The AFL does not want positive drug tests. It will go to any lengths to avoid that occurring.

Remember how Spider Everitt spoke out some time ago saying that he hadn't been tested since being at Sydney?

Note how the AFL pays for only 600 tests per year...not even enough to get around all the players..

Have we forgotten that Ben Cousins never once tested positive despite the bleeding obvious happening at West Coast for many years?

Have we forgotten the stories of the WCE party in the USA when someone nearly died? Still not a single positive.

The AFL does not want positive drug tests. It will go to any lengths to avoid that occurring.

Remember how Spider Everitt spoke out some time ago saying that he hadn't been tested since being at Sydney?

Note how the AFL pays for only 600 tests per year...not even enough to get around all the players..

Have we forgotten that Ben Cousins never once tested positive despite the bleeding obvious happening at West Coast for many years?

Have we forgotten the stories of the WCE party in the USA when someone nearly died? Still not a single positive.

yeah, and i'm not sure about you guys, but TWO YEARS before he was caught i was getting internal mail about Cuz being a massive party boy.

And it wasn't exactly a secret, it was getting around like wildfire.

Surely if i was hearing things - while i was away for a few years in london, mind you - then the AFL heard something and should've been right on it a lot earlier.

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.

Absolutely correct Shaft.

Eddie knows about the Hawthorn party boys and the allegations about their illicit substance use. I'd suggest he's sick of his players copping shite for legal imbibing. The AFL knows about the particular Hawthorn players involved, but, well, money and sponsors, you know.

This, only my opinion but I tend to side with those that argue or purport that the AFL has no real interest in seeing anything come to light.

For mine, this is why: The AFL runs the largest comp in the land. There's lots and lots of money , prestige etc etc etc. All it really wants is the overall "entertainment package " to continue on its merry way filling its coffers and providing a rather convivial existence for al concerned.It doesnt want apple carts turned over. It doesnt want "things" it has to deal with whose bringing into daylight will only cause consternation and bother. It doesnt want any of this. Far easier to me to just find ways of never having to deal with it. Lets have a three strike policy.. No other code anywahere is so lax and lenient, it almost goes to condoining the use let alone punishing it. But even then only has any effect if you do test. So next part of the ploy is to have minimal testing. You dont have to fix what isnt broke..or reported to be !!

All the whiles it can 'say' its doing all the things required of a responsible administration in keeping with public sentiments etc. To me its an out an out con..an attack upon the sensibilities of any intelligent person who can see through this sham. The AFL has ITS agenda..nothing must upset the Vlad manifesto. It wouldnt surprise me in theleast if leaked whispers allowed the status quo to be maintained.

The AFL just want the game to be played..it cares for absolutely nothing else. If it did ..it would have adopted the much tougher approach, and enforced it. But that my learned colleagues costs money and the AFL likes to keep it money for its pet projects...like 20 million [censored] up against a wall in West Sydney...gee..a fraction of that could buy a few drug tests huh !!

To see where teh AFL really stands...listen to nothing it says...just observe what it DOES !! the picture is quite clear

Lets have a three strike policy.. No other code anywahere is so lax and lenient, it almost goes to condoining the use let alone punishing it.

How many codes test for drugs that aren't classified as 'performance enhancing'?

like 20 million [censored] up against a wall in West Sydney...gee..a fraction of that could buy a few drug tests huh !!

It's easier to justify expenditure if there's a likelihood of return. I'm not a West Sydney fan and am pretty skeptical of the case for a team out there, but you can argue a case for investing in the project. Drug tests are simply a cost.

Drug tests are simply a cost.

Surely the correct stance is they are an INVESTMENT in the fidelity of the competition !

This then conveys to the public..i.e the bums on seats investors of the comp that they ( afl ) have made a real & reasonable effort to effect bone fide of the sport.

Things can be argued many ways my friend.

Again..judge by what they do..not wehat they say..and they do sweet stuff all re drugs...when it really comes down to it.. Its all lip service. All gloss - no substance ; and we dont mention 'substances' at the AFL !! lol

This, only my opinion.....

............

.........

To see where teh AFL really stands...listen to nothing it says...just observe what it DOES !! the picture is quite clear

Agree Bub, and I couldn't have said it in more words...

Surely the correct stance is they are an INVESTMENT in the fidelity of the competition !

That's certainly not consistent with your characterisation of the AFL in your previous post

I'd also suggest that above a certain level, pouring money into drug testing has significantly diminished 'returns' when it comes to the 'return' in positive public perception.

Despite controversies that the AFL's experienced lately, I don't think that there's a common view amongst Average Joe supporter that the sport is rife with 'drug cheats'.

If that was the prevailing view it would be very damaging to the sport - think cycling.

However, IMHO if there's a view within the public about the prevalence of drugs in AFL, it's more likely to be about 'social' drugs rather than 'performance enhancing' drugs.

Btw, I'm still keen to know about how lax the AFL's drug testing regime is in comparison to other codes - I'm not sure your assertion is correct.

That's certainly not consistent with your characterisation of the AFL in your previous post

I'd also suggest that above a certain level, pouring money into drug testing has significantly diminished 'returns' when it comes to the 'return' in positive public perception.

Despite controversies that the AFL's experienced lately, I don't think that there's a common view amongst Average Joe supporter that the sport is rife with 'drug cheats'.

If that was the prevailing view it would be very damaging to the sport - think cycling.

However, IMHO if there's a view within the public about the prevalence of drugs in AFL, it's more likely to be about 'social' drugs rather than 'performance enhancing' drugs.

Btw, I'm still keen to know about how lax the AFL's drug testing regime is in comparison to other codes - I'm not sure your assertion is correct.

It's lax in so much as it is not independent. Results are dispositioned by the $AFL$. Results should be reported to an independant sporting body. The 3 strikes rule the $AFL$ applies is unrecognised and disagreeable to even our government. There is no independent drug analysis audit by a world recognised sporting body, and so "the beat goes on".

By the way, 'social' drugs, for example amphetimines, are performance enhancing. It's about aggression and durability.

The AFL does not want positive drug tests. It will go to any lengths to avoid that occurring.

Remember how Spider Everitt spoke out some time ago saying that he hadn't been tested since being at Sydney?

Note how the AFL pays for only 600 tests per year...not even enough to get around all the players..

Have we forgotten that Ben Cousins never once tested positive despite the bleeding obvious happening at West Coast for many years?

Have we forgotten the stories of the WCE party in the USA when someone nearly died? Still not a single positive.

It's also a bit of a concern when three players from the Bulldogs were tested on 3 occassions over the period of a year - and allegedly no other Bulldog player was tested in the same period.

-ref: Jason Akermanis.

Eddie will be left with egg on his face and very embarressed if they ramp up the drug testing. FACT

The best way is hair testing, not that i agree with it.

I'd also suggest that above a certain level, pouring money into drug testing has significantly diminished 'returns' when it comes to the 'return' in positive public perception.

Just look at Cycling.

They invest in drug testing and the whole sport is about to collapse

The way I see it all, I think its nothing but a PR battle. The AFL is like a political party, wanting to send out all the right messages to the community, but there's very little substance behind it all.

The problem of recreational drugs is not new, but I don't think the AFL ever saw it as a reason for concern.

Now post-Cousins, it has hit the fan and they have looked into it and tried to control it, but realised it is too ingrained into the AFL lifestyle for a lot of guys.

They instead go into damage control for their IMAGE. A few token efforts for the public to appreciate, but they cannot just suspend X amount of player in one fell swoop.

Let alone any of their big stars.

Re: Recreational drugs ONLY, personally I see no problem with it, as long as it is uniform across the board.

If they target certain players and make examples of them, then it creates an uneven plain field. As little as i see the drugs making a difference.

Cousins screwed up by admitting it himself and developing an addiction that prevented him from doing his job.

The AFL had no choice in his regard.

The best way is hair testing, not that i agree with it.

If it involves removal of hair, G.Lyon would support it.

If it involves removal of hair, G.Lyon would support it.

Unfortunately the sample comes from your head not your back.

Cousins screwed up by admitting it himself and developing an addiction that prevented him from doing his job.

The AFL had no choice in his regard.

They had a choice - suspend him for something they couldn't even prove he did or let him play and prove what everyone else thinks (that their testing procedures are useless).

We've had Andrew Johns come out and say he frequently used drugs, Jonno Hay has come out and said it was common, plus Karl Norman/Angwin and Cousins. 2 Hawks players we know are on 2 strikes, and I remember an article some time ago where it suggests there were a fair few on 1 strike. I know an Essendon supporter that had 2 young players (from Essendon) come up and ask him if he had anything.

The AFL has their heads in the sands if they don't think anywhere between 10 and 15% of players (minimum) use recreational drugs

The way I see it all, I think its nothing but a PR battle. The AFL is like a political party, wanting to send out all the right messages to the community, but there's very little substance behind it all.

In a nutshell..YES !!

They had a choice - suspend him for something they couldn't even prove he did or let him play and prove what everyone else thinks (that their testing procedures are useless).

We've had Andrew Johns come out and say he frequently used drugs, Jonno Hay has come out and said it was common, plus Karl Norman/Angwin and Cousins. 2 Hawks players we know are on 2 strikes, and I remember an article some time ago where it suggests there were a fair few on 1 strike. I know an Essendon supporter that had 2 young players (from Essendon) come up and ask him if he had anything.

The AFL has their heads in the sands if they don't think anywhere between 10 and 15% of players (minimum) use recreational drugs

10 -15% is a bit conservative I think..

with Cousins, I really don't think they did have a choice because it had all gone PUBLIC.

He was missing training and the club knew about it, the papers were all over it.. the AFL had no choice but to act.

There was absolutely no chance of sweeping it under the rug.

If the Cousins situation has done anything, i think it has made the AFL better prepared to conceal these particular indiscretions or spin them. Little else.