided to fine collingwood for bringing the game into disrepute because someone leaked private test results that would be crap.

I have no issue with the testing, the AFLPA agreed to the rules. This is the first year of the new testing and I suspect some players got caught thinking it wouldn't show up.

They know now and if it happens again they have no excuses. I reckon AFL and AFLPA are calling for time because they expect a lot less players to be caught next time now that they all know how effective the testing is, that or buzz cuts will become a lot more fashionable.

Totally agree, we have a lot of BF posted complaining about this testing the players are happy to be tested the AFL are happy to test.

It seems a number on here don't like the fact they are tested, but it shouldn't be their concern.

Question is why is the testing done, to ensure the image of the sport isn't affected. Why would they want this image protected probably to protect their income and livelihood.

 

[Gralin]

Totally agree, we have a lot of BF posted complaining about this testing the players are happy to be tested the AFL are happy to test.

It seems a number on here don't like the fact they are tested, but it shouldn't be their concern.

Question is why is the testing done, to ensure the image of the sport isn't affected. Why would they want this image protected probably to protect their income and livelihood.

Actually the main reason the testing is done was because of funding pressure so like most things it comes down to $$
Now that the AFL are saddled with these tests they are all about brand management to keep the $$ coming in

 

[marty36]

Actually the main reason the testing is done was because of funding pressure so like most things it comes down to $$
Now that the AFL are saddled with these tests they are all about brand management to keep the $$ coming in

Which group greatly benefits from the increased $$$. And do you think that explains why they agree to such things

Is it greed or being compensated fairly? Are they selling their soul?

Doesn't really matter why they have agreed to this, but I haven't heard any player complaining about it!

 

[kingswood71]

Actually the main reason the testing is done was because of funding pressure so like most things it comes down to $$
Now that the AFL are saddled with these tests they are all about brand management to keep the $$ coming in

Nailed it. AFL admits that 60% (as an example) of its players use drugs in the off season, Toyota says "Well thats not on!" and withdraws its sponsorship.
AFL needs cash to operate. Clubs need cash to pay players etc etc. Players need to be on their best behaviour....its simply a part of life.
Its similar to the reason my employer specifically forbids us from buying/using alcohol or tobacco while in uniform. It reflects badly on the organization. Now I am not saying conformity is a good thing or a bad thing...It is simply that if the employer says that this is the way it will be, then you either conform...or leave and find a new job. Sad fact about big business I guess....

 

[Tigerland]

This is such a s**t argument. Anybody who looks up to footballers to the point that they mimic their every action with no thought or input from other role models is probably going to have a problematic life anyway. By the time i was old enough to even understand that players took illicit drugs, i was also old enough to understand that they were generally illegal, and in many cases dangerous. I was influenced infinitely more by friends, parents, and family than i was by a football player that i'd never even met. I would imagine someone is far, far more likely to take illicit drugs if their friends/family take them, than if their favourite footballer takes them. Nobody thinks Dad should be drug tested just because he's a role model to his son, so who gives a s**t what footballers do outside of competition.

On a side note, how come we don't drug test musicians who perform in Government funded stadiums, or people in the media who probably have more reach and influence than a footballer? So much of this argument is based on the demonisation of drugs, when the reality is that countries who decriminalise drugs see a reduction in the associated problems (abuse, addiction, etc.), and are better able to help those who do develop drug problems. Maybe we should take their lead and focus on actually helping players who have a problem, instead of having a hissy fit over the fact that players do, and always will, take drugs.

Your argument makes no sense at all. Decriminalise drugs? Oh geez we've got a left winger here.

Kids look up to AFL footballers. they're influenced by them. Mimic and influence are two very different things. To say they should know better than to mimic them and they'll have problems anyway is moronic at best.

Generations of youth - particularly in today's society are influenced massively by high profile people whether they be actors, musicians or sporting heroes. To suggest otherwise is beyond comprehension. Younger generations follow high profile people on social media accounts and are heavily influenced by what they wear, they say and what they like.

If you did a bit of research you'd find that there has been mixed results with the decriminalisation of drugs. Some European countries have had some success but Europe has a very different culture to Australia.

To compare musicians to sportsmen is a bit of a stretch. Sport is about getting the most out of your body through hard work and training. Any suggestion that these paid athletes consider taking any sort of drug whether that be performance enhancing or not needs to be hit on the head and bloody hard.

Your argument is just another example of people not wanting to take responsibility for their actions.
Should the players be helped? - of course. Should they be allowed to take recreational drugs and play AFL? = No way. Leave the game if you don't like it.

A hard line needs to be taken on this issue. The wishy washy handling of the by the AFL in the past has caused the problem and issues we are now hearing about.

I've read some rubbish opinions on the site but yours is right up there.

 

[Prudster]

Generations of youth - particularly in today's society are influenced massively by high profile people whether they be actors, musicians or sporting heroes. To suggest otherwise is beyond comprehension. Younger generations follow high profile people on social media accounts and are heavily influenced by what they wear, they say and what they like.

To compare musicians to sportsmen is a bit of a stretch. Sport is about getting the most out of your body through hard work and training. Any suggestion that these paid athletes consider taking any sort of drug whether that be performance enhancing or not needs to be hit on the head and bloody hard.

So are musicians influential on kids and thus should be scrutinised for drug use? Or are we holding athletes to a higher standard for no reason?

Your argument is just another example of people not wanting to take responsibility for their actions.
Should the players be helped? - of course. Should they be allowed to take recreational drugs and play AFL? = No way. Leave the game if you don't like it.

I never said anything about not taking responsibility. I'm talking about what is the point of scrutinising drug use? If it's to try and limit how much damage drugs do to society, then surely you take the option which shows a reduction in drug abuse and addiction, which is the path which provides support and rehab for drug users, rather than throwing them in jail.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to take recreational drugs outside of competition? Why does anyone give a s**t what they do outside the club any more than they care what musicians do? That's the point i'm making, this issue is a bunch of Helen Lovejoys, but why do people even give a s**t?

Again, any child who is influenced more by a footballer who they've never met over parents, friends, and family, is probably going to have a troubled life regardless. People are far more likely to take drugs if their friends and family do than if their favourite footballer does. On the topic of taking responsibility for their actions, perhaps we should accept that people will do drugs, and a footballer doing them is going to make s**t all impact on that decision.

 

[kingswood71]

So are musicians influential on kids and thus should be scrutinised for drug use? Or are we holding athletes to a higher standard for no reason?
Why shouldn't they be allowed to take recreational drugs outside of competition? Why does anyone give a s**t what they do outside the club any more than they care what musicians do? That's the point i'm making, this issue is a bunch of Helen Lovejoys, but why do people even give a s**t?

Musicians, athletes, Politicians...anyone really that is in the public eye will always be under scrutiny. Its a fact of life and the price people pay for been famous.
It's not like AFL footballers are NOT aware of this. Its why clubs have education about it. Its why clubs have rules about facebook, twitter and instagram. What players do reflects on the club and the AFL in general.
I am not saying any of it is "right", just that there is an expectation that people involved will not do things that may cause harm to the AFL brand.
Hell, a rugby bloke got busted for pretending to copulate with a dog !!!