Lachie Whitfield under investigation

[Dr. Gonzo 23,723]

2 minutes ago, Choke said:

The merits of an illicit drug testing policy itself to me are a different matter, but my thoughts are:

- you can't show up to your job high, this should include footballers
- many jobs include mandatory illicit drug testing, in order to reduce the incidents of the above
- in football, each player has a limited duty of care* to the other players on the field, and being high during a game impinges on that duty (for example by effecting judgement)
- the AFL is also bound to make its sport as 'safe' as is practicable given the activites of the sport itself. Players on illicit drugs make this harder
- some illicit drugs can effect performance
- some illicit drugs can contain banned substances
- results of testing should be private (in an ideal world where the AFL can be trusted to implement the program)
- the program should be geared towards helping and rehabilitation rather than punishment

If a mod would like to split this into another thread debating the merits of the illicit drug program I would be all for that as we might be getting sidetracked here.

* For example, not performing careless or violent acts.

As far as I am aware all (most?) illicit drugs are banned on match day anyway which covers most of your points above. If you play a match while under the influence its the same as having PED's in your system if you're tested by ASADA.

[old dee 23,505]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

As far as I am aware all (most?) illicit drugs are banned on match day anyway which covers most of your points above. If you play a match while under the influence its the same as having PED's in your system if you're tested by ASADA.

I share that belief Dr. Very confident you are correct.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

As far as I am aware all (most?) illicit drugs are banned on match day anyway which covers most of your points above. If you play a match while under the influence its the same as having PED's in your system if you're tested by ASADA.

What about training?

These points also apply when a player fronts up to training on an illicit substance.

No issue with testing being removed for when the player is on leave though. Duty of care doesn't apply, if they want to do something illegal it's up to them in that case and the AFL doesn't need to come into it.

[Dr. Gonzo 23,723]

Just now, Choke said:

What about training?

These points also apply when a player fronts up to training on an illicit substance.

No issue with testing being removed for when the player is on leave though. Duty of care doesn't apply, if they want to do something illegal it's up to them in that case and the AFL doesn't need to come into it.

Depends what you mean by under the influence - if someone turns up to training high (Karl Norman & Lawrence Angwin style) you'll be found out, the same as if you turned up to work high, people will notice. With most illicit drugs though you'll test positive days after having taken it. So you might turn up to training on Tuesday having taken something Saturday night but still test positive.

[praha 11,131]

Is marijuana classified as an illicit substance? 

I remember back in 2010 seeing two AFL footballers leave a coffeeshop in Amsterdam (also saw Andrew Bynum from the LA Lakers in the city around the same time, although not leaving a smoke shop).

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Depends what you mean by under the influence - if someone turns up to training high (Karl Norman & Lawrence Angwin style) you'll be found out, the same as if you turned up to work high, people will notice. With most illicit drugs though you'll test positive days after having taken it. So you might turn up to training on Tuesday having taken something Saturday night but still test positive.

You might be found out, you might not. If we test, we know (or I guess if the AFL test, they know).

I don't think an illicit drugs policy needs to be draconian or punishing or shaming at all.

Random tests throughout the year, if they find something, they rehabilitate. No public disclosure, no fuss.

Interesting you use the Saturday/Tuesday analogy given the 'suicide Tuesday' colloquialism.

A player on a big come down in training is just as dangerous as one who is all coked up to the eyeballs. His reaction times and judgement will be severely diminished, and knowing this, means it is a conscious violation of that player's duty of care to his teammates.

I think it's dangerous and I think a footballer's employment conditions are effected if other footballers are or have recently used illicit drugs. For this reason I think testing for illicit drugs is important. Public disclosure however is not useful, and is only so when the governing body in question is unable to enforce their own policy effectively, which unfortunately it seems applies to the AFL.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

2 minutes ago, praha said:

Is marijuana classified as an illicit substance? 

I remember back in 2010 seeing two AFL footballers leave a coffeeshop in Amsterdam (also saw Andrew Bynum from the LA Lakers in the city around the same time, although not leaving a smoke shop).

Yes it is, although it's debatable if it should be (a discussion for another time).

I have no issue with it if it's during the off-season. No one impacted but themselves, and it's their risk to take.

During the season (and pre-season I guess) it impacts on their teammates and opponents.

[faultydet 7,594]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

You're in a job where drug/alcohol testing is reasonable for OH&S purposes and the potential risks to other people.

Footy players shouldn't be subject to drug testing for illicit drugs, only PED's. From memory there was controversy when it was brought in, the AFL didn't even want to sign up to the WADA code (circa 2006) but were forced to by the Howard government at the threat of funding being withheld/cut off. Was it the AFL or the government who pushed the illicit drugs policy?

Not sure who pushed for it, but I'm in favour of it anyway.

illicit drugs? Iv'e worked with people who used to be big speed, and E users. A couple of them used to brag about the damage they did kicking the bejeeseus out of some poor [censored] while spinning from drugs. The word both used was "invincible"

Sounds like their "performance" was enhanced to me.

I say it again, I'm strongly in favour of drug testing for AFL players.

[Undeeterred 3,045]

51 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Yes I can. Breaking the law is breaking the law. No one should break the law, and that is the logical endpoint. The extension is if the law is wrong you change the law, you don't simply break the law.

Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. The logical endpoint to your argument is making everybody line up as they get off trains at Flinders St to get drug tested. Hopefully you can see the flaw in your reasoning.

[monoccular 17,336]

3 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

You have to wonder how commonplace this is in AFL clubs. What's so special about GWS? What's to stop any club doing the same thing? A few nervous football departments this morning I would guess.

Why in the world would a club be nervous about the AFL and their so called drugs policy?  

3 hours ago, Undeeterred said:

Why the hell does anybody give a [censored] if some kids take drugs? 

It's just none of anybody else's business. 

I just have never understood the public nature of player drug testing, notwithstanding the three strikes hooha.

What may be missing here is that avoiding a drug test may be a test for (so called) harmless recreational drugs, or for PEDs, which is why avoiding a WADA drug test (is supposed to) carry heavy penalties ie 2-4Y. 

If the AFL are serious about "clean sport", which they have given little indication that they are, then they need to follow WADA's strict code re testing and missing tests.  The players sign on for this, the clubs and the AFL too, yet they all whinge and run for cover when push comes to shove. 

[old dee 23,505]

10 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Why in the world would a club be nervous about the AFL and their so called drugs policy?  

What may be missing here is that avoiding a drug test may be a test for (so called) harmless recreational drugs, or for PEDs, which is why avoiding a WADA drug test (is supposed to) carry heavy penalties ie 2-4Y. 

If the AFL are serious about "clean sport", which they have given little indication that they are, then they need to follow WADA's strict code re testing and missing tests.  The players sign on for this, the clubs and the AFL too, yet they all whinge and run for cover when push comes to shove. 

Spot on mono.

Sadly they want to have their cake and eat it too.

[Dr. Gonzo 23,723]

45 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Not sure who pushed for it, but I'm in favour of it anyway.

illicit drugs? Iv'e worked with people who used to be big speed, and E users. A couple of them used to brag about the damage they did kicking the bejeeseus out of some poor [censored] while spinning from drugs. The word both used was "invincible"

Sounds like their "performance" was enhanced to me.

I say it again, I'm strongly in favour of drug testing for AFL players.

That goes to a different argument, one about whether drugs should be legal altogether and whether there is any difference between alcohol and drugs from a societal point of view. No doubt most weekend punch ups and domestic violence incidents have an alcohol factor as well as a [censored] factor. Many people have taken party drugs and never felt the need to gangbash someone, in fact often it's quite the opposite.

Again, that's all irrelevant to the topic though. If a player tests positive for speed, ecstacy, coke etc on matchday they will be classed as having failed a WADA test and will face WADA penalties. These drugs are considered PED's if found in your system on matchday.

[jnrmac 19,905]

3 hours ago, Undeeterred said:

I'm not talking about drugs in general, in society. Believe me, I see enough of the problems caused by that.

My point is, why do we as the public have a right to know about a footballer's interaction with drug testers? In any other employment situation, this is an in-house process with your employer. Why are footballers different? Tell you what, if I failed a drug test (which I am subject to in my work) and it ended up in the papers, I'd be spewing.

It's just not appropriate for the public to be involved in these issues as they related to AFL footballers.

 

 

About being in the papers or the stupidity of taking drugs?

[jnrmac 19,905]

1 hour ago, Choke said:

Yes it is, although it's debatable if it should be (a discussion for another time).

I have no issue with it if it's during the off-season. No one impacted but themselves, and it's their risk to take.

During the season (and pre-season I guess) it impacts on their teammates and opponents.

Really? So a 'Ben Cousins' type could pump himself up with steriods over summer and you would think that was OK? Or Justin Gatlin can do performance or body enhancing drugs so long as it wasn't during the Olympics?

I think your logic is flawed there.

 

[ManDee 7,124]

1 hour ago, Undeeterred said:

Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. The logical endpoint to your argument is making everybody line up as they get off trains at Flinders St to get drug tested. Hopefully you can see the flaw in your reasoning.

Breaking the law is breaking the law. And you say that is complete nonsense!

Hopefully you can see the flaw in your reasoning.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

3 hours ago, Choke said:

On a more general note, how long do we think it'll be before the AFL starts with the vilification of the ex-girlfriend? 'She's got an axe to grind, she's not reliable, she's making it up, looking for revenge' etc. Nice way to distract the punters from the real issue eh?

I'm already imagining the radio call-backs:

'I know Lachie, he's a good guy, he wouldn't do this.'
'Lachie's a top bloke who stuck his dick in crazy'
'Where is the investigation into this ex-girlfriend is what I want to know! She's got a lot to answer for!'
'She just wants her 15 minutes of fame'

I'd almost put money on this happening within the next few days.

The girlfriend went rogue.

Lachie doesn't know what he took, but he's knows it's not illegal.

 

What a shame for the lad that Slobbo, Blowin' Connolly and various other media stooges don't barrack for GWS.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

1 hour ago, monoccular said:

Why in the world would a club be nervous about the AFL and their so called drugs policy? 

Not the Australian "Nothing to see here, move along" Football League.

They'd be nervous of whistleblowers who aren't beholden to the might of the AFL ecosystem.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

53 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Really? So a 'Ben Cousins' type could pump himself up with steriods over summer and you would think that was OK? Or Justin Gatlin can do performance or body enhancing drugs so long as it wasn't during the Olympics?

I think your logic is flawed there.

 

Huh?

'Steriods' are performance enhancing, my posts were pretty clearly about the illicit drug policy, in response to another poster's question about weed.

Performance enhancing drugs should be tested for regularly, on or off season.

There's no reason to test players for illicit drugs when they aren't playing or training, as in those circumstances they are not a risk to other players (or employees of the AFL, in this context).

Not sure if you've wilfully misinterpreted my posts, genuinely don't know the difference, or simply made a mistake, but you are extrapolating an example out of something I didn't say. I think it is your logic that is flawed.

[Dr. Gonzo 23,723]

1 hour ago, ManDee said:

Breaking the law is breaking the law. And you say that is complete nonsense!

Hopefully you can see the flaw in your reasoning.

Your line of thought is utterly preposterous. Using your logic, everyone should be forced to undertake a [censored] test every morning when they wake up and hand it to the government officer standing at their bedroom door. 

[ManDee 7,124]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Your line of thought is utterly preposterous. Using your logic, everyone should be forced to undertake a [censored] test every morning when they wake up and hand it to the government officer standing at their bedroom door. 

Where did that come from?

I am talking about a player that did not follow AFL and WADA protocol by advising his whereabouts, as required,  in case a drug test was called. That is a term of his employment with the AFL. This player with the aid of club employees disappeared and was unable to be located in case a drug test was required. The reason for disappearing was top avoid any drug test. It is claimed the player was using illegal drugs and was attempting to avoid being caught. 

That is the case as I understand it. The player may have taken a drug that was illegal, the drug or drugs may or may not have had performance enhancing properties, that is illegal. He has a contract that he is claimed to have breached. 

He is alleged to have used illegal drugs.

He has a contact stating that he agrees to notify his whereabouts and did he not.

He has a contact stating that he agrees to drug testing and he hid to avoid testing.

What is the problem? If you sign a contact agreeing to testing and refuse or hide then you are breaking the rules and should accept the penalty. I have not undertaken to be drug tested to work in my profession and would have no problem being random tested, perhaps you do, perhaps this says more about you and your proclivities. If people break the law they deserve to be dealt with.

 

[Dr. Gonzo 23,723]

9 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Where did that come from?

I am talking about a player that did not follow AFL and WADA protocol by advising his whereabouts, as required,  in case a drug test was called. That is a term of his employment with the AFL. This player with the aid of club employees disappeared and was unable to be located in case a drug test was required. The reason for disappearing was top avoid any drug test. It is claimed the player was using illegal drugs and was attempting to avoid being caught. 

That is the case as I understand it. The player may have taken a drug that was illegal, the drug or drugs may or may not have had performance enhancing properties, that is illegal. He has a contract that he is claimed to have breached. 

He is alleged to have used illegal drugs.

He has a contact stating that he agrees to notify his whereabouts and did he not.

He has a contact stating that he agrees to drug testing and he hid to avoid testing.

What is the problem? If you sign a contact agreeing to testing and refuse or hide then you are breaking the rules and should accept the penalty. I have not undertaken to be drug tested to work in my profession and would have no problem being random tested, perhaps you do, perhaps this says more about you and your proclivities. If people break the law they deserve to be dealt with.

 

You started talking about breaking the law not breaking a contract. Agreed, he broke the contract and if guilty should face punishment. The argument though is whether the AFL should even be testing for recreational drugs in the first place. The WADA code is the only drug code the AFLPA should sign up to. Whether a player breaks the law or not (by using recreational drugs or any other form of law-breaking) is not the responsibility of the club/AFL.

[Cards13 9,117]

4 hours ago, Choke said:

 

On a more general note, how long do we think it'll be before the AFL starts with the vilification of the ex-girlfriend? 'She's got an axe to grind, she's not reliable, she's making it up, looking for revenge' etc. Nice way to distract the punters from the real issue eh?

I'm already imagining the radio call-backs:

'I know Lachie, he's a good guy, he wouldn't do this.'
'Lachie's a top bloke who stuck his dick in crazy'
'Where is the investigation into this ex-girlfriend is what I want to know! She's got a lot to answer for!'
'She just wants her 15 minutes of fame'

I'd almost put money on this happening within the next few days.

It has already started in this thread with the jilted ex comments. From the read she did out of concern when they were together. Just because they are no longer together changes that point.

You'd have to be pretty bloody worried about the amount of gear your boyfriend is taking to call his AFL club for "assistance".

[old55 22,852]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

You started talking about breaking the law not breaking a contract. Agreed, he broke the contract and if guilty should face punishment. The argument though is whether the AFL should even be testing for recreational drugs in the first place. The WADA code is the only drug code the AFLPA should sign up to. Whether a player breaks the law or not (by using recreational drugs or any other form of law-breaking) is not the responsibility of the club/AFL.

Agree, the AFL should not be testing for illicit drugs, just for performance enhancing drugs.  It's very a long bow to draw that illicit drugs in the AFL are an OH&S risk like in mining etc.  There are various police forces and courts to enforce the illicit drug laws.  It's not the AFL's jurisdiction.

[ManDee 7,124]

21 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

You started talking about breaking the law not breaking a contract. Agreed, he broke the contract and if guilty should face punishment. The argument though is whether the AFL should even be testing for recreational drugs in the first place. The WADA code is the only drug code the AFLPA should sign up to. Whether a player breaks the law or not (by using recreational drugs or any other form of law-breaking) is not the responsibility of the club/AFL.

He is alleged to have broken his contract and a law.

To call any illegal drugs recreational is minimising the potential great harm that can occur when using drugs not manufactured to exacting safety standards. 

The players agreed to the testing, it is in the contract that every player signs. If in the future that is removed so be it, but for now they have agreed.

Clubs accept a role in protecting players at many levels including drug use. If a player breaks any law including traffic offences, drink driving, public nuisance, assault etc. the clubs become involved in helping the player. I put it to you that the purpose of this non PED drug testing was put into place to protect the players. If cocaine or other Rec. drug was laced with steroids or some other PED what would happen? What if Max Gawn smoked some grass,is that OK?  oh sorry it is listed as a PED  http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-in-competition/prohibited-substances/ What about cocaine, sorry PED. Amphetamines, sorry PED. Look at the list and tell me which party drugs are ok. How in hell are the players to know what is in any illegal drug?

 

Edit:- fix one of my no doubt many typos

Edited August 31, 2016 by ManDee

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

15 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Agree, the AFL should not be testing for illicit drugs, just for performance enhancing drugs.  It's very a long bow to draw that illicit drugs in the AFL are an OH&S risk like in mining etc.  There are various police forces and courts to enforce the illicit drug laws.  It's not the AFL's jurisdiction.

I don't think it's a long bow at all.

People take illicit drugs to alter their perception. While under the influence of altered perception, or coming down from it, they can be a danger to others.

Sticking them on a football field magnifies the danger, certainly more than would be present in most other work environments like an office.

It IS the AFL's jurisdiction because the AFL are law-bound to make the sport as 'safe' as they can within the rules of the sport. Illicit drug testing is one way they can mitigate the risk that their duty of care towards players is violated.

The AFL may well be found negligent if a player who has illicit drugs in their system causes damage or injury to another player that is attributable to a lapse in judgement or altered perception. The AFL should be testing for illicit drugs, but as I said, not while the players are on holiday (ie not training or playing) and the results should not be released to the public.

But what the AFL should do and what the AFL do do (heh, do do) are two completely different things.

Edit: any lawyers around care to weigh in on the issue? The above is just a result of my own reading on the issue.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Choke