I'm a bit of a cynic and I wonder what was behind Eddie McGuire's call for widespread drug testing in finals in today's Australian.

Was he simply responding positively to the AFL's move for a tough stance on performance-enhancing drugs in finals or has heard the same rumours that I have about a high profile player who took part in the finals?

And what do we make of Hawthorn chief executive Ian Robson who said his club "backed the AFL in everything that upheld the highest principle of integrity."

Perhaps those high principles of integrity might also apply to some transparency from AFL clubs about players who test positive to drugs? After all, if you get caught twice (and possibly even three times) taking illicit substances, you are a protected species but if you punt a few bucks on the footy, your name's splashed all over the media.

That's a system that upholds high principles of integrity?

Perhaps those high principles of integrity might also apply to some transparency from AFL clubs about players who test positive to drugs? After all, if you get caught twice (and possibly even three times) taking illicit substances, you are a protected species but if you punt a few bucks on the footy, your name's splashed all over the media.

Indeed Sid Vicious. I'm a cynic too in relation to Eddie's call. Why the focus on testing widespread during finals? What about the home & away season?..

I would suggest for the purposes of this discussion that people remember our Code of Conduct.

Please do not put up any unsubstaniated rumours connecting and identifying people with any illegal activities as your post will be deleted.

Why the focus on testing widespread during finals? What about the home & away season?..

Drug testing is very expensive.

The home and away season has many matches.

The finals are the most important games (and thus the most temptation?).

Perhaps the AFL should look at (to see if it's feasible) investing in a testing laboratory for testing our AFL athletes to uphold the integrity of the competition. If they invest in the laboratory, whilst I understand testing is expensive, surely it would help reduce the costs of testing but also uphold the integrity for the benefit of the AFL competition by widespread testing.

Perhaps the AFL should look at (to see if it's feasible) investing in a testing laboratory for testing our AFL athletes to uphold the integrity of the competition. If they invest in the laboratory, whilst I understand testing is expensive, surely it would help reduce the costs of testing but also uphold the integrity for the benefit of the AFL competition.

Interesting idea, although I imagine at least some stakeholders might prefer the tests performed by a neutral body.

Interesting idea, although I imagine at least some stakeholders might prefer the tests performed by a neutral body.

True. Very hard to find a neutral testing body in this country that does not 'live and breathe' AFL too. Overseas neutral body would be logistically more expensive and a nightmare.....we're stuffed!

Got another idea?

I would suggest for the purposes of this discussion that people remember our Code of Conduct.

Please do not put up any unsubstaniated rumours connecting and identifying people with any illegal activities as your post will be deleted.

Good advice and don'tforget that injunction's still in place!

Got another idea?

Is there a problem with the neutrality of the ASADA?

I think there were certainly be a perception amongst the clubs, if the testing was being run by the AFL itself, that the AFL would have the ability to supress results for players if they deemed a positive result to be bad for the game.

And it would not be good for the game if there was a perception that the AFL wasn't completely even handed with the detection and announcement of players who have had a third strike.

If the AFL has the ability to supress certain test results because of the consequences then the 'integrity' of the process, perceived or otherwise, requires that it be run by an independent authority.

I think there were certainly be a perception amongst the clubs, if the testing was being run by the AFL itself, that the AFL would have the ability to supress results for players if they deemed a positive result to be bad for the game.

And it would not be good for the game if there was a perception that the AFL wasn't completely even handed with the detection and announcement of players who have had a third strike.

If the AFL has the ability to supress certain test results because of the consequences then the 'integrity' of the process, perceived or otherwise, requires that it be run by an independent authority.

The system is not exactly seen as being so full of integrity at the moment.

And i think Eddie does smell something in the wind. I have very reliable 2nd hand knowledge of players on both GF teams that are big time party boys.

Is there a problem with the neutrality of the ASADA?

Well, as long as he stakeholders of the AFL don't have any influence in any way shape or form at ASADA - including their employees, I can't see why not. IMO it has to be full proof and 100% neutral.

Well, as long as he stakeholders of the AFL don't have any influence in any way shape or form at ASADA - including their employees, I can't see why not. IMO it has to be full proof and 100% neutral.

Well... i've been told personally by a player that they often get a secret phone call the day before to let them know they'll get tested. Don't know any more than that.

And i won't say who. AND you know, he could've been lying for some strange reason.

Well... i've been told personally by a player that they often get a secret phone call the day before to let them know they'll get tested. Don't know any more than that.

If true, I find it very unlikely that the AFL was involved in this leaking in any way, shape, or form.

If the AFL has the ability to supress certain test results because of the consequences then the 'integrity' of the process, perceived or otherwise, requires that it be run by an independent authority.

They already do with their 3 strike policy. Given it goes above and beyond the WADA code, ASADA simply report the results back to the AFL. It is then up to the AFL to act on those results. However, I would expect the AFL has no choice but to act on a matchday positive though.

If true, I find it very unlikely that the AFL was involved in this leaking in any way, shape, or form.

The impression i was given was that it wasn't from the afl

i didn't ask for any more info beyond that

mind you, i heard it at least a year ago. Things may have changed

Given it goes above and beyond the WADA code, ASADA simply report the results back to the AFL. It is then up to the AFL to act on those results.

Really? Well if that's the case then the integrity of the process is already compromised. IMO it shouldn't be up to the AFL to report the results of testing because they have too great an interest in the results of those tests.

If they find a player who has a 3rd strike who is a poster boy for the league, then what incentive could the AFL possibly have to announce the result? They certainly don't want another Cousins saga on their hands after the damage to the brand that it caused.

Hmmmm, very strange.

The impression i was given was that it wasn't from the afl

i didn't ask for any more info beyond that

So, if it was true, you give the impression Shaft, that if it wasn't from the AFL, it would be from someone who knew the testing was going to take place, ie someone in the know of "target testing". Which comes to my point Rogue, that it must be 100% neutral. And certainly in this 'alleged' case in point, it doesn't smell like 100% neutral.

(Disclaimer)

This poster has no knowledge of the events that take place in drug testing of AFL athletes, and no knowledge of what they've just posted. Written and authorised by HT.

Really?

I'm not certain of that, but the 3 strike system is an AFL policy, matchdays fall under the WADA code. I would expect the AFL controls what goes on with it's own policy as it has nothing to do with WADA or ASADA, apart from the fact that ASADA do the testing.

I'm not sure about the initial premise: if there is a player who really has been done for third time, then surely the media would be all over it! God, little Dylan Howard (last year?) for example was all over medical records...if someone tested positive for the third time, then someone, somewhere would release that info.

Imagine the Hun :"X's SHAME: How being UP lost the CUP".

that said, it was interesting that KB on SEN raised the issue of players using drugs and losing the GF as a result AFTER the GF was won...

Nah, my conspiracy theory brain is going too far!

So, if it was true, you give the impression Shaft, that if it wasn't from the AFL, it would be from someone who knew the testing was going to take place, ie someone in the know of "target testing". Which comes to my point Rogue, that it must be 100% neutral. And certainly in this 'alleged' case in point, it doesn't smell like 100% neutral.

(Disclaimer)

This poster has no knowledge of the events that take place in drug testing of AFL athletes, and no knowledge of what they've just posted. Written and authorised by HT.

Define neutral.

The context of the conversation was that having the testing body owned and operated by the AFL would not be favourably viewed by stakeholders.

Let's venture into hypothetical land:

A sport's governing body contracts a neutral (owned and operated independently of the governing body) anti-doping agency to conduct testing of athletes at the elite level.

Assume that once upon a time, someone leaked the identity of upcoming testing targets.

If you acknowledged the sport's governing body had nothing to do with the leak, I fail to see how a leak would mean that the testing body was not 'neutral'.

If a testing agency allowed itself to be lent on by a governing body in order to avoid positive findings by leaking targets (or burying results, etc), it would lose all integrity and credibility and thus cease to exist.

Assume this leak became public, and compare the reaction of stakeholders and the public to a similar case where the sport's governing body owned and operated their own lab.

It's probably better for everyone involved, including the AFL, to have an independent body conduct testing.

Define neutral.

.......

Whilst the testing body may be deemed 'neutral', I would have concerns from the employees within. Employees that may have contact with clubs. These employees can have an influence on outcomes. This is my concern in terms of achieving 100% neutrality.

edit: regardless if it is independent or partly owned by a governing body for testing.

Okay, but it's neither here nor there when it comes to that of internal versus external testing bodies.

...except that in the hypothetical case of mistakes or underhanded dealings by a testing body, it's far better for the sport if the testing agency is independent.

ok, this is 100% me reading between the lines... but i got the impression that someone involved in the actual TESTING, NOT the AFL, would contact someone at the club that knew who of the players was likely to dabble in these sorts of things and would discreetly let them know.

I've no idea how this could help anyone though, if it does happen. As far as I understand, these sorts of party drugs stay in your system for 3 days or so, making a warning the day before irrelevant.

I don't think you can get away with missing a drug test by calling in sick.

I don't think its that far-fetched though.

I've spent time working in the mining industry where lives are at risk and fines are astronomical, and I've seen exactly the same stuff go on.

I've seen cover-ups there too - its just a fact of life really.