Over the last week there have been a lot of claims and counter claims:

- players using 'mental health issues' to avoid testing.  The implication is they don't actually have a mental health issue.  This excuse was used by 16 players from one club according to Ross Stevenson from 3AW.  This was rebuked by Eddie, AFLPA, AFL.

- Grant Thomas was told (after his coaching finished at the Saints) that unbeknown to him, drug use was 'rife' among the players during his reign.  Strongly rebuked by Nick Del Santo and Spider Everett.

Now Nick Reiwoldt says:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/a-free-for-all-riewoldt-lashes-players-over-afl-illicit-drug-policy-20190225-p50zzs.html

“The AFL, by their own admission on their own website, what the policy is designed to do is to identify players with substance abuse issues and place support around them to protect their health and wellbeing...the vast majority of players don’t have substance abuse issues, they’re taking the [censored] because the system allows it.

"It depends what your definition of out of control is. I would say it’s out of control.”  Riewoldt called for players to be hit with a four-week ban on the first strike.

“What I would say, if they’re serious about getting the number closer to zero, remove the safety net,” he said. “If players do have a legitimate substance abuse issue, then getting a suspension on their first detection is probably the least of their worries. They need to get their life together".

How often do we hear of a player having an injury, personal issues, mental health issues or glandular fever and are out of the game for 4 weeks.  Without casting dispersions on people with those issues, its hard not to think a '4 week suspension is being played out' for a second strike. 

I agree with Nick:  first strike and 4 weeks suspension.  No excuses for avoiding testing either.

The AFL has said it will review its drug policy.  Code for getting it out of the media.

I certainly hope that the club with allegedly 16 players using 'mental health issues' isn't the demons.  I reckon Mahoney and or Goodwin would get wind of it somehow and make sure the culprits are weeded out one way or another.  So doubt it is us.

 

24 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Over the last week there have been a lot of claims and counter claims:

- players using 'mental health issues' to avoid testing.  The implication is they don't actually have a mental health issue.  This excuse was used by 16 players from one club according to Ross Stevenson from 3AW.  This was rebuked by Eddie, AFLPA, AFL.

- Grant Thomas was told (after his coaching finished at the Saints) that unbeknown to him, drug use was 'rife' among the players during his reign.  Strongly rebuked by Nick Del Santo and Spider Everett.

Now Nick Reiwoldt says:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/a-free-for-all-riewoldt-lashes-players-over-afl-illicit-drug-policy-20190225-p50zzs.html

“The AFL, by their own admission on their own website, what the policy is designed to do is to identify players with substance abuse issues and place support around them to protect their health and wellbeing...the vast majority of players don’t have substance abuse issues, they’re taking the [censored] because the system allows it.

"It depends what your definition of out of control is. I would say it’s out of control.”  Riewoldt called for players to be hit with a four-week ban on the first strike.

“What I would say, if they’re serious about getting the number closer to zero, remove the safety net,” he said. “If players do have a legitimate substance abuse issue, then getting a suspension on their first detection is probably the least of their worries. They need to get their life together".

How often do we hear of a player having an injury, personal issues, mental health issues or glandular fever and are out of the game for 4 weeks.  Without casting dispersions on people with those issues, its hard not to think a '4 week suspension is being played out' for a second strike. 

I agree with Nick:  first strike and 4 weeks suspension.  No excuses for avoiding testing either.

The AFL has said it will review its drug policy.  Code for getting it out of the media.

I certainly hope that the club with allegedly 16 players using 'mental health issues' isn't the demons.  I reckon Mahoney and or Goodwin would get wind of it somehow and make sure the culprits are weeded out one way or another.  So doubt it is us.

 

Over the last few years we have seen players traded from a number Clubs for reasons which appear strange given their obvious talent!

I think there should be a no tolerance policy for those caught. I have never been a fan of a three strikes policy.

5 minutes ago, Demonland said:

I think there should be a no tolerance policy for those caught. I have never been a fan of a three strikes policy.

Just to clarify.  The policy is currently 4 weeks out for second strike. 

Nick is saying 4 weeks for first strike ie zero tolerance.   Agree with Nick and yourself.

One strike and I lose my job. The AFL are ridiculously lenient on their players. I have no doubt that this ‘leniency’ contributes to players dabbling in illegal drug use. 

Edited February 25, 20196 yr by Ethan Tremblay

13 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

One strike and I lose my job. The AFL are ridiculously lenient on their players. I have no doubt that this ‘leniency’ contributes to players dabbling in illegal drug use. 

The afl's lenience is all due to their negotiations with the players union. They agreed to this system a few years back for agreement on payment things. Now they are stuck with it and have to try and negotiate their way out. Good luck with that one Gill.

Another area of concern raised recently was the amount of players dodging tests. Surely test dodgers, in particular repeat offenders, should be treated harshly too.

I know of 1 bloke who missed a finals series cause of "mental health" issues.
Can't have the biggest name in the game tarred with the drug brush can we.

Many sports bodies such as the AFL are conflicted. 

They don't want the sport tarnished with the words drug use, doping, illicit drug use, drug cheats etc. It damages the sport, the individuals and as they say these days, it damages the product morally, ethically and financially.

So they adopt a no-drugs policy and put into place rules and procedures to police drug use.

On the other hand, sports bodies hope and pray that teams and individuals don't get caught. 

The response of sports bodies has differed over recent years.  In cycling and most Olympic sports, testing, monitoring and surveillance has significantly increased over recent years with a real effort being made to catch drug cheats. Rigorous testing procedures have been introduced to make it ever more difficult to cheat without the increased risk of being caught. 

However, many team based sports including football, basketball and even cricket have lax drug policies and procedures that make it less likely that offenders will be caught and punished.  The AFL "go lightly" approach has been influenced by the players association and those who accept the need for a policy but don't want a rigorous testing regime that might actually catch offenders (and damage the brand).

It was not long ago that a certain AFL head honcho, repeatedly stated that unlike sports such as cycling and athletics, AFL did not have a problem.  Well your not going to identify if there is a problem, when the policy and testing regime is so loose that you can drive a truck through. However, it maintained a very convenient image for the sport.  

The other problem in sport is that the nature of drug use has changed

In the past, drug use was associated with using banned substances that provided a competitive advantage/resulting in cheating. A la Lance Armstrong, Russian and Chinese athletes, EFC and so on. 

The use of substances that assist in gaining a competitive advantage remains a problem.

However, in recent years, we have witnessed an explosion in the use of substances (like coke and ice) for recreational pleasure, This is a massive problem as it now exists in epidemic proportions right through society.  The task of monitoring social use is nigh impossible because it is so widespread and the drugs do not stay in the system. At a sports level, we know that athletes and players use substances for pleasure and because they can get away with it.   They will not get caught (unless their stupid enough to be filmed) and it allows them to use drugs without interfering in training, recovery and playing. 

There is no sports body that can deal with this epidemic. It is a criminal, social and health issue across the land and the globe that we are all living with.  And any effort to control or arrest this spread of illicit substances is virtually impossible unless supply is cut off and ordinary people stop using them. 

No doubt there are folks on this site who enjoy and are addicted to recreational drugs, just as hundreds of thousands of citizens are addicted to pain killing narcotics and prescribed drugs such as endone, oxycontin, morphine and codeine.  

 

Unfortunately non performance enhancing drug use is rife in the AFL...fact.

I've been reliably told the figure is above 60% at one top club, so you can take it to the bank it's similar across the board including our club.

The only reason the AFL should be involved in policing non performance enhancing drugs is the issue it may cause down the track with gambling. In other words players getting involved with criminals.

Any punitive actions taking on drug use are counterproductive to my way of thinking.

Get serious on the performance enhancing stuff and the opportunities to fix matches or outcomes.

Did sound like that.
But hell, Lary Gyon used the old mental health chesnut to hide from the media after banging his best mates missus for a couple years.
So its got multiple uses.

Edited February 25, 20196 yr by Fork 'em

7 minutes ago, rjay said:

Unfortunately non performance enhancing drug use is rife in the AFL...fact.

I've been reliably told the figure is above 60% at one top club, so you can take it to the bank it's similar across the board including our club.

The only reason the AFL should be involved in policing non performance enhancing drugs is the issue it may cause down the track with gambling. In other words players getting involved with criminals.

Any punitive actions taking on drug use are counterproductive to my way of thinking.

Get serious on the performance enhancing stuff and the opportunities to fix matches or outcomes.

Very good points. 

The newly formed sports watchdog (Sports Integrity Australia, which will absorb ASADA) has asked the AFL for info about player testing (sans player names) https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/watchdog-urges-afl-to-hand-over-drug-info-20190219-p50yoz.html

Unsurprisingly, the ALFPA are anti; can't find an AFL response but suspect they would be anti as well.  Personally, I can't see the problem with giving the SIA data without player names.

Pushing for zero tolerance is ridiculous, you think an off season is a long time without footy, imagine a lifetime!

36 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Very good points. 

The newly formed sports watchdog (Sports Integrity Australia, which will absorb ASADA) has asked the AFL for info about player testing (sans player names) https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/watchdog-urges-afl-to-hand-over-drug-info-20190219-p50yoz.html

Unsurprisingly, the ALFPA are anti; can't find an AFL response but suspect they would be anti as well.  Personally, I can't see the problem with giving the SIA data without player names.

There is the rub LH. The AFL would have to admit to a problem. Right now their line is that there is no problem.

Even if you do get a 3rd strike, you just need to retire for a year and then change your mind. All good, get straight back onto your old clubs list, no questions asked, no drafting required.

It all gets down to performance enhancing. If they get done for enhancement drugs then throw the book at them without any warnings. On the other hand if they are blowing a couple of pipes during the week which is not an enhancement then so what ? That is their business.

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Very good points. 

The newly formed sports watchdog (Sports Integrity Australia, which will absorb ASADA) has asked the AFL for info about player testing (sans player names) https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/watchdog-urges-afl-to-hand-over-drug-info-20190219-p50yoz.html

Unsurprisingly, the ALFPA are anti; can't find an AFL response but suspect they would be anti as well.  Personally, I can't see the problem with giving the SIA data without player names.

No institution willingly submits to an independent umpire unless it is imposed on them and they see there is no choice. We have all seen the consequences of self-regulation. It is biased and a recipe for abuse or at least minimum adherence.  

Without ASADA, what would have happened at EFC? 

Are multiple players taking drugs in the offseason and long weekends - absolutely. 
Are some players taking drugs more regularly than that - maybe every weekend in the preseason and the night after the game in season  - sure.

But you're struggling to play elite AFL footy if you're launching in to big weekends every week and I reckon we've seen that with some of our players if you know where to look. I reckon you can count in one hand the number of truly elite players who could keep that lifestyle going.

The majority of AFL players get in long term relationships early, settle down and live a pretty boring life. 

They are good citizens who do community work, are super professional about their trade and the last few offseasons has shown are really low level of crime and disorderly behaviour. Certainly compared with their NRL colleagues in Northern states.

What good comes from punishing AFL players with really harsh illicit drug policies? Do we all feel a little better about ourselves because our heroes are all clean skins? Do we feel morally superior?

The current policy has stopped a repeat Ben Cousins. That was its aim and it has been successful. 

Club culture can take care of the rest. How hard is it for a coach to get with his leadership group and set standards about behaviour and work out which players are going too hard and sort it out? Trade, delist, play in the 2nds. You'll sort it out in no time.

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Are multiple players taking drugs in the offseason and long weekends - absolutely. 
Are some players taking drugs more regularly than that - maybe every weekend in the preseason and the night after the game in season  - sure.

But you're struggling to play elite AFL footy if you're launching in to big weekends every week and I reckon we've seen that with some of our players if you know where to look. I reckon you can count in one hand the number of truly elite players who could keep that lifestyle going.

The majority of AFL players get in long term relationships early, settle down and live a pretty boring life. 

They are good citizens who do community work, are super professional about their trade and the last few offseasons has shown are really low level of crime and disorderly behaviour. Certainly compared with their NRL colleagues in Northern states.

What good comes from punishing AFL players with really harsh illicit drug policies? Do we all feel a little better about ourselves because our heroes are all clean skins? Do we feel morally superior?

The current policy has stopped a repeat Ben Cousins. That was its aim and it has been successful. 

Club culture can take care of the rest. How hard is it for a coach to get with his leadership group and set standards about behaviour and work out which players are going too hard and sort it out? Trade, delist, play in the 2nds. You'll sort it out in no time.

You make some good points.

We are all biased to a degree but I have confidence in club culture and the standards set by leaders such as Jones, Viney, Jetta etc.  Both the perception and inside goss is that these guys are absolute leaders and sticklers about standards and having professional behaviours.  They are squeaky clean guys who do not stand for sub standard behaviour. And we have seen their influence on the kids and one or two trades. 

Cousins played whilst taking drugs.  AFL have not learnt a thing!

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Are multiple players taking drugs in the offseason and long weekends - absolutely. 
Are some players taking drugs more regularly than that - maybe every weekend in the preseason and the night after the game in season  - sure.

But you're struggling to play elite AFL footy if you're launching in to big weekends every week and I reckon we've seen that with some of our players if you know where to look. I reckon you can count in one hand the number of truly elite players who could keep that lifestyle going.

The majority of AFL players get in long term relationships early, settle down and live a pretty boring life. 

They are good citizens who do community work, are super professional about their trade and the last few offseasons has shown are really low level of crime and disorderly behaviour. Certainly compared with their NRL colleagues in Northern states.

What good comes from punishing AFL players with really harsh illicit drug policies? Do we all feel a little better about ourselves because our heroes are all clean skins? Do we feel morally superior?

The current policy has stopped a repeat Ben Cousins. That was its aim and it has been successful. 

Club culture can take care of the rest. How hard is it for a coach to get with his leadership group and set standards about behaviour and work out which players are going too hard and sort it out? Trade, delist, play in the 2nds. You'll sort it out in no time.

Spot on ds. Particularly in regard to the confected moral outrage. Particularly from ex players from 80s and 90s when the prevailing culture was excessive alcohol use.

II care about how players prepare, train and perform. If they can do those things well  I could care less if demon players use recreational drugs. 

My view is the players should never have agreed to include testing for recreational drugs.l in the first place Just stuck to performance enhancing only.

And the AFL made a rod for it's own back including testing for recreational drugs. Stupid. I understand their motivation  (getting treatment for players) but they should have stayed well clear of something that is none of their business. That said I as applaud the hark min approach they have taken.

 

 

 

This just in:

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Are multiple players taking drugs in the offseason and long weekends - absolutely. 
Are some players taking drugs more regularly than that - maybe every weekend in the preseason and the night after the game in season  - sure.

But you're struggling to play elite AFL footy if you're launching in to big weekends every week and I reckon we've seen that with some of our players if you know where to look. I reckon you can count in one hand the number of truly elite players who could keep that lifestyle going.

The majority of AFL players get in long term relationships early, settle down and live a pretty boring life. 

They are good citizens who do community work, are super professional about their trade and the last few offseasons has shown are really low level of crime and disorderly behaviour. Certainly compared with their NRL colleagues in Northern states.

What good comes from punishing AFL players with really harsh illicit drug policies? Do we all feel a little better about ourselves because our heroes are all clean skins? Do we feel morally superior?

The current policy has stopped a repeat Ben Cousins. That was its aim and it has been successful. 

Club culture can take care of the rest. How hard is it for a coach to get with his leadership group and set standards about behaviour and work out which players are going too hard and sort it out? Trade, delist, play in the 2nds. You'll sort it out in no time.

Is it unreasonable for me to want the players that play for my club to abstain from recreational drugs in order to achieve the maximum in peak performance in the prime of their playing careers?

These guys get paid a boat load to play at their best and be in peak physical and mental conditioning. I don't want them to be robots and they don't have to be choir boys but I don't want them to be off their nut or out of their skins on the weekends. I want premierships which means for 26 weeks in and out and for the preseasons their minds and bodies need to be on the job to achieve that.

There is no room for recreational drugs to infect the minds and bodies of elite athletes.

I'm not a prude and I don't by the line of what they do in their off time during the season is their business. Their business is to win and you can't win if your mind is on Saturday night.

Edited February 25, 20196 yr by Deeminion

Ideally I don't want our players drinking during the season either but I guess that's another issue.

5 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Over the last week there have been a lot of claims and counter claims:

- players using 'mental health issues' to avoid testing.  The implication is they don't actually have a mental health issue.  This excuse was used by 16 players from one club according to Ross Stevenson from 3AW.  This was rebuked by Eddie, AFLPA, AFL.

- Grant Thomas was told (after his coaching finished at the Saints) that unbeknown to him, drug use was 'rife' among the players during his reign.  Strongly rebuked by Nick Del Santo and Spider Everett.

Now Nick Reiwoldt says:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/a-free-for-all-riewoldt-lashes-players-over-afl-illicit-drug-policy-20190225-p50zzs.html

“The AFL, by their own admission on their own website, what the policy is designed to do is to identify players with substance abuse issues and place support around them to protect their health and wellbeing...the vast majority of players don’t have substance abuse issues, they’re taking the [censored] because the system allows it.

"It depends what your definition of out of control is. I would say it’s out of control.”  Riewoldt called for players to be hit with a four-week ban on the first strike.

“What I would say, if they’re serious about getting the number closer to zero, remove the safety net,” he said. “If players do have a legitimate substance abuse issue, then getting a suspension on their first detection is probably the least of their worries. They need to get their life together".

How often do we hear of a player having an injury, personal issues, mental health issues or glandular fever and are out of the game for 4 weeks.  Without casting dispersions on people with those issues, its hard not to think a '4 week suspension is being played out' for a second strike. 

I agree with Nick:  first strike and 4 weeks suspension.  No excuses for avoiding testing either.

The AFL has said it will review its drug policy.  Code for getting it out of the media.

I certainly hope that the club with allegedly 16 players using 'mental health issues' isn't the demons.  I reckon Mahoney and or Goodwin would get wind of it somehow and make sure the culprits are weeded out one way or another.  So doubt it is us.

 

How does citing mental health issues enable a player to bypass a drug test?

Why did the players ever agree to hair testing, was it tied into the EBA?

 

cheers