Instresting this hasn't being brought up yet. with the news four Collingwood players confessed to taking drugs and the whole drug summit yesterday whats everyones thoughts? It does make you think though that its impossible to have a drug fee club ( jarred waite is seriously a goose) I think 3 strike rule should have been banished to be honest.

This is an interesting article though.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/afl/depressed-on-drugs-dumped-father-reveals-sons-afl-spiral/story-e6frepf6-1226565417850

Unanimous vote yesterday!!

What a joke that the clubs would vote to not know the state of their players.

As a member i am not impressed.

Unanimous vote yesterday!!

What a joke that the clubs would vote to not know the state of their players.

As a member i am not impressed.

Amazing isn't it? It's called passing the buck!

IMO players should only be tested for performance enhancing drugs. There should be zero tolerance for that. Two year ban for first offence. Lifetime ban for a second.

The party drug issue should be dealt with through education, counselling and ultimately dismissal for the small number of players who can't/won't reform. Both the AFL and the clubs need to work together to create this league-wide safety net.

The current policy was and will continue to be, a joke.

The comment about a best 22 player needing to show up to training with a needle hanging out of their arm in order to be delisted is bang on the money IMO. Cousins was the prime example, he was delisted and publically outed, but other guys like [censored], [censored] and the rest were not much different

Wonder who the article is written about?

The comment about a best 22 player needing to show up to training with a needle hanging out of their arm in order to be delisted is bang on the money IMO. Cousins was the prime example, he was delisted and publically outed, but other guys like [censored], [censored] and the rest were not much different

Wonder who the article is written about?

Carefully one of those is currently sueing all and sundry

Amazing isn't it? It's called passing the buck!

IMO players should only be tested for performance enhancing drugs. There should be zero tolerance for that. Two year ban for first offence. Lifetime ban for a second.

The party drug issue should be dealt with through education, counselling and ultimately dismissal for the small number of players who can't/won't reform. Both the AFL and the clubs need to work together to create this league-wide safety net.

The current policy was and will continue to be, a joke.

It is a very complex issue. I think that any employer needs to know the circumstances of their employees. If the actions directly affect their work performance capacity then supportive action should be taken. THe AFL is placing itself as the employer above the club who should want/have/take responsibility for their players. The breakdown between (Sport) performance enhancing and recreational is so marginal that it defies logic that the club should not know. If a player was consuming only chips and coke they would want to know. wether this affects performance is again a moot point (diet didnt seem to affect Warnies performance). Long term affects may be another issue and surely the club should have some understanding and considerations of that as well.

While people (players) are responsible for their own actions and outcomes the collective (employer/club) shopuld have a greater capacity to ensure their is improved understanding and that informed decisions can be made.

Obviously if I had the answer Id be making some policy for the AFL so I can only reflect on the complexity and hope we MFC are doing everything possible to ensure we are caring for and managing our players and infusing them with enoughdesire to have a well balanced life which will allow them to play footy at their peak. Education counselling and support should avoid dismissal.

If the AFL are happy to sanction their 3 strike policy whilst keeping the clubs in the dark, then any player that has one strike or more should have their wages paid for directly by the AFL.

The risks are just becoming to high to continue to hide behind a veil of "nothing to see here"

30% of teenagers use quite regularly...it is what society is.

its either all or nothing as far as i'm concerned. this 3 stike policy sends mixed messages, do the AFL really want to stamp it out or just pretend they are concerned?

If they really want to stamp it out then do what they do in construction and mining jobs; Daily random drug and alcohol testing. you fail the test you get shown the door.

Anything less than this wont stop players from taking drugs.

its either all or nothing as far as i'm concerned. this 3 stike policy sends mixed messages, do the AFL really want to stamp it out or just pretend they are concerned?

If they really want to stamp it out then do what they do in construction and mining jobs; Daily random drug and alcohol testing. you fail the test you get shown the door.

Anything less than this wont stop players from taking drugs.

I agree DemonWA

But it appears we are out of touch with the modern world mate

I agree DemonWA

But it appears we are out of touch with the modern world mate

they are saying each test costs $1,000.

can this be true? seems awfully high

its either all or nothing as far as i'm concerned. this 3 stike policy sends mixed messages, do the AFL really want to stamp it out or just pretend they are concerned?

If they really want to stamp it out then do what they do in construction and mining jobs; Daily random drug and alcohol testing. you fail the test you get shown the door.

Anything less than this wont stop players from taking drugs.

This type of random test and resultant action is a simplistic action for work / perfromance related issues where there is an available replacement labour market. The issue is not so clear cut where specialist skills and impact of capacity are conmsidered

This type of random test and resultant action is a simplistic action for work / perfromance related issues where there is an available replacement labour market. The issue is not so clear cut where specialist skills and impact of capacity are conmsidered

So the tail gets to wag the dog?

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by old dee

So the tail gets to wag the dog?

Not sure I understand OD

I earlier indicated it is a complex issue and the employer should take all circumstances into consideration.

The more you know thje better the outcome is likely to be.

I also said that with an appropriate process you get the best outcome.

This type of random test and resultant action is a simplistic action for work / perfromance related issues where there is an available replacement labour market. The issue is not so clear cut where specialist skills and impact of capacity are conmsidered

I agree, however its a cut throat, black and white system, which is why it would work.

I dont believe many AFL players are drug addicts that need to score. They're cashed up young blokes who have a heap of spare time and a high profile in society. They're going to dabble with dugs if they can get away with it. But although some of them arent the brightest sparks, i reckon the 'no second change' system would get the desired outcome.

I agree, however its a cut throat, black and white system, which is why it would work.

I dont believe many AFL players are drug addicts that need to score. They're cashed up young blokes who have a heap of spare time and a high profile in society. They're going to dabble with dugs if they can get away with it. But although some of them arent the brightest sparks, i reckon the 'no second change' system would get the desired outcome.

Probably true.

As I said earlier if I knew the answer I would be selling it to the AFL. I just reckon there are a lot of variables and good communication trust etc are needed to get the best result. A hard and fast single rule may mean the remedy is worse than the disease.

Not sure I understand OD

I earlier indicated it is a complex issue and the employer should take all circumstances into consideration.

The more you know thje better the outcome is likely to be.

I also said that with an appropriate process you get the best outcome.

Ok I may have been a little obscure, I was refering to the following line

"The issue is not so clear cut where specialist skills and impact of capacity are conmsidered"

I thought you meant when they were hard to replace then we cannot apply the same conditions.

I have an old attitude to illegal drug taking

If you break the law you pay the price.

I find it difficult to believe that tough sanctions would not clear up 90% of the problem.

I do have some experience with drug takers ( i.e. Children of friends ) it is a difficult problem to solve and I will not pretend it is easy far from it.

But it seems to me that our methods of dealing with the problem over the last ten years has not worked.

In fact it is getting worse.

So I have returned to the tough approach

Ok I may have been a little obscure, I was refering to the following line

"The issue is not so clear cut where specialist skills and impact of capacity are conmsidered"

I thought you meant when they were hard to replace then we cannot apply the same conditions.

I have an old attitude to illegal drug taking

If you break the law you pay the price.

I find it difficult to believe that tough sanctions would not clear up 90% of the problem.

I do have some experience with drug takers ( i.e. Children of friends ) it is a difficult problem to solve and I will not pretend it is easy far from it.

But it seems to me that our methods of dealing with the problem over the last ten years has not worked.

In fact it is getting worse.

So I have returned to the tough approach

i'm probably only half your age mate, but i agree 100%

Drugs are illegal (I dont care if its socially acceptable). As soon as you choose to take an illegal drug you should be prepared to face the consequences.

i'm probably only half your age mate, but i agree 100%

Drugs are illegal (I dont care if its socially acceptable). As soon as you choose to take an illegal drug you should be prepared to face the consequences.

While that's true, footy is often referred to as a "results-oriented business." On that basis, I can understand a leniency towards relatively harmless "recreational drugs." On the other hand, I can't fathom the overuse of alcohol by football players. Alcohol has a far greater negative impact on performance than a great number of illegal recreational drugs, and yet it's condoned to a far greater degree than even the most harmless illegal drug.

This attitude implies that avoiding personal harm is not the first priority here, when clearly it should be. It's inconsistent; and if there's one thing I hate, it's inconsistency.

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by Chook

While that's true, footy is often referred to as a "results-oriented business." On that basis, I can understand a leniency towards relatively harmless "recreational drugs." On the other hand, I can't fathom the overuse of alcohol by football players. Alcohol has a far greater negative impact on performance than a great number of illegal recreational drugs, and yet it's condoned to a far greater degree than even the most harmless illegal drug.

This attitude implies that avoiding personal harm is not the first priority here, when clearly it should be. It's inconsistent; and if there's one thing I hate, it's inconsistency.

Sorry chook but I take serious exception to that comment.

I have personal close up experience with people who have got involved with " relatively harmless "recreational drugs"

There is no such thing.

They all lead to the one spot where no one wants to be.

They destroy lives and damage brain capacity.

Forget this recreational drugs crap.

They are all harmful, some more than others but all harmful.

Sorry chook but I take serious exception to that comment.

I have personal close up experience with people who have got involved with " relatively harmless "recreational drugs"

There is no such thing.

They all lead to the one spot where no one wants to be.

They destroy lives and damage brain capacity.

Forget this recreational drugs crap.

They are all harmful, some more than others but all harmful.

I too have got some personal close up experience. You've perhaps been unlucky to have experienced the worst of it, but don't let that colour your perception. My first-hand experiences have been less problematic.

Drugs (all drugs) are risky, I'll grant you. But I'd be hesitant to put such a blanket condemnation against all drugs (or even recreational drugs). Some drugs save lives, others prevent pain, and still others inspire brilliant works of art. Not all of these are legal. How is that right?

Even so, I rarely drink and I don't take drugs. I think it's safer that way, but I don't begrudge people who wish to try.

As an example, some people take synthetic dopamine (which is produced naturally in the body). Taken in small amounts (ie recreationally), dopamine mimics the natural relaxing effect of the stuff your own body produces. Take a lot of it and you'll have some problems, but take a little and there's no negative side effects.

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by Chook

I too have got some personal close up experience. You've perhaps been unlucky to have experienced the worst of it, but don't let that colour your perception. My first-hand experiences have been less problematic.

Drugs (all drugs) are risky, I'll grant you. But I'd be hesitant to put such a blanket condemnation against all drugs (or even recreational drugs). Some drugs save lives, others prevent pain, and still others inspire brilliant works of art. Not all of these are legal. How is that right?

Even so, I rarely drink and I don't take drugs. I think it's safer that way, but I don't begrudge people who wish to try.

As an example, some people take synthetic dopamine (which is produced naturally in the body). Taken in small amounts (ie recreationally), dopamine mimics the natural relaxing effect of the stuff your own body produces. Take a lot of it and you'll have some problems, but take a little and there's no negative side effects.

You may have some points there Chook but I think we are separated by a cultural and age gulf mate.

I doubt we will every agree on this subject.

I just hate the world I am leaving to my Grand Children.

Unfortunately there is little I can do about it.

I just hope I live long enough to help them to adult hood.

I figure that is probably the best I can do.

But although some of them arent the brightest sparks, i reckon the 'no second chance' system would get the desired outcome.

You reckon? In my experience, you show me a confident young man and a rule, and I'll show you a broken rule. It's been scientifically proven that the ability to consider consequences fully develops quite late in life... like, well into the 20's for many people.

That Garlett kid who failed to get drafted this year was a prime example of someone unable to comprehend the consequences of their actions.

Unanimous vote yesterday!!

What a joke that the clubs would vote to not know the state of their players.

As a member i am not impressed.

A lot of this is about getting the full cooperation of the AFLPA. Go too hard on in-season testing- name and shame on the second strike - and the players will arc up on out-of-season testing.

Its about compromise and negotiation

While that's true, footy is often referred to as a "results-oriented business." On that basis, I can understand a leniency towards relatively harmless "recreational drugs." On the other hand, I can't fathom the overuse of alcohol by football players. Alcohol has a far greater negative impact on performance than a great number of illegal recreational drugs, and yet it's condoned to a far greater degree than even the most harmless illegal drug.

This attitude implies that avoiding personal harm is not the first priority here, when clearly it should be. It's inconsistent; and if there's one thing I hate, it's inconsistency.

I hate inconsistency too Chook.

But only sometimes.(boom boom).

Would love to see the Media tested for drugs too.

A lot of this is about getting the full cooperation of the AFLPA. Go too hard on in-season testing- name and shame on the second strike - and the players will arc up on out-of-season testing.

Its about compromise and negotiation

still makes no sense whatsoever that the clubs are not told the status of their own players.