Hypocrisy on Recreational Drugs!

[PaulRB 6,350]

For some reason the Drug discussion has moved from performance enhancing drug use, to one suggesting greater intolerance of recreational drug use.

What other profession tests their employees regularly for their private drug use?

How many in the football media would submit (and test clean) for year round drug testing?

If the media and AFL management want to show "Community leadership" on recreational drug use, how about they suggest mandatory testing of their industry and personnel?

Hypocrisy abounds, so over it.

PS excuse spelling error in title...

Edited April 9, 2015 by PaulRB

[Deestroy All 14,262]

It's a professional sport. We pay money in memberships for our players to be professionals. We don't pay for journo's to win us a flag.

[jnrmac 20,055]

For some reason the Drug discussion has moved from performance enhancing drug use, to one suggesting greater intolerance of recreational drug use.

What other profession tests their employees regularly for their private drug use?

How many in the football media would submit (and test clean) for year round drug testing?

If the media and AFL management want to show "Community leadership" on recreational drug use, how about they suggest mandatory testing of their industry and personnel?

Hypocrisy abounds, so over it.

PS excuse spelling error in title...

Pilots, fork lift drivers, truck drivers to name a few....

[DeeSpencer 25,477]

Pilots, fork lift drivers, truck drivers to name a few....

Whilst at work, not in their holidays. And for safety reasons.

[DeeSpencer 25,477]

It's a professional sport. We pay money in memberships for our players to be professionals. We don't pay for journo's to win us a flag.

Yes we do. But the issue is how we check that professionalism. Skin fold testing, 3km time trials, attentiveness at training and in meetings.

There's no way players should sign up for out of competition drug testing as a professionalism test.

They should only sign up as a wellness test and to help prevent bad apples giving them all a bad name.

[Emerald 1,744]

How many in the football media would submit (and test clean) for year round drug testing?

Test Purple.That might explain a few things.

[chookrat 4,247]

For some reason the Drug discussion has moved from performance enhancing drug use, to one suggesting greater intolerance of recreational drug use.

What other profession tests their employees regularly for their private drug use?

How many in the football media would submit (and test clean) for year round drug testing?

If the media and AFL management want to show "Community leadership" on recreational drug use, how about they suggest mandatory testing of their industry and personnel?

Hypocrisy abounds, so over it.

PS excuse spelling error in title...

You raise a good point. Most companies in heavy industries, e.g. Bulk haulage, construction etc, have zero tolerance drug policies and random testing for all employees and contractors regardless of whether they are operating machinery.

If they AFL is serious then all AFL and club employees and contractors should be subject to illicit drug testing on the same policy as the footballers. From an illicit drug perspective it would be hypocritical for players and administrators being on separate illicit drug policies.

[Soidee 1,496]

For some reason the Drug discussion has moved from performance enhancing drug use, to one suggesting greater intolerance of recreational drug use.

What other profession tests their employees regularly for their private drug use?

How many in the football media would submit (and test clean) for year round drug testing?

If the media and AFL management want to show "Community leadership" on recreational drug use, how about they suggest mandatory testing of their industry and personnel?

Hypocrisy abounds, so over it.

PS excuse spelling error in title...

Headline says it all!! Recreational drugs.....the drugs are illicit not some jellybean parade!!!! The use of the word recreational is simply giving the wrong message. No matter any of the arguments....this stuff wrecks lives and makes bad people rich.

[Deestroy All 14,262]

Yes we do. But the issue is how we check that professionalism. Skin fold testing, 3km time trials, attentiveness at training and in meetings.

There's no way players should sign up for out of competition drug testing as a professionalism test.

They should only sign up as a wellness test and to help prevent bad apples giving them all a bad name.

There should be testing for everything, all the time in my opinion.

You've got Collingwood players testing positive to a performance enhancer, when it's probably been cut into recreational drugs, it's their fault for putting an unkown substance into their body. And what if it wasn't from rec drugs, what if they did take clembuterol for another reason, would you prefer they weren't caught at all?

Yes some people can handle their drugs just fine and get on with life, but the more players there are doing recreational drugs the more likely we are of having another Ben Cousins, or finding another young player passed out in a car or on Elizabeth St. I don't want that being one of our players that we've put time, effort, hopes and a chance of a lifetime into. Or any other player for that matter.

These are young guys with plenty of money and time on their hands and most of them don't have their own families yet. Club employees and the media and whomever else are in a different boat entirely as far as I'm concerned.

[Little Goffy 14,462]

Headline says it all!! Recreational drugs.....the drugs are illicit not some jellybean parade!!!! The use of the word recreational is simply giving the wrong message. No matter any of the arguments....this stuff wrecks lives and makes bad people rich.

Like smoking, drinking, gambling and homeopathy.

Although, I'd be intrigued to see a testing program to identify if a player has been partaking in homeopathy.

"You're showing no effects at all. Guilty!"

[Mallee Bull 97]

Fair dinkum. These blokes are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to be athletic sportsmen. The expectation is that they will eat right, excercise right and keep their bodies in optimum condition. Taking recreational drugs impacts on the condition of their bodies. No one is forcing them to play sport for a living. No one is forcing them to accept $100k+ salaries. If they want to use drugs they can do so but don't be an AFL footballer.

They live a priveleged lifestyle that sets them up for life. Forgoing recreational drugs, alcohol, take out food is a sacrifice that is required in return. I can tell you that if my employer offered me a $100,000 pay rise if I stopped drinking and occasionally doing recreational drugs it'd be an easy decision. They want it all their way.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Mallee Bull

[faultydet 7,594]

Always amazed at the arguments put up, usually by users, against illegal drug testing for AFL players.

Im in coal mining, and we are subject to random drug and alcohol testing, every day of our working life. Big deal. Dont use, dont lose your job.

As for the whining about out of competition testing, doesnt anyone think about the fact that the lifeblood of AFL teams (apart from members of course), the sponsors, do not want their brand tarnished by a team full of Ben Cousins / Chris Mainwarings, running around damagaing the sponsors image?

The AFL already does its bit, by only doing the bare minimum of testing, so as to not bring the real numbers of illegal drug users into the public light. I personally have no problem whatsoever with every player on our list being tested once a week, if thats what it takes to eradicate the problem. Not that it will, as there is always the dikhed minority too foolish to understand the risks.

[Sir Why You Little 36,985]

Slobbo is always on the drink when he is on Radio, bloke can't string 3 words together

Get some real journo's to be Chief Football writers for a start and get rid of Andy Maher...Period

That would start to clean up the game...

Drug testing AFL Employees...now that would be fun....

[Biffen 12,940]

I admit I am often guilty of the same thing.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,192]

Unless it's a PED or its in their system on match day its no one's business.

[Dees2014 2,377]

For some reason the Drug discussion has moved from performance enhancing drug use, to one suggesting greater intolerance of recreational drug use.

What other profession tests their employees regularly for their private drug use?

How many in the football media would submit (and test clean) for year round drug testing?

If the media and AFL management want to show "Community leadership" on recreational drug use, how about they suggest mandatory testing of their industry and personnel?

Hypocrisy abounds, so over it.

PS excuse spelling error in title...

Must say I don't agree.

This has arisen because two young Collingwood players were tested positive for a masking agent for a performance enhancing drug, but they almost certainly took it because their recreational drug (probably cocaine) was laced with it to give it more "punch", which is not at all uncommon apparently. This has opened up the whole debate about drugs Ian general.

At the same time, there has developed an increasing awareness in AFL circles that a number of players (particularly at Collingwood) have been "playing" the system via self reporting use after they get to two strikes, rendering the intention of the three strike policy useless. Clearly something had to be done.

I'm inclined to Paul Roos view that all drugs should be described as "illegal" drugs and treated accordingly ie punishment follows one strike. Personally I am in favour of legalising recreactional drugs (particularly heroin and cannabis) to take away the market for criminals by putting it in the hands of the medical profession (this would take an extensive paper to describe the arguments which I have written but not here), but for elite footballers I think it is quite legitimate to ban their use completely.

Many other occupations do it (miners, tuck drivers, teachers, some doctors, some areas of the public service, airline pilots, train drivers, tram drivers etc etc etc,) none of them with the wealth and public profile of AFL footballers, particularly when it comes to being role models for the young. AFL clubs monitor to the nth degree the physical fitness of their players. I would have thought their drug taking would have been front and centre of that, but at the moment the clubs (apart from club doctors) simply are not told of their drug use until their players have tested positive three times. It is inconsistent, and frankly a bit dumb.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Dees2014

[Demon Disciple 12,068]

Test Purple.That might explain a few things.

I think you'll find he would need a serious boost in testosterone injections!

[binman 42,683]

For some reason the Drug discussion has moved from performance enhancing drug use, to one suggesting greater intolerance of recreational drug use.

What other profession tests their employees regularly for their private drug use?

How many in the football media would submit (and test clean) for year round drug testing?

If the media and AFL management want to show "Community leadership" on recreational drug use, how about they suggest mandatory testing of their industry and personnel?

Hypocrisy abounds, so over it.

PS excuse spelling error in title...

Could not agree more PRB. It infuriates me.

I love Paul Roos but he is way off base with this. Forget the moral element for a second (and it seems to be impossible for many to do so - the amount of shrill commentary i have heard from mostly 50 year old plus ex players) and focus on the reason for the testing. Under the WADA code players are under no obligation to a have out of comp testing for illicit drugs. No obligation. The AFLPA agreed, in 2005 to improve the capacity to help players who developed an issue. It was never intended to be process to punish players

I said at the time they were insane to do so (and even more insane to agree to hair testing) because as some point the self interest of the clubs and AFL would become trump that of the welfare of the players. That time is now. And there is no doubt that time has come because coke is being cut with PEDs and suddenly clubs are in danger of losing valuable assets for 2 or more years.

The players should simply say stuff it we don't want to be tested out of comp for illicit drugs because we are compliant with the WADA code and it doesn't require it. Then set up their own treatment programs (eg an AFLPA EAP).

Roos is right about one thing. It is a legal issue. Leave it to the cops to bust drug users not football clubs.

[bush demon 2,038]

Ha ha ha. Public hypocrisy concerning players' private lives is for the satisfaction of mr and mrs suburbia who tut tut at 'illicit drugs' whilst enjoying the endless humour around frothy jokes on the footy show. Then not to mention the Australian cricketers 'capping off' their national hero status by parading around smashed as a one day cricket ball.

[chook fowler 19,446]

I can't help remembering how badly Dale Lewis from the Swans was treated quite a few years ago when he brought up the issue.

He was pilloried, ostracised and lost his media positions because of it. There a quite a few within the football community who should feel suitably embarrassed.

[mo64 5,853]

Could not agree more PRB. It infuriates me.

I love Paul Roos but he is way off base with this. Forget the moral element for a second (and it seems to be impossible for many to do so - the amount of shrill commentary i have heard from mostly 50 year old plus ex players) and focus on the reason for the testing. Under the WADA code players are under no obligation to a have out of comp testing for illicit drugs. No obligation. The AFLPA agreed, in 2005 to improve the capacity to help players who developed an issue. It was never intended to be process to punish players

I said at the time they were insane to do so (and even more insane to agree to hair testing) because as some point the self interest of the clubs and AFL would become trump that of the welfare of the players. That time is now. And there is no doubt that time has come because coke is being cut with PEDs and suddenly clubs are in danger of losing valuable assets for 2 or more years.

The players should simply say stuff it we don't want to be tested out of comp for illicit drugs because we are compliant with the WADA code and it doesn't require it. Then set up their own treatment programs (eg an AFLPA EAP).

Roos is right about one thing. It is a legal issue. Leave it to the cops to bust drug users not football clubs.

Two questions binman:

Have you taken recreational (illegal) drugs?

What's your take on Geelong suspending Motlop, who apparently had too much to drink 4 days before a game?

I've never taken an illegal drug or substance in my life, but have witnessed the consequences of drug use. Clubs are merely protecting the players from themselves.

[Buzzy 992]

Unless it's a PED or its in their system on match day its no one's business.

Exactly. If they don't test, they don't get failed tests and all the bad PR and ridiculous media exaggeration that surrounds it.

AFL image problem solved.

Any issues should be kept within the clubs, their employers.

[binman 42,683]

1. Completely irrelevant 2. He was punished for breaking team rules. 3. Protecting players from themselves? Seriously? Does your employer do the same thing? Again protecting the players from themselves, punishment etc is not the purpose of the testing. But perhaps if you think they should protect themselves from themselves then I guess you'd support random breath testing of players and testing for legal prescription pills

[DemonWA 3,931]

I agree with what Roos said, drug use is illegal and there no reason to be so tolerant.

Geelong name and shamed Motlop for a few stubbies FFS, meanwhile we have a fair percentage of the league testing positive for illegal substances and being protected by their overly conservative rules.

[RickyJ45 407]

Headline says it all!! Recreational drugs.....the drugs are illicit not some jellybean parade!!!! The use of the word recreational is simply giving the wrong message. No matter any of the arguments....this stuff wrecks lives and makes bad people rich.

I agree, "Recreational" is a complete misnomer condoning highly risky behavior as acceptable and on a par with walking the dog. The problem is not in the fact the drugs are illegal per se, but the root cause of the illegality i.e. uncontrolled substances of unknown composition having effects on individuals in unknown ways, one way of course, being death or long term adverse health effects.

I guess part of the thrill of the drugs to some is their illegaility, even if drugs were legalized they should still be banned from pro-athletes in the same way that trans fats, etc are... from pure health risk management perspective.

In today's age, footballers who use them must have rocks in their head

Edited April 9, 2015 by RickyJ45