News The AFL's new illicit drugs policy

[Happy_Neale]

Thought this could use it's own thread.

Looks like there is a new policy from 2016.

Source.

Under the new policy - which AFL football operations boss Mark Evans on Wednesday branded as tougher - players will receive a $5000 suspended fine for their first strike but will remain anonymous while receiving counselling and target testing.

Their name will be made public on the second strike, as they serve a four-match suspension.

A third strike will incur a 12-match suspension.

Interested in getting peoples thoughts on this as it's an area that interests me. How much power should the AFL have to dictate what a player does outside of game day?

IMV there is a fine but important distinction between demanding professionalism and controlling the lives of the athlete. I am all for PED testing however I do not feel the AFL should have an illicit drugs policy. Why should it matter what the player does to himself outside of matches? I am certainly not one to advocate drug use but I really don't understand why the AFL thinks it has the ability to dictate what choices a player makes outside of their working week, regardless of how careless those choices are (outside of harming others, of course).

Thoughts?

 

[chopperduck]

Many work places have drug policies, AFL should be no different. Think this strike policy works a bit better. They get 1 chance, and they receive help to fix the problem without a fuss being made. Keep doing the wrong thing, and it is time to face the music.

 

[Fatcat08]

Thought this could use it's own thread.

Looks like there is a new policy from 2016.

Source.



Interested in getting peoples thoughts on this as it's an area that interests me. How much power should the AFL have to dictate what a player does outside of game day?

IMV there is a fine but important distinction between demanding professionalism and controlling the lives of the athlete. I am all for PED testing however I do not feel the AFL should have an illicit drugs policy. Why should it matter what the player does to himself outside of matches? I am certainly not one to advocate drug use but I really don't understand why the AFL thinks it has the ability to dictate what choices a player makes outside of their working week, regardless of how careless those choices are (outside of harming others, of course).

Thoughts?

What is a players working week though? Unlike your average office job the affects of drugs can be significant for people that have to be at peak physical conditioning long after they are taken. Not to mention that as the very public face of the game these players are role models for young children. As chopperduck said there are many workplaces where there are drug policies and testing in place. Given the money the game generates I'm not surprised that they've gotten tougher on this, there is just too much at stake not to.

 

[Jman78]

Where I think it is needed is when young kids who idolize certain players find out their footy heroes are drug users, and at the end of the day it's illegal sooooo.....

 

[Happy_Neale]

There is much more money in American sports, and the NBA for example just has a token illicit drugs policy. So I don't agree that the 'setting an example' argument should be applied to elite athletes, so long as behaviors they are engaging in are contained to their own spaces. Like I mentioned, these are not particularly good decisions they are making but I believe they should be free to make them.

If the player is caught with drugs they should absolutely face the wrath of the law which MAY include termination of contract. But shouldn't this be at the hands of the police not the AFL? I see it mentioned other workplaces have drug policies but in my experience they are usually just to get the job in the first place. I'm not super experienced in this area but how many people are drug tested with any regularity once in their place of employment?

If these drugs were legal would it be an issue? What about marijuana - that is being legalised overseas and possibly may be here one day too - does it suddenly become okay to use in that case? Is alcohol acceptable despite being more dangerous to the body than many of these 'banned' drugs? Really think it is hard for the AFL to say you can/cannot use or take this or that because in reality, the issue is way more complex than 'setting an example for the kids'.

 

[POBT]

Ideally, employers would test for impairment only and not for usage. I mean, does the fact that an employee takes ecstasy on a Thursday night and might still test positive to MDMA on a Monday make them impaired? Probably not.

Most random workplace drug and alcohol testing arrangements are in place for high risk occupations or industries. Mining, transport etc.

Other industries might have testing "for cause" - ie where there is a suspicion that the employee is impaired (an example might be following an accident or near miss).

The most defensible systems are linked to improved safety outcomes.

Having said all of that, you can effectively buy the right to random test your employees through enterprise bargaining. That's what the AFL have done in the past.

 

[PertRoosOsborne]

Shaved heads to become very popular.

 

[Skoob]

For the money, value on performance and importance of brand, I see AFL player contracts as pretty much 24/7 jobs and a such, clubs and the the AFL are entitled to a fairly high level of control.
I think they also have a duty of care to the players to take all reasonable steps to discourage the use of illicit substances as well as alcohol. Virtual kids are being taken in, virtually owned and given shitloads of disposable income. I think it is incumbent upon the administrators to curtail poor life choices in the interest of the health and reputations of these blokes. If that ha to be done via a system of punishment, then so be it.
For too long, they have sat on their hands and accepted no responsibility for the education and welfare of their employees. A low tolerance policy is fine with me.

 

[Skoob]

Shaved heads to become very popular.

Haha, at least that will solve the scourge that is the 'man bun' or top knot.