4 minutes ago, Choke said:

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.

Next minute you'll be suggesting that all players cited at the MRP are tested immediately for illicit drugs.

4 hours ago, Choke said:

Who cares about the AFL being able to implement and administer their own policies?

I would have thought pretty much every footy fan?

....and parent except TWSNBN's parents of those who stay there.

11 minutes ago, ManDee said:

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?

Do you think the AFL should install devices in all players cars to make sure they don't break any road laws?  Have 24x7 surveillance to make sure they don't cause public nuisance or commit any assaults?  Is the AFL responsible for this?

2 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Next minute you'll be suggesting that all players cited at the MRP are tested immediately for illicit drugs.

Nope.

Not sure why people are extrapolating ridiculous scenarios from what I think is a pretty straight forward policy.

3 minutes ago, Choke said:

Nope.

Not sure why people are extrapolating ridiculous scenarios from what I think is a pretty straight forward policy.

You're the one who raised OH&S risk from drug intoxicated players.  Surely the MRP cases are the pointy end of this?  Or are you thinking that players may push someone in the back after smoking dope?

3 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Do you think the AFL should install devices in all players cars to make sure they don't break any road laws?  Have 24x7 surveillance to make sure they don't cause public nuisance or commit any assaults?  Is the AFL responsible for this?

Argumentum ad absurdum does not help here. These are real issues, if you do not see the need for rules and regulations that is your choice. Highly paid athletes agree to conditions of employment. If you want to argue don't make up scenarios not agreed to anywhere, stick to the facts.

1 minute ago, Fifty-5 said:

You're the one who raised OH&S risk from drug intoxicated players.  Surely the MRP cases are the pointy end of this?  Or are you thinking that players may push someone in the back after smoking dope?

Do you actually read what I post or do you just comb it looking for crazy hypotheticals to extract?

Illicit drugs effect perception and judgement, even days after use.

Impaired judgement and perception can cause actions (or inactions I suppose) that can lead to injuries that might otherwise not have occurred.

The AFL can reduce the amount of impaired players by performing confidential tests, and therefore reduce their liability/exposure.

The AFL should therefore perform tests. 

 

As for weed, it's probably not going to cause an issue. But it's an illicit drug like ice and coke so it comes under the same legislative umbrella. For now at least.

Just now, ManDee said:

Argumentum ad absurdum does not help here. These are real issues, if you do not see the need for rules and regulations that is your choice. Highly paid athletes agree to conditions of employment. If you want to argue don't make up scenarios not agreed to anywhere, stick to the facts.

Illicit drug use is no more AFL business to police than is speeding.  Speeding is probably more dangerous.  Hope you've never done it?

20 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Next minute you'll be suggesting that all players cited at the MRP are tested immediately for illicit drugs.

It's the MRP who need testing. For glasses, probably.

2 minutes ago, Choke said:

Do you actually read what I post or do you just comb it looking for crazy hypotheticals to extract?

Illicit drugs effect perception and judgement, even days after use.

Impaired judgement and perception can cause actions (or inactions I suppose) that can lead to injuries that might otherwise not have occurred.

The AFL can reduce the amount of impaired players by performing confidential tests, and therefore reduce their liability/exposure.

The AFL should therefore perform tests. 

 

As for weed, it's probably not going to cause an issue. But it's an illicit drug like ice and coke so it comes under the same legislative umbrella. For now at least.

It's not a crazy hypothetical.  If, as you assert, drug related incidents were actually a real risk then the consequences would be player actions that result in citing before the MRP.  These incidents are the most severe and outside the rules of the game.  Surely if drug addled violence is a problem then this is the first place to look for it.  If they aren't the incidents you're worried about then what are - you're jumping at shadows.

4 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Illicit drug use is no more AFL business to police than is speeding.  Speeding is probably more dangerous.  Hope you've never done it?

Which illicit drugs are you suggesting are OK?

I would suggest that alcohol is a bigger problem but that is legal. Yes I have broken the law. Speeding is a law that I have broken and have been punished for it, I hardly ever speed now.

Have a look at the WADA list, it may surprise you. http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-in-competition/prohibited-substances/ and I do think it is the AFL's business - for the moment.

 

Purely hypothetical.

Keefe and Thomas test positive for PEDs after taking party drugs laced with Clenbuterol. (That's not the hypothetical part.)

Whitfield panics because his dealer is the same dealer.

Gubby keeps quiet.

Girlfriend dobs.

We're off and running.

Whitewash.

1 minute ago, ManDee said:

Which illicit drugs are you suggesting are OK?

I would suggest that alcohol is a bigger problem but that is legal. Yes I have broken the law. Speeding is a law that I have broken and have been punished for it, I hardly ever speed now.

Have a look at the WADA list, it may surprise you. http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-in-competition/prohibited-substances/ and I do think it is the AFL's business - for the moment.

 

Where did I say that illicit drug taking is OK?  I said it's not the AFL's business to police it, any more than it is the AFL's business to police speeding.  The AFL should strictly police PEDs according to the WADA code, I'm 100% in favour of that.  It's pretty simple really.

2 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

It's not a crazy hypothetical.  If, as you assert, drug related incidents were actually a real risk then the consequences would be player actions that result in citing before the MRP.  These incidents are the most severe and outside the rules of the game.  Surely if drug addled violence is a problem then this is the first place to look for it.  If they aren't the incidents you're worried about then what are - you're jumping at shadows.

Fine. If there's reason to suspect a player did something negligent or dangerous due to being drug-impared, then sure, test them after the fact.

I'm not saying that there is a problem - yet. And to be honest, I shouldn't know if there is one. As a member of the public I shouldn't be privy to that information if the AFL's found that x% of their players are on some illicit drug.

I just really don't see a problem with the AFL:
a) reducing liability via a random testing regime
b) using results to better player welfare

You said before that illicit drugs are none of the AFL's business. Well, for liability reasons, I think it is - again with the proviso that it's only when the player is training and playing. Welfare reasons are debatable as the AFL seem to want to take this on themselves rather than it being a requirement, but it would be consistent at least with what they say about acting in the players' best interest.

So there's the divergence. We won't agree, let's move on.

6 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Where did I say that illicit drug taking is OK?  I said it's not the AFL's business to police it, any more than it is the AFL's business to police speeding.  The AFL should strictly police PEDs according to the WADA code, I'm 100% in favour of that.  It's pretty simple really.

I shall reword my question. Which illicit drugs do you think the AFL should not worry about?

How can a player be sure that illegally sourced illicit drugs are free from PED's?

Have you had a look at the WADA link?

 

PS:- Thanks for the lively discussion.

Just now, Choke said:

Fine. If there's reason to suspect a player did something negligent or dangerous due to being drug-impared, then sure, test them after the fact.

I'm not saying that there is a problem - yet. And to be honest, I shouldn't know if there is one. As a member of the public I shouldn't be privy to that information if the AFL's found that x% of their players are on some illicit drug.

I just really don't see a problem with the AFL:
a) reducing liability via a random testing regime
b) using results to better player welfare

You said before that illicit drugs are none of the AFL's business. Well, for liability reasons, I think it is - again with the proviso that it's only when the player is training and playing. Welfare reasons are debatable as the AFL seem to want to take this on themselves rather than it being a requirement, but it would be consistent at least with what they say about acting in the players' best interest.

So there's the divergence. We won't agree, let's move on.

I'd be very keen to see some concrete evidence that use of illegal drugs causes incidents in the AFL to justify invasion of player privacy by enforcing drug tests.  You have a "vibe" that there is such a risk and apparently that's sufficient.

Agree let's move on.

Wonder if player transfers mid season, as is being considered by our friends at Headquarters, would be beneficial to the further muddying of the waters.

 

Just now, ManDee said:

I shall reword my question. Which illicit drugs do you think the AFL should not worry about?

How can player be sure that illegally sourced illicit drugs are free from PED's?

Have you had a look at the WADA link?

 

PS:- Thanks for the lively discussion.

If the drug is performance enhancing then the AFL should worry about it the according to the WADA code, e.g I do think cocaine and methamphetamine on match day are likely to be.  Outside of PE it's not AFL business.

BTW, I used to break the law too but I hardly ever do now

7 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

If the drug is performance enhancing then the AFL should worry about it the according to the WADA code, e.g I do think cocaine and methamphetamine on match day are likely to be.  Outside of PE it's not AFL business.

BTW, I used to break the law too but I hardly ever do now

That seems to be the problem Fifty, both cocaine and methamphetamine are listed as PED's  (EDIT-Sorry Prohibited substances) on the WADA site. So I think the AFL is trying to protect the players and by that I mean protect themselves.

Many illicit drugs appear on the WADA list of prohibited substances during completion.

The fact that the AFL have a 3 strike policy suggests to me that they are protecting the players from WADA bans. 

Whitfield is alleged to have broken a rule that he must advise of his whereabouts for testing purposes. It would appear that he has received bad advice. This sounds like Essendon again, being too smart by half. The destroyed records coming back to bite them and Whitfield hiding should bite him too. Have the AFL got the gonads to enforce the rules? My guess is no.

2 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Many illicit drugs appear on the WADA list of prohibited substances during completion.

The fact that the AFL have a 3 strike policy suggests to me that they are protecting the players from WADA bans. 

Whitfield is alleged to have broken a rule that he must advise of his whereabouts for testing purposes. It would appear that he has received bad advice. This sounds like Essendon again, being too smart by half. The destroyed records coming back to bite them and Whitfield hiding should bite him too. Have the AFL got the gonads to enforce the rules? My guess is no.

I have no argument against the charge that Whitfield (and Allan and Lambert) may have broken the rules they contracted for and should feel the full weight of the consequences.

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

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.

That's why I said what I said.

I imagine it would still give a benefit while training also, particularly when weight training is involved, even though its a crazy argument to say that's why people take it, and that's certainly not what I'm claiming at all.

It is also the P.R angle. It all leads back to money. Bad P.R, pressure on the Sponsors etc = Money.

But they don't care if the players are users, as has been proven by their attempted cover up's. The anti drug stance is just an illusion.

Nothing to see here. The X is obvious a fruit bat. IMO Whitfield being hung out to dry. I give him the benefit of the doubt, he isn't the one dropping C bombs to the media - and acting like a bitter and crazy person. Maybe he was staying at Lamberts to seek cover.

At long last, McLachlan used the word "incredibly" in its original sense.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-31/whitfield-investigation-incredibly-forensic-says-mclachlan

"It's been an incredibly detailed, forensic investigation", McLachlan said.

"You can't use any old carpet. You need something with a weft and warp that will make things under it not noticeable. It takes time and study.

"And if a memory stick gets run over by a car, can a computer still access it? Or do you need to hit it with a hammer?

"Is it sufficient to set a phone back to factory settings or should it be thrown in a fire? These things take what they take. They work methodically through it and they don't rush to reach to an outcome."