Oppo Camp Other Club News/General Discussion

[Timmy from Thomastown]

SIA can test anyone at anytime. How does missing a game subvert that process? Might even be a prompt for target testing?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

It might make them a target for testing, indeed. All the more reason for them to be extra careful that illicit drugs aren’t in their system on game day and either stop doing drugs during the season, or get tested more if they don’t want to do that. Maybe that’s kinda what happened and the beast just grew bigger as the club culture got worse.

 

[sideswipe]

Christ, Swipey, we’ve been through this. It doesn’t stop them being tested, it stops the day in question being considered “in-competition” if they are withdrawn from playing. Hence cocaine no longer performance enhancing if they are not selected to play on the day. Ketamine the same.

It stops young dickheads copping a multi year suspension for doing a few mid-week toots. Who cares?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[AmericanMustard]

Just quietly on this, I think the most important question we need answered is, was Bill Davoren not as bad as we initially thought?

 

[Rankine2Rachele]

Clarry is unaware.

He has no clarity on the subject.

 

[Vicky Park]

Just quietly on this, I think the most important question we need answered is, was Bill Davoren not as bad as we initially thought?

 

[sr36]

Christ, Swipey, we’ve been through this. It doesn’t stop them being tested, it stops the day in question being considered “in-competition” if they are withdrawn from playing. Hence cocaine no longer performance enhancing if they are not selected to play on the day. Ketamine the same.

Yes, because they're not punishing people for taking these drugs. The punishment is only for people who play when they've got these drugs in their system.

Just as drink driving laws aren't trying to punish us for getting over .05. just driving when we are.

 

[sr36]

Just quietly on this, I think the most important question we need answered is, was Bill Davoren not as bad as we initially thought?

He didn't like Sam Murray, so told him he'd be fine.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Yes, because they're not punishing people for taking these drugs. The punishment is only for people who play when they've got these drugs in their system.

Just as drink driving laws aren't trying to punish us for getting over .05. just driving when we are.

The AFL needs to pick a side. Better still, remove themselves from the equation altogether. Stop testing for recreational drugs, scrap the illicit drug policy entirely. The only testing done under the banner of the AFL, should be at the request of a player who has self-reported, be private and without repercussion. Let SIA perform all of the random/targeted drug testing and hand down punishment as they see fit. The AFL can position themselves as only being about player welfare and helping them to comply with the WADA code. Done.

 

[Kirby]

Jeez they wheel out Shaun Smith on every show and all he does is come across as a very low intellect apologist for his even lower intellect son.

Dr Peter Larkins was just on the telly and set it all straight. He pointed out that the AFL has treated the illicit drug issue as a health issue and that treatment is the priority.

He also pointed out that once the person self reports the club doctor then puts them through rehabilitation and a treatment program. It’s not just swept under the carpet.

He also points out that the clubs are forced to say “hamstring awareness” etc because it would be a breach of privacy to say “drug use” as many of these players are also suffering mental health issues.

 

[76woodenspooners]

He also points out that the clubs are forced to say “hamstring awareness” etc because it would be a breach of privacy to say “drug use” as many of these players are also suffering mental health issues.

It’s a breach of privacy to publish any health information (even literal “hamstring awareness”).

Obviously player contracts would have waivers that allow clubs to release relevant information.

 

[vindaloo]

Jeez they wheel out Shaun Smith on every show and all he does is come across as a very low intellect apologist for his even lower intellect son.

Dr Peter Larkins was just on the telly and set it all straight. He pointed out that the AFL has treated the illicit drug issue as a health issue and that treatment is the priority.

He also pointed out that once the person self reports the club doctor then puts them through rehabilitation and a treatment program. It’s not just swept under the carpet.

He also points out that the clubs are forced to say “hamstring awareness” etc because it would be a breach of privacy to say “drug use” as many of these players are also suffering mental health issues.

I liked his turn of phrase the 'devil and the deep', with where doctors are put and their ethical dilemma on faking injuries.

 

[manicpie]

Jeez they wheel out Shaun Smith on every show and all he does is come across as a very low intellect apologist for his even lower intellect son.

Dr Peter Larkins was just on the telly and set it all straight. He pointed out that the AFL has treated the illicit drug issue as a health issue and that treatment is the priority.

He also pointed out that once the person self reports the club doctor then puts them through rehabilitation and a treatment program. It’s not just swept under the carpet.

He also points out that the clubs are forced to say “hamstring awareness” etc because it would be a breach of privacy to say “drug use” as many of these players are also suffering mental health issues.

I like the medical model. I also really like privacy and confidentiality. This is being blown out of proportion by the media.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

He also points out that the clubs are forced to say “hamstring awareness” etc because it would be a breach of privacy to say “drug use” as many of these players are also suffering mental health issues.

Yep. People need to be careful what they wish for. Whinge enough and clubs will end up giving no reasons at all for any player omissions.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I think this is one of those things where the best solution isn’t necessarily a liberal approach or a hardline approach …

… it’s the rate at which the pendulum swings between the two.

I can’t imagine that the pendulum doesn’t have too far further to swing in the liberal direction (mandated drug rooms in all clubs with free test kits provided?) so maybe it’s time for the pendulum to start swinging back.

Maybe it’s time that we just need to let a bunch of players get busted and cop four year bans.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I like the medical model. I also really like privacy and confidentiality. This is being blown out of proportion by the media.

Agree. It highlights however that the three strike model is broken but everybody already knew that. Even the aFL admits it.

Has anybody actually been suspended for illicit drug use under the strict definition of the three strike policy? I doubt it. The only ones who get suspended are those caught on camera…. And technically speaking in these cases it might have been a first strike and a warning anyway… but as it was public news they got suspended.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

.

Maybe it’s time that we just need to let a bunch of players get busted and cop four year bans.

Are you suggesting banning players from voluntarily getting themselves tested privately prior to games….Just so they can get whacked by WADA for a game day positive result? If so, do you think such a rule would be enforceable?

 

[sr36]

The AFL needs to pick a side. Better still, remove themselves from the equation altogether. Stop testing for recreational drugs, scrap the illicit drug policy entirely. The only testing done under the banner of the AFL, should be at the request of a player who has self-reported, be private and without repercussion. Let SIA perform all of the random/targeted drug testing and hand down punishment as they see fit. The AFL can position themselves as only being about player welfare and helping them to comply with the WADA code. Done.

Agree.

But for some reason the public and the media have a totally different expectation of AFL clubs than other employers and many want them to be the policers of this far broader social issue. And Gil being Gil and so into media appeasement gave us the 3 strikes policy as a tokenistic appeasement.

Just drop it and make it clear that they're tackling recreational drug use like the rest of society - through education and counselling - something they do a heap more of than most companies regarding this issue. Early signs are better with Dil than Gil in terms of not pandering to media criticism as much.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Are you suggesting banning players from voluntarily getting themselves tested privately prior to games….Just so they can get whacked by WADA for a game day positive result? If so, do you think such a rule would be enforceable?

I’m suggesting that maybe we need to start treating them in the way we treat commercial airline pilots …

… you can have your testing, and if you test positive then it’s a welfare issue and you need to be provided with help to get better, but it’s also time to find another career that perhaps you’d be better suited to.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I’m suggesting that maybe we need to start treating them in the way we treat commercial airline pilots …

… you can have your testing, and if you test positive then it’s a welfare issue and you need to be provided with help to get better, but it’s also time to find another career that perhaps you’d be better suited to.

Not sure how it works for pilots but if it’s in their system when they are on duty then of course. If it’s on their own time then that’s their own time.

That’s pretty much what the AFL been doing. Footballers don’t have the lives of others in their hands though so a lifetime ban for a game day positive test to align with pilots is a silly analogy.

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

I’m suggesting that maybe we need to start treating them in the way we treat commercial airline pilots …

… you can have your testing, and if you test positive then it’s a welfare issue and you need to be provided with help to get better, but it’s also time to find another career that perhaps you’d be better suited to.

Was about to use the identical analogy.

Last time i checked, airlines don't have an 'off the record pre-check'....and then suggest you should take a sick day and not fly....but no stress, come back next week and we'll pre-check you again.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Was about to use the identical analogy.

Last time i checked, airlines don't have an 'off the record pre-check'....and then suggest you should take a sick day and not fly....but no stress, come back next week and we'll pre-check you again.

But if it’s off the record you wouldn’t know if that happens or not….

Likely if their are pilots that way inclined they would definitely to a pre check if they had imbibed too close to their next shift. That could be a bilateral discussion between him and his doctor.

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

But if it’s off the record you wouldn’t know if that happens or not….

true.

Damn those falling trees and no one around to hear it.
There is no spoon.

 

[sr36]

I think this is one of those things where the best solution isn’t necessarily a liberal approach or a hardline approach …

… it’s the rate at which the pendulum swings between the two.

I can’t imagine that the pendulum doesn’t have too far further to swing in the liberal direction (mandated drug rooms in all clubs with free test kits provided?) so maybe it’s time for the pendulum to start swinging back.

Maybe it’s time that we just need to let a bunch of players get busted and cop four year bans.

And the club advice will change from:

If you do the wrong thing and use a match day banned drug during the week, tell the club doctor and find out if you've still got it in your system.

to

If you do the wrong thing and use a match day banned drug during the week, tell an external GP and find out if you've still got it in your system. Here's a list of places that you can get a test done quickly.

What's the difference? The club doctor is their GP. It just means they'll be encouraged to go to a different place to get tested - with no connection to the club.

It's just like encouraging a kid to have an STI check if they have unprotected sex - it isn't encouraging or enabling - it's minimising harm when they make choices that you don't want them to make.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Agree. It highlights however that the three strike model is broken but everybody already knew that. Even the aFL admits it.

Has anybody actually been suspended for illicit drug use under the strict definition of the three strike policy? I doubt it. The only ones who get suspended are those caught on camera…. And technically speaking in these cases it might have been a first strike and a warning anyway… but as it was public news they got suspended.

Agreed, it’s ridiculous. Ginnivan could have said “it was wizz fizz; prove it wasn’t, bitches!” and no-one could have done a thing. It’s all perception and it grates, bigtime.

 

[sr36]

I’m suggesting that maybe we need to start treating them in the way we treat commercial airline pilots …

… you can have your testing, and if you test positive then it’s a welfare issue and you need to be provided with help to get better, but it’s also time to find another career that perhaps you’d be better suited to.

So the pilots who do use drugs, will get tested privately and pull a sickie if anything shows up. Same thing.

The 3 strikes policy is essentially a copy of wat they do on mining sites.A friend of mine who worked for bhp in Port Headland in an office got told in his mandatory counselling after his second strike: "Are you a moron? Marijuana stays in your system for ages. You just can't use it. Use a different drug and make sure it's out of your system before coming to work "

Perhaps that was Melbourne, but I think AFL is a fair way ahead of most companies regarding this.