I accept what you are saying but my understanding is that if you test positive to a drug considered to be performance enhancing on WADA's list, irrespective of whether it is during or out of competition, that wouldn't come within the three strikes.

Happy to be corrected but I thought cocaine was on that list while amphetamines such as "ice" were not.

check the list, it is available on the aflpa website...

what i am saying is that on match day, all drugs are considered performance enhancing, and yes amphetamines are on that this (in my knowledge). however, when out of competition, drugs that will result in performance enhancement (steroids, epo etc) brign an immediate ban, while 'recreation drugs', that have only immediate effects draw a strike under the afl policy. most athletes arent tested for these drugs out of competition.

You don't think players should be tested for Performance Enhancing Drugs? How could you possible argue that?! You think players should be able to gain an unfair advantage in a professional sports simply because it's "something they choose to do"?

Sorry, I don't see how anyone could possibly come to that conclusion.

The post you responded to clearly stated recreational substancess, not performance enhancing substances.

Nice piece of deflection by the AFL, in any other sport these athletes would now be on at least a one year ban.

No they wouldn't. From what I've read, in pretty much any other sport they wouldn't even be tested for these substances.

No they wouldn't. From what I've read, in pretty much any other sport they wouldn't even be tested for these substances.

Completely true. The AFL players are one of the only group of sportsman that put there hand up to be tested for recreational substances. Other league DO NOT test for this.

I think people treat AFL players unfairly given they actually agree to be tested. All sports have drug users, but everyone acts like the AFL is the minority because they get tested.