Random Drug Testing

[H_T 3,049]

It is common knowledge that after a period of 48 hours after taking/using illicit drugs, traces of the illicit drug(s) can be flushed out of the system. We know through recent data/reports, that most of the tests conducted on AFL players by testers have been urine tests.

Hair testing (which is in it's infancy) can trace anything up to 3 months after use of illicit drugs (which are considered stimulants - can enhance performance).

I think the AFL should target test with more hair testing. I think the requirement of the length of hair is around 3 cm in length although I'm not 100%. Someone might like to confirm.

In this day and age, there seems to be an increasing amount of players shaving down/waxing (filling in time). I know some players do it because they might be going a bit thin on top, having lost some feathers. But there are others who I sometimes wonder about.

I'd like to know others thoughts on 'target testing' and even frequency or lengths the AFL should strive for to keep the game clean ?

[Vagg 2,449]

In this day and age, there seems to be an increasing amount of players shaving down/waxing (filling in time). I know some players do it because they might be going a bit thin on top, having lost some feathers. But there are others who I sometimes wonder about.

Not sure to what extreme some guys take this waxing nonsense to. But, surely there'd still be some hair at least 3cm long on SOME part of the body that a determined examiner could find...?

If so, and the person was subsequently found through that hair test to be a drug user, could it rightly be said they had him by the short & curlies...??

(Yep, another slow & dull day at the office! LOL)

[45HG 1,559]

I don't really understand everyone's fascination with elicit drug testing of players by their employer.

[Sir Why You Little 37,310]

I don't really understand everyone's fascination with elicit drug testing of players by their employer.

I think the whole thing is a grosse invasion of Privacy myself. What a player does after a match to relax, should be his own private business.

And the Fact that Michael Johnson is hung out to dry whilst 14 other players are on 2 strikes i find almost Fantasy.

The situation cannot continue forever & i feel the AFL are going to get burnt out of this.

Sure Johnson must face the police-but it should have been done quietly & the club should have waited till a conviction before throwing him to the wolves.

Too much moral high ground these days.

[dee-luded 2,959]

It is common knowledge that after a period of 48 hours after taking/using illicit drugs, traces of the illicit drug(s) can be flushed out of the system. We know through recent data/reports, that most of the tests conducted on AFL players by testers have been urine tests.

Hair testing (which is in it's infancy) can trace anything up to 3 months after use of illicit drugs (which are considered stimulants - can enhance performance).

I think the AFL should target test with more hair testing. I think the requirement of the length of hair is around 3 cm in length although I'm not 100%. Someone might like to confirm.

In this day and age, there seems to be an increasing amount of players shaving down/waxing (filling in time). I know some players do it because they might be going a bit thin on top, having lost some feathers. But there are others who I sometimes wonder about.

I'd like to know others thoughts on 'target testing' and even frequency or lengths the AFL should strive for to keep the game clean ?

Ht, I had hair samples analysed in an US lab around 1990. its been around a while. But its new to drug testing because the authorities didn't in the past have the desire to find cheats for fear of the embarrassment of the exposure. IMO, that still exists.

[two sheds jackson 3]

I think the whole thing is a grosse invasion of Privacy myself. What a player does after a match to relax, should be his own private business...

Too much moral high ground these days.

Totallly agree. The argument for blanket recreational drug testing is built on nothing more than moral posturing. There seems to be three main lines of reasoning, none of which stand up under any scrutiny:

- The "somebody think of the children!!" argument is by far the worst. This idea that celebrities should be rolemodels is patent rubbish. With a few isolated exceptions, AFL footballers aren't trying to present themselves as figures to be emulated. They just happen to be very gifted at a sport that people pay money to see. It would be different if they were an authority figure, or if they were in some kind of role that involved teaching people to adhere to a certain code of conduct (i.e. if they were policemen, priests, schoolteachers etc). But they are not: their job is to play football, and their duty is to be good at it. If a kid idolises a celebrity and begins to emulate negative aspects of that celebrities behavior, then it is the parents who should take stock and start teaching them how to behave, not the celebrity. Besides, without the AFL's "naming and shaming" policy, kids wouldn't even know about most of these cases, so if anything the "rolemodel" argument runs contrary to the current policy.

- The argument that clubs have a right to know if their players are undertaking off-field activities that could negatively affect their performance, doesn't hold water. There are a number of off-field activities a player might do which could adversely affect their game, ranging from junk food, to drinking, to illicit drugs. But nobody would seriously suggest that clubs take stool samples to test a players diet, they don't even need to: if a player fails to meet the many fitness tests they're subject to throughout the year, or if they fail to run out games, then they'll be dropped/suspended/delisted depending on the degree of their infringement. Same should be true for illicit drugs; if their performance is being affected to an unacceptable degree, the club will notice without needing to do tests. If it is not affecting their performance to any noticeable degree, then it's their own business. Sure, we'd love all of our players to dedicate every aspect of their lifestyle to being the best footballer they can be, and to put nothing into their bodies that might remotely affect their game, like a Chris Judd or a Tom Scully. But in reality, most players dont, and as long as they are meeting or surpassing the (very rigorous) standards set for them by their club, then what they at home is not the clubs business.

- The other line of reasoning is that players with serious drug problems need help, and drug testing ensures they will get some. I'm more sympathetic to this argument, but a footballer should not be treated differently to society at large. If we have a drug problem, we can get help by actively seeking it. We can only have help forced on us in the most extreme cases -i.e. when our addiction has rendered us a danger to other people or has caused us to commit a serious crime. We cannot be forced to undergo councelling because we had a joint after work on a Friday night two months ago and it showed up in a random hair test at work. These sorts of policies are often championed by the fabled "silent majority" (in reality, neither silent, nor a majority) who seem to have trouble comprehending that somebody who uses an illegal drug occasionally, does not necassarily have a "drug problem".

[H_T 3,049]

I don't really understand everyone's fascination with elicit drug testing of players by their employer.

I guess I don't have that big a grasp on the issue, which is why I thought it might be worth discussing to absorb some unknown knowledge. I haven't given it much thought until recently I heard Ben Cousins speak on "On the Couch" and a couple of experts speaking on the fact that illicit drugs can be a stimulant; performance enhancing which in fact contradicted Cousins' belief that it didn't.

Call it a fascination if you must, but based on this knowledge that player(s) within the system could or might be conceivably trying to gain an advantage by rolling the dice with stimulants (illicit drugs) to enhance their performance, doesn't sit well for me and I'm guessing it shouldn't sit well for the average AFL fan. The AFL must continue with it's drug policy, despite all the negativity it has received, for many a reason, that is obvious.

PS. dee-luded - I meant within the AFL drug testing (ie. "in it's infancy)

[two sheds jackson 3]

I haven't given it much thought until recently I heard Ben Cousins speak on "On the Couch" and a couple of experts speaking on the fact that illicit drugs can be a stimulant; performance enhancing which in fact contradicted Cousins' belief that it didn't.

I didn't see it. Who were the experts? What was their reasoning that stimulants are performance enhancing, and what was Cousins' reasoning that they arent?

If there are serious concerns that using stimulants just before a game will enhance a players performances (I have my doubts), then of course theres no problem with testing players for amphetamines and cocaine within a 48 hour period after a game, and classing these as performance enhancing drugs. But unless they're using those drugs on gameday, moments before a game, then there is absolutely not going to be any positive affect on their performance, and so the hair tests serve no valid purpose.

[dee-luded 2,959]

I think the whole thing is a grosse invasion of Privacy myself. What a player does after a match to relax, should be his own private business.

And the Fact that Michael Johnson is hung out to dry whilst 14 other players are on 2 strikes i find almost Fantasy.

The situation cannot continue forever & i feel the AFL are going to get burnt out of this.

Sure Johnson must face the police-but it should have been done quietly & the club should have waited till a conviction before throwing him to the wolves.

Too much moral high ground these days.

Maybe WYL, but what about the Marion Jones types?

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://dubsism.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/marion-jones-running.jpg&imgrefurl=http://kicchip.co.uk/images/marion-jones-wnba-espn.html&h=434&w=298&sz=17&tbnid=SuwXP-qz7VtbOM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=87&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMarion%2BJones&usg=__qWOD9jDZAGbEzWIDhwCUaYqFOJo=&ei=B4_2S_ibHomvcOaqofcL&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=7&ct=image&ved=0CDcQ9QEwBg

[dee-luded 2,959]

I guess I don't have that big a grasp on the issue, which is why I thought it might be worth discussing to absorb some unknown knowledge. I haven't given it much thought until recently I heard Ben Cousins speak on "On the Couch" and a couple of experts speaking on the fact that illicit drugs can be a stimulant; performance enhancing which in fact contradicted Cousins' belief that it didn't.

Call it a fascination if you must, but based on this knowledge that player(s) within the system could or might be conceivably trying to gain an advantage by rolling the dice with stimulants (illicit drugs) to enhance their performance, doesn't sit well for me and I'm guessing it shouldn't sit well for the average AFL fan. The AFL must continue with it's drug policy, despite all the negativity it has received, for many a reason, that is obvious.

PS. dee-luded - I meant within the AFL drug testing (ie. "in it's infancy)

Yeah, I know you did. What I'm suggesting is that Sports Administrators had & have tried to keep these issues buried & out of the Media in the past at a time when the public didn't want to believe that sports people would do such a thing as take performance drugs, or any sort of drug.

These days the public has grown more cynical & angry, demanding action, after these types of failures.

This technology was available to be developed for a sports application, If the desire were there at the time. No one, IMO, wanted to know.

IMO, it wouldn't surprise me that some questionable types just don't seem to get tested. Call me a cynic, but.

[H_T 3,049]

I didn't see it. Who were the experts? What was their reasoning that stimulants are performance enhancing, and what was Cousins' reasoning that they arent?

If there are serious concerns that using stimulants just before a game will enhance a players performances (I have my doubts), then of course theres no problem with testing players for amphetamines and cocaine within a 48 hour period after a game, and classing these as performance enhancing drugs. But unless they're using those drugs on gameday, moments before a game, then there is absolutely not going to be any positive affect on their performance, and so the hair tests serve no valid purpose.

Last Friday (14th) there was a Professor/Doctor being interviewed on SEN and the Cousins interview was discussed. In the Professor's opinion certainly some illicit drugs are stimulants that can enhance or influence the performance of athletes. In his expertise, he seriously questioned Cousins' remarks that there was "no benefit" in terms of performance in his experience. Cousins dismissed the notion when asked if they benefited him in any way on the field. From memory, he said something along the lines of "if anything you felt flat."

The "reasoning" (from memory) that the stimulants can enhance performance was the Doctor mentioned an increase in white blood cells or something, which allows increased levels of oxygen, therefore a higher endurance/recovery. I'm no expert on such matters but it sounded beneficial to me.

On "on the couch" on Monday just gone, Gerard Healy said he spoke to Cousins again and asked him questions that weren't asked in the interview the previous week (that people most definitely wanted to ask). They related to how he avoided being detected as positive in testing in his time at West Coast. Cousins told Healy that there was a bit of luck involved in either: -

* Not being tested (targeted)

* Not turning up to training on occassions ("allegedly" heard Healy mention softly ~ maybe because he found out the testers were present..I'll confirm this...IQ)

* Knew that after a certain time it would be flushed out of his system.

edit: added the bit about the "reasoning"

I can't recall the Professor's name. Apologies for that.