Illicit Drugs and AFL Players

[Soidee 1,496]

Lets cut to the chase here - this is the biggest problem for the AFL NOT performance enhancing drugs.

I am emphatically against the AFL 3 strike policy. This policy is flawed and is not in line with public expectations of what should happen at your football club.

My view is kick any player out of the club who uses illicit drugs. Lets not nancy around with 3 chances, what sort of a message is this sending to young men who want to be elite footballers.

Illicit drugs is a broader society issue however, I will be telling the MFC in the strongest possible terms that they need to stay on top of this issue within the club. There is only one policy for illicit drug use in the AFL- Zero Tolerance! if you are caught using illicit drugs and you are on a AFL list - your gone. Get to hell out of this game.

I pay to support my club and I expect my club to get rid of drug users no matter who they are.

[rjay 24,181]

Lets cut to the chase here - this is the biggest problem for the AFL NOT performance enhancing drugs.

I am emphatically against the AFL 3 strike policy. This policy is flawed and is not in line with public expectations of what should happen at your football club.

My view is kick any player out of the club who uses illicit drugs. Lets not nancy around with 3 chances, what sort of a message is this sending to young men who want to be elite footballers.

Illicit drugs is a broader society issue however, I will be telling the MFC in the strongest possible terms that they need to stay on top of this issue within the club. There is only one policy for illicit drug use in the AFL- Zero Tolerance! if you are caught using illicit drugs and you are on a AFL list - your gone. Get to hell out of this game.

I pay to support my club and I expect my club to get rid of drug users no matter who they are.

The AFL should follow the WADA code, which means basically they get out of testing for illicit drugs with the exception of game day. It's no ones biz what the players are doing in their time off, if they are doing anything illegal let the law deal with it, if they are not able to perform up to the required level the club will move them on.

Zero tolerance sounds good but if half the rumours and stories I have heard are true we would be struggling to field 18 teams with the quality required to bring people through the gate.

[Biffen 12,519]

Lets cut to the chase here - this is the biggest problem for the AFL NOT performance enhancing drugs.

I am emphatically against the AFL 3 strike policy. This policy is flawed and is not in line with public expectations of what should happen at your football club.

My view is kick any player out of the club who uses illicit drugs. Lets not nancy around with 3 chances, what sort of a message is this sending to young men who want to be elite footballers.

Illicit drugs is a broader society issue however, I will be telling the MFC in the strongest possible terms that they need to stay on top of this issue within the club. There is only one policy for illicit drug use in the AFL- Zero Tolerance! if you are caught using illicit drugs and you are on a AFL list - your gone. Get to hell out of this game.

I pay to support my club and I expect my club to get rid of drug users no matter who they are.

With reference to your last line ,I dont believe being a shareholders buys you the right to impinge upon the union agreement signed by the clubs ,players the AFL.

Rightly or wrongly ,there are large sections of the community using drugs daily .

Football players deserve the same protection of their civil rights that other unions enjoy.

The three strikes policy is in line with big mining ,construction as well as army and police policies.

This hard line stance of zero tolerance is boring and ineffective .

Those that spout it constantly are as off the mark as "The War on Drugs" was .

Test everyone in the Media first ,as I have said ,and then have the debate .

There will be nobody to even turn on the cameras and microphones.

[7-UP 107]

IMO people that use Illicit drugs have more tendency to use performance enhancing drugs

So yeah they should change the 3 strikes policy

Edited February 17, 2013 by 7-UP

[dpositive 1,602]

The trouble with Zero tolerance is that it is that and leaves no room for tolerance.

Circumstances may be different and a zero tolerance does not allow consideration of those circumstances.

Drug use should not be encouraged but unfortunately drugs are an all encompassing and expanding part of society.

Drugs which may be in uncontrolled and unidentified potions could affect readings. Horse meat is carefully controlled in Australian food production because it is recognised that horses treated with a variety of the dugs now being identified in the drug cases are often administered to horses. This is a significant part of the current horse meat scandal in Europe although most of that meat is alleged to come from Romania as they alter their mode of transport .Findus is a product that has been available in Australian Super markets. Who knows what was in it in what quantities?

However I am using that long winded and slightly outrageous case to indicate the vagaries and circumstances of drug results. We need to have some flexibility in dealing with cases. NO tolerance is not an option. Informed decision making is essential. Education Understanding and support are far more important than outright rejection.

[Soidee 1,496]

With reference to your last line ,I dont believe being a shareholders buys you the right to impinge upon the union agreement signed by the clubs ,players the AFL.

Rightly or wrongly ,there are large sections of the community using drugs daily .

Football players deserve the same protection of their civil rights that other unions enjoy.

The three strikes policy is in line with big mining ,construction as well as army and police policies.

This hard line stance of zero tolerance is boring and ineffective .

Those that spout it constantly are as off the mark as "The War on Drugs" was .

Test everyone in the Media first ,as I have said ,and then have the debate .

There will be nobody to even turn on the cameras and microphones.

[Soidee 1,496]

Yes Illicit drugs is part of society and yes it has been since before the opium wars in China, however I don't think it's too much to ask of an elite footballer at the highest level on 200,000 plus a year to stay away from this [censored]. There will always be a minority who will do as they please....catch them and show them the door!

If I get caught using illicit drugs I lose my job....I know the consequences.

Footballers know the consequences unless they live under a rock. Everybody is a victim these days....excuses excuses!!

[pantaloons 2,019]

I've never seen the appeal of illicit drugs and see first hand their adverse affects frequently in my line of work. However I believe that performance enhancing drugs are by far the bigger of the two drug issues for the AFL. PEDs impact on the integrity of the competition, other drugs don't.

Recreational drugs are an issue for the individual, and the people who are affected by their habit. I don't want Melbourne or any club being told that their crack-loving player has to be sacked on the first finding of guilt. I can see the appeal for a club in quarantining the rest of the team from an addicted teammate, but friends will associate with each other regardless of whether they see each other at the club several times a week.

Anyway, it's a sad issue. Very sad.

[Soidee 1,496]

DPositive - are you really sure you have not eaten horsemeat? I would not put my house on it, don't think for one minute Australia is immune from this stuff.

[old dee 23,255]

The problem guys is the Players union won't wear 1 strike and you are out.

The AFL panders to this so they can get other things approved by the union.

IMO it is that simple.

[Biffen 12,519]

The problem guys is the Players union won't wear 1 strike and you are out.

The AFL panders to this so they can get other things approved by the union.

IMO it is that simple.

Yep-Work Choices as they once called it .

Industrial Relations.

Enterprise Bargaining .

That stuff .

Or as Nick Reiwoldt once put it;

"There is no show without Punch."

[rjay 24,181]

IMO people that use Illicit drugs have more tendency to use performance enhancing drugs

So yeah they should change the 3 strikes policy

There is no link whatsoever. These are totally separate issues.

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,654]

Rightly or wrongly ,there are large sections of the community using drugs daily .

Football players deserve the same protection of their civil rights that other unions enjoy.

The three strikes policy is in line with big mining ,construction as well as army and police policies.

This hard line stance of zero tolerance is boring and ineffective.

I work in an industry where we are subject to random drug tests whenever we go to work.

One strike and you are out. Fair enough IMO, if you want to work in the field you must be clean and BAC of 0.0%.

Granted, the players don't have all of their customers lives in their hands, but at the same time, we don't get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year (well very, very few do). If the players want AFL careers, they should be clean. Supporters have a right to expect that they are, just like my customers have every right to expect me to be free from both drugs and alcohol.

[rjay 24,181]

I work in an industry where we are subject to random drug tests whenever we go to work.

One strike and you are out. Fair enough IMO, if you want to work in the field you must be clean and BAC of 0.0%.

Granted, the players don't have all of their customers lives in their hands, but at the same time, we don't get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year (well very, very few do). If the players want AFL careers, they should be clean. Supporters have a right to expect that they are, just like my customers have every right to expect me to be free from both drugs and alcohol.

...and that's the issue, they don't and no matter how much money they earn that situation doesn't change. The AFL and supporters need to back right out of this one, it will only end in tears.

[Forest Demon 4,681]

I like the idea of the 3 strike policy but not in it's current form. The media and a lot of supporters would love the headlines of players positive tests and subsequent suspensions but that is only likely to send that player's mental state and drug use to new lows.

[autocol 448]

IMO people that use Illicit drugs have more tendency to use performance enhancing drugs

And your opinion is based on what factual evidence?

[autocol 448]

I find this whole situation very strange. Do all of you zero-tolerance zealots think a player should be sacked for having a beer? If not, why not? Alcohol is a drug, just as marijuana, MDMA and LSD are. Why does it receive special dispensation from your indignation? Because the US government couldn't stop gangsters from distributing it in the 1920's?

It's a joke. Smoking a joint is not going to affect the performance of an AFL player any more than drinking a beer. The line between them is entirely arbitrary and impossible to logically justify. You want zero tolerance? You have to include alcohol, caffeine, ibuprofen, aspirin, and everything else. It's a morally untenable position.

Edited February 17, 2013 by autocol

[Soidee 1,496]

Autocol....you are as much a pro drug zealot as those who are against this in AFL clubs. Fill ya boots for all I care if you are an adult, smoke as much weed as you wish, I don't give a toss, however if you choose to play AFL and are lucky enough to be drafted then you choose this over taking illicit drugs...it's a no brainer!

It's all about choice in life and if you screw up then take responsibility for it.

[DemonWA 3,630]

I find this whole situation very strange. Do all of you zero-tolerance zealots think a player should be sacked for having a beer? If not, why not? Alcohol is a drug, just as marijuana, MDMA and LSD are. Why does it receive special dispensation from your indignation? Because the US government couldn't stop gangsters from distributing it in the 1920's?

It's a joke. Smoking a joint is not going to affect the performance of an AFL player any more than drinking a beer. The line between them is entirely arbitrary and impossible to logically justify. You want zero tolerance? You have to include alcohol, caffeine, ibuprofen, aspirin, and everything else. It's a morally untenable position.

Garbage.

Get on your high horse all you like but the law is the law. You take illegal drugs, you run the risk of being caught and punished. The afl shouldn't condone illegal drug use

[autocol 448]

Garbage.

Get on your high horse all you like but the law is the law. You take illegal drugs, you run the risk of being caught and punished. The afl shouldn't condone illegal drug use

Yes, and the law is wrong. It's based on outdated thinking and pecuniary interests of a bygone era. The law used to be that women couldn't vote and aboriginals were considered wildlife, should the VFL have put a collar on every indigenous player? The AFL is grappling with an issue that society as a whole is still largely confused about. I'm not pro-drugs, I'm pro-logic. If you can logically explain to me how alcohol and marijuana differ in any way at all (other than that marijuana is proven to be vastly less harmful to both the individual and society at large), then I'll take your position seriously.

You want zero tolerance? Why should a player with a drink-driving conviction get a second chance? Why should a player with an assault conviction get a second chance? Why does the AFL test for illicit drug use, but not tax evasion? Why is a breach of illicit drug law considered different to a breach of any other law?

Respond with logic, not emotion.

[rjay 24,181]

Garbage.

Get on your high horse all you like but the law is the law. You take illegal drugs, you run the risk of being caught and punished. The afl shouldn't condone illegal drug use

Unfortunately the AFL are trying to put themselves in between the law and the involved player. They should let it be and not test for illicit drugs, it's not their brief. Forget any strikes it's not their problem, if players want to partake then it's theirs. If they fall foul of the law so be it let them suffer the consequences, if they can't perform to the level required by their club because of drug use (including alcohol) then it's the same.

...this whole rehab thing is a joke, anyone with half a brain knows that it has to come from the person themselves if they think they have a problem. The AFL are delusional to try and put players into rehab who don't see they have a problem in the first place.

Leave it alone AFL, don't be so arrogant as to try and control everything and get on with the things that are important.

[dpositive 1,602]

DPositive - are you really sure you have not eaten horsemeat? I would not put my house on it, don't think for one minute Australia is immune from this stuff.

I certainly am not sure. Thats why i said its controlled in Australia not prohibited.

Although better choice of words is probably still required

I was really trying to make a tenuous link to the multiplicity of drugs and the complexity of control when considering the harshness of penalties.

[hardtack 10,186]

Respond with logic, not emotion.

Well, if we look at this in terms of what is real as opposed to what is ideal, then it would have to be said that you are the one responding with emotion as opposed to logic. The fact is that by law (whether we like it or not), certain substances are considered illegal and usage is punishable in a court of law. If a player is using any of these substances, then they are in effect breaking the law and the AFL must act accordingly.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,534]

Yes, and the law is wrong. It's based on outdated thinking and pecuniary interests of a bygone era. The law used to be that women couldn't vote and aboriginals were considered wildlife, should the VFL have put a collar on every indigenous player? The AFL is grappling with an issue that society as a whole is still largely confused about. I'm not pro-drugs, I'm pro-logic. If you can logically explain to me how alcohol and marijuana differ in any way at all (other than that marijuana is proven to be vastly less harmful to both the individual and society at large), then I'll take your position seriously.

You want zero tolerance? Why should a player with a drink-driving conviction get a second chance? Why should a player with an assault conviction get a second chance? Why does the AFL test for illicit drug use, but not tax evasion? Why is a breach of illicit drug law considered different to a breach of any other law?

Respond with logic, not emotion.

Really? Marijuana is proven to lead to depression and as entry point to other more harmful drugs. Alcohol is proven to lead to violence when consumed in excessive quantities. But I'm not sure there is conclusive proof to say that marijuana is "vastly less harmful" than alcohol.

For what it's worth, as much as we would like it to be the case, zero tolerance rarely works in any regulated environment. I'm not sure whether the three strikes policy is good or not - but I'm confident zero tolerance would result in a bigger number than expected being forced out of the game.

[dazzledavey36 49,738]

Peer pressure and trying to fit into society with fame. That's all it is.