The 3 strike rule IMO is the best way of addressing this issue.

Players are counselled and educated through all three processes, Suspended fines and Games Suspensions activate after the 3rd failed test. The club doctors is notified at the first and any subsequent failure of tests so they can be involved in any treatment. The CEO Is informed after there is a pattern of failed tests. The identity of the players is kept confidential.

Sure it may not be perfect and it may need tweaking as more and more different drugs are created but its a good system in that it gives the opportunities to the players who want to change and supports them to do so.

The importance of counselling and education of players about illicit drugs and their danger is what is needed. I understand that people have a black and white attitude to illicit drugs but the reality is its not a strait forward issue that can be solved by punishing people. All that does is exacerbate the issue and people will either rebel or try to cope by taking more drugs What is known about the rehabilitation of people is that education and counselling is proven to be the most successful way of getting people to make the right choice in regards to illicit drugs.

What I would ask is within the public arena who is making the loudest hue and cry and what do you think motivates them.

The 3 strike rule IMO is the best way of addressing this issue.

Players are counselled and educated through all three processes, Suspended fines and Games Suspensions activate after the 3rd failed test. The club doctors is notified at the first and any subsequent failure of tests so they can be involved in any treatment. The CEO Is informed after there is a pattern of failed tests. The identity of the players is kept confidential.

Sure it may not be perfect and it may need tweaking as more and more different drugs are created but its a good system in that it gives the opportunities to the players who want to change and supports them to do so.

The importance of counselling and education of players about illicit drugs and their danger is what is needed. I understand that people have a black and white attitude to illicit drugs but the reality is its not a strait forward issue that can be solved by punishing people. All that does is exacerbate the issue and people will either rebel or try to cope by taking more drugs What is known about the rehabilitation of people is that education and counselling is proven to be the most successful way of getting people to make the right choice in regards to illicit drugs.

What I would ask is within the public arena who is making the loudest hue and cry and what do you think motivates them.

Dont disagree

only think that the club as the prime player in the relationship should be involved from the first step. Without that knopwledge they could in fact be acting contrary to any rehab or amelioration programs? I understand the difficulties with confidentiality etc but I trust the club to look after their major asset the player for mutual benefit.

Dont disagree

only think that the club as the prime player in the relationship should be involved from the first step. Without that knopwledge they could in fact be acting contrary to any rehab or amelioration programs? I understand the difficulties with confidentiality etc but I trust the club to look after their major asset the player for mutual benefit.

I don't think AFL players share your trust in Club officials not gossiping. The more who know at a club the more certain it is that the names of players on a first or second strike will be known.

I liked Michael Carr Gregg's article today in the Age with regard to the use of a USA Army plan which "empowers club captains and leadership groups with greater skills". To me generally they may not have proof but players may have suspicions that fellow players may be using. What I don't like about 3 strikes is that not that it would be too late to step in but surely earlier intervention would be the preferred option. Michael CG has a plan whereby the Clubs would be required to complete with the player concerned a 10 point step to "rehabilitate" . This would allieviate a players concerns that he could be delisted or traded unless those 10 steps hadbeen carried out. You would hope that after the 10 step plan that the players would be clear of drugs. One wonders if WC had been made "officially" aware of Cousins offending earlier then they would have been pushed into carrying out some kind of intervention (they may not have won a premiership though).

It is where the problem is not social but a mental issue that the line is not so clear. How far does a Club support a player? Hawthorn supported Tuck for a long time maybe because of the association with the Tuck family but in his case it was not until he had reached rockbottom did he come out the other end. Of course I wouldn't know to what lengths Hawthorn went but does a football Club have a right to trade/delist a player that maybe having an undue influence on other players or does the Club have a moral obligation to standby that player. I don't have the answers but the problem is obviously prevalent and rampant at certain Clubs and it does need to be addressed. The AFL should have shown leadership earlier to this instead of being shamed into a conference by a very worried Collingwood.

I don't think AFL players share your trust in Club officials not gossiping. The more who know at a club the more certain it is that the names of players on a first or second strike will be known.

Unfortunately I agree. Its why the AFL is where it is at.

I dont know that the AFL is necessarily any more trustworthy and indeed uses the knowledge is power model in most other activities.

It is something that the club can work on with its players to build the level of trust that would perhaps result in better outcomes and could adress some of the issues that longsuffering covers.. The moral stndby issue is obviously one that is so variable in every other aspect of player club relations there is a long way to go.