Illicit Drugs and AFL Players

[Deefender 205]

Beware Central Planners.

Beware AFL.

Snoopers swooping.

[dee-luded 2,958]

The idea of of zero tolerance, and by extension the so called war on drugs as a whole, makes no effort to educate people about the effects and consequences of putting chemicals into our bodies. It demonises almost totally harmless chemicals (like marijuana) by classifying them as dangerous narcotics like opiates, whilst almost actively encouraging the use of other highly dangerous chemicals, like alcohol, thanks to glaring inconsistencies created by entirely arbitrary lines drawn between these substances. "They" were lying about the dangers of marijuana, and as a result, the people they were lying to chose not to trust them when it came to their warnings about other chemicals.

Ask any teenager with overly-strict parents how seriously they take warnings and advice from their parents (hint for the lazy: not seriously at all), and you'll understand.

Agree, and I'm certainly not arguing that the AFL shouldn't be testing for performance enhancing drugs, particularly on game-day.

Thank you. On that basis, why is it appropriate for the AFL to arbitrarily investigate their players for other breaches of civil law?

Illegal drugs & their acquisition puts the players in contact & under the climate of the Drug criminals.

The players are in danger of all sorts of scenarios with these people, & it can definitely impact the game.

[hardtack 10,127]

Some drugs can have a direct effect on games, yes, and I'm not suggesting that we wouldn't test for those. But there's plenty of illicit drugs which would clearly cause someone to play worse (marijuana, alcohol and LSD all come to mind as obvious examples of drugs that would adversely affect performance). Why should the AFL test for those, particularly in October? They have no greater effect on player performance than tax evasion.

I thought it was pretty obvious I wasn't commenting only on performance "enhancing" drugs when I said:

"Possibly because drugs (and alchohol) can have a direct affect on on-field performance and as a consequence affect the outcome of a game... and when you take into account the amount of money being bet on AFL games, the affects can be far reaching..."

Drugs such as marijuana, alchohol, LSD etc. as you rightly say, "adversely affect performance", and so still can have an affect on the outcome of games - that was my point.

[autocol 448]

Okay, I concede the point about players mixing with underworld types. I think it was Didak who spent the day with that bikie nutter who ended up shooting his ex girlfriend and a good samaritan in the street later that night, and clearly it's not a good look.

Still, if the goal of the program is to identify players who are in danger of being coerced into bringing illegal practices (match fixing etc) into the AFL, is testing for marijuana/ecstasy use in October the best way to do that? I strongly doubt it.

[jimcor 212]

Apology accepted.

[autocol 448]

So you think the drug squad identifies drug traffickers by randomly taking blood tests of citizens at work?

You've made one good point, but it doesn't make any progress towards explaining why the AFL should be testing players for illicit drugs out of competition.

[jimcor 212]

In or out of competition, mixing with criminals presents some dangers....as you now seem to accept. If players sign a contract that, because of their ability to affect results, requires them not to take illegal drugs, then that's what they have committed to. The argument about whether one drug is less harmful than another is a separate discussion. At the moment, certain drugs are proscribed and that means they are (by definition) only sold by criminals. Players need to stay away from criminals.

[Outside fifty 967]

I don't think you really answered my question about the quote but I think I get where you are coming from.

I believe that the AFL should stay out of the testing for illicit drugs apart from match day testing, which is in line with the WADA testing procedures. This is the realm of law enforcement and not the AFL.

I think though that you dismissed 'Jimcor' to easily and although as you say dealers are at the bottom of the line there is a line and if the people at the top perceive they can gain an advantage they will take it. If they find a weakness they will exploit it and in the case of sport this could be in the manipulation of results....but I think there are better people to handle this than the AFL although they have aright to be concerned.

I don't agree that marijuana is a totally harmless chemical, this is a stupid thing to say. I do agree there are inconsistencies with alcohol and I think it should be decriminalised and controlled as other drugs should be but to say it's harmless is a total crock. It's links to mental problems cannot be just written off for the convenience of making a legalisation argument. As for our man 'Dickie Peterson', I wouldn't be quoting him as an authority on anything, sounds like he is another addict looking for an excuse for his behaviour and is blaming the mythical 'them'(and I'm not meaning Van Morrison's Them).

I've read this thread start to finish and thought about posting, but your post rjay says it all. An excellent post. I would only add that through my experience I have noticed that a reasonable percentage of "drug dealers" are recruited and promoted to be "drug traffickers".

[dpositive 1,555]

Possibly because drugs (and alchohol) can have a direct affect on on-field performance and as a consequence affect the outcome of a game... and when you take into account the amount of money being bet on AFL games, the affects can be far reaching... can't say I can recall any incidents of tax evasion that have affected a player's ability to deliver on-field (unless they have been locked up in a cell).

You and I may not know the affect of tax evasion on a players ability, I didnt know the effects of the drugs now being exposed.

It is not unlikely that a belief that you have successfully evaded tax to retain a greater income may indeed inspire enhanced confidence and improve performance. It could allow you to enter other illegal schemes to buy drugs , it could in fact have a huge impact

BUT it does indicate the subjective nature of the whole zero tolerance position. Openness and transparency would be a lot more valuable.

[autocol 448]

I've read this thread start to finish and thought about posting, but your post rjay says it all. An excellent post. I would only add that through my experience I have noticed that a reasonable percentage of "drug dealers" are recruited and promoted to be "drug traffickers".

Again, if the best way to catch people involved in the drug trade was random drug testing of the entire civilian population (or if that were a morally acceptable way to do it), that's how the drug squad would do it. They don't, because it's not an efficient (nor ethical, in my view) method. You guys are suggesting that the AFL should do it this way with their players, however, and I still don't really see a distinction between that and any other form of criminal conduct (which they don't randomly test for).

That aside, you've got a good point about associating with criminals, and in truth, I don't actually really care how the AFL treats the players on this issue because they represent a very small (and privileged) percentage of the population. What I would really like to see is governments around the world tackle drugs of all kinds in a consistent manner, with a view to harm minimisation. Our current "drugs are bad, m'kay" strategy has demonstrably failed miserably, and leads to rich criminals and dead kids, neither of which I'm fond of.

The reason I dislike the current testing environment within the AFL is that it continues to propagate the existing "zero tolerance"/war-on-drugs paradigm, which is serving no-one but the criminal underworld.

[hardtack 10,127]

You and I may not know the affect of tax evasion on a players ability, I didnt know the effects of the drugs now being exposed.

It is not unlikely that a belief that you have successfully evaded tax to retain a greater income may indeed inspire enhanced confidence and improve performance. It could allow you to enter other illegal schemes to buy drugs , it could in fact have a huge impact

BUT it does indicate the subjective nature of the whole zero tolerance position. Openness and transparency would be a lot more valuable.

Ok, firstly let me clear one thing up.. I have NEVER stated anywhere in this thread or anywhere else on this or any other site, that I am in favour of a zero tolerance stance; in fact I am NOT. Secondly, yours is a very spurious argument as it it "supposes" many possibilities, but provides no solid facts... it IS however a known fact that drugs (regardless of whether they be marijuana, speed, smack, alchohol, nicotine, performance enhancers etc etc) DO affect performance levels for better or for worse.

My whole line of argument was that if players are using drugs, then they are affecting their ability to perform (either artificially enhancing it or reducing it) and so on the day, this can affect the outcome of a game. Whether we like it or not, agree with it or not, a lot of money is passing through gambling agencies and a lot is riding on the results of matches... the last thing the average punter wants, is for his money to go down the gurgler because players were either be pumped up artificially (those on the team being bet against) or unable to perform at their best (those on the team on which a bet has been placed).

[DEE fence 4,526]

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.

If they drug tested the legal fraternity...well Vatican 2 would like a card shuffle in a game of snap.

[daisycutter 28,630]

Ok, firstly let me clear one thing up.. I have NEVER stated anywhere in this thread or anywhere else on this or any other site, that I am in favour of a zero tolerance stance; in fact I am NOT. Secondly, yours is a very spurious argument as it it "supposes" many possibilities, but provides no solid facts... it IS however a known fact that drugs (regardless of whether they be marijuana, speed, smack, alchohol, nicotine, performance enhancers etc etc) DO affect performance levels for better or for worse.

My whole line of argument was that if players are using drugs, then they are affecting their ability to perform (either artificially enhancing it or reducing it) and so on the day, this can affect the outcome of a game. Whether we like it or not, agree with it or not, a lot of money is passing through gambling agencies and a lot is riding on the results of matches... the last thing the average punter wants, is for his money to go down the gurgler because players were either be pumped up artificially (those on the team being bet against) or unable to perform at their best (those on the team on which a bet has been placed).

what you say is largely true hardtack

however the fact that there is gambling involved i believe is irrelevant

players should present at their best for a number of reasons (including the fact they are handsomely paid) but not because of gambling's interests

performance enhancing drugs is just outright cheating

gambling of itself should not in any way dictate how the game is played

deliberate match fixing however is a different issue

[hardtack 10,127]

what you say is largely true hardtack

however the fact that there is gambling involved i believe is irrelevant

players should present at their best for a number of reasons (including the fact they are handsomely paid) but not because of gambling's interests

performance enhancing drugs is just outright cheating

gambling of itself should not in any way dictate how the game is played

deliberate match fixing however is a different issue

You are right DC, but the reason I raised the subject of gambling was that the AFL is now more accountable than ever. Yes, these players have a "moral" obligation to their team and supporters, but once money is involved, their responsibilities and the affects of their actions are felt much further afield.

[rjay 23,945]

Again, if the best way to catch people involved in the drug trade was random drug testing of the entire civilian population (or if that were a morally acceptable way to do it), that's how the drug squad would do it. They don't, because it's not an efficient (nor ethical, in my view) method. You guys are suggesting that the AFL should do it this way with their players, however, and I still don't really see a distinction between that and any other form of criminal conduct (which they don't randomly test for).

That aside, you've got a good point about associating with criminals, and in truth, I don't actually really care how the AFL treats the players on this issue because they represent a very small (and privileged) percentage of the population. What I would really like to see is governments around the world tackle drugs of all kinds in a consistent manner, with a view to harm minimisation. Our current "drugs are bad, m'kay" strategy has demonstrably failed miserably, and leads to rich criminals and dead kids, neither of which I'm fond of.

The reason I dislike the current testing environment within the AFL is that it continues to propagate the existing "zero tolerance"/war-on-drugs paradigm, which is serving no-one but the criminal underworld.

No, if you read my post then you will find that I don't suggest that at all. I think the AFL are taking on too much getting involved in this and it should be left to the appropriate authorities and people better qualified to handle the issues. The AFL may be trying to do the right thing by the players but my bet is it's more likely about the image of the game, I think they will get their fingers very badly burned.

By the way there has been some really healthy debate on this site in the past on drug issues and some on here have some very sad and emotional stories to tell. If you haven't seen them (the threads) they're well worth checking out.

All I know is the current system doesn't work, by the way it's not a zero tolerance system we have in this country, there would be no needle exchange for one thing if it was and the AFL's 3 strike policy is most definitely not. Some say it should be zero tolerance, some say it needs to be treated as a sickness rather than a crime. It's not an easy problem to fix, there is no simple answer.

...and again marijuana is not "an almost totally harmless chemical" as you have stated elsewhere, I've seen first hand the damage that it can do and before you hit me with the alcohol one yes I've seen the effects of that as well. It's just the wrong argument, none of these things are safe and some people are more susceptible than others.

[dpositive 1,555]

Ok, firstly let me clear one thing up.. I have NEVER stated anywhere in this thread or anywhere else on this or any other site, that I am in favour of a zero tolerance stance; in fact I am NOT. Secondly, yours is a very spurious argument as it it "supposes" many possibilities, but provides no solid facts... it IS however a known fact that drugs (regardless of whether they be marijuana, speed, smack, alchohol, nicotine, performance enhancers etc etc) DO affect performance levels for better or for worse.

My whole line of argument was that if players are using drugs, then they are affecting their ability to perform (either artificially enhancing it or reducing it) and so on the day, this can affect the outcome of a game. Whether we like it or not, agree with it or not, a lot of money is passing through gambling agencies and a lot is riding on the results of matches... the last thing the average punter wants, is for his money to go down the gurgler because players were either be pumped up artificially (those on the team being bet against) or unable to perform at their best (those on the team on which a bet has been placed).

Sorry HT the zero tolerance point was definitely not directed at you but rather an extension of my as you say spurious arguments.

The point of the spurious argument is that there are no facts, so any argument may be flawed.

You are correct about the impact of drugs and I agree with you, but those facts do not conclusively deny unknown factors.

Performance may be affected by gambling knowledge not even direct involvement.

If you were going out to play and you know you are a 100 to 1 chance you may perform better or worse to prove wrong or as acceptance. I dont know how you could even begin to find facts for this and am not advocating for it.

I would like to see less gambling but as you say its just another factor.

I guess my openess and transparency lies within the team structure as it does at all levels its what is done about it thats important.

The coach should be the one to know if "anything" is affecting performance and should deal with that. I dont believe a punitive first strike is the answer. thye relationship with the player and coach should be honesty and respect to ensure there is maximum performance.