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

You clearly don't believe that so called recreational drugs are a problem then, and can't differentiate between legal and illegal?

If clubs are concerned with everything that is legally ingested by the players (diet and nutrition), then they have every right to monitor whatever illegal substances a player may take.

Love this - AFLPA raises prospect of all AFL officials to be tested for illicit drugs as league reviews policy

Now watch this push dry up over night...

Edited April 9, 201510 yr by PaulRB

Clubs are merely protecting the players from themselves.

Well that's not a slippery slope...

Two articles that reflect many of my thoughts on this issue:

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/greens-senator-richard-di-natale-warns-afl-drug-reform-may-endanger-player-health-20150408-1mgweb.html

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/the-fitz-files/why-sports-war-on-recreational-drugs-is-pointless-20150408-1mgsvq.html

Love this - AFLPA raises prospect of all AFL officials to be tested for illicit drugs as league reviews policy

Now watch this push dry up over night...

They should demand it as part of the "AFL media accreditation" as well.

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

Weed is about as risky as walking your dog.

Heavier stuff is definitely a risk, but you have to remember that footy players often take a bunch of caffeine before games and then absolute go wild on adrenalin during games. They are wired up through the roof but because it's not illegal we don't care. Same can be said for sleeping tablets on the way down.

Trans fats. Wow they are the real killers. One fish and chips could wipe out an entire team if they were unlucky. Come on.

If the Collingwood boys go down as rumoured then that will and should scare a lot of AFL players away from drugs. As should Ben Cousin's tragic tails.

But I don't believe AFL players should be tried in the court of public opinion by being named and shamed. I'd rather them in contact with club doctors who are keeping a check on them.

The biggest issue I have with the policy is that the 3rd strike never happens and if it does it is probably too late. But up until it's working well for most players. No AFL player has gone off the rails since Cousins (unless you could Dayle Garlett who came and went in a flash in the pan).

What I'd do is change the strikes a bit. First strike as is. I'd remove the self reporting and other loop holes and have any player on a strike target tested very heavily. To trigger a 2nd strike I'd have 2 positives then in the same month or 2 monthly period would indicate that player has a problem with drug dependency and should be named and removed from the game for a short period. Then after that it's the big 3rd strike.

AFL players should mainly want to protect each other and the league from drug dependency. That is the aim. Vigorously trying to make the league completely drug free is just a silly idea.

Weed is about as risky as walking your dog.

If only this was true...