Dr. Gonzo

Yeah may have to think about it - next step is finding two full members I know to sign off the forms haha. I do know a few but not sure if they're full or restricted members

Just did a very quick search on WADA in competition definition and came up with this from USADA website "Substances and Methods Prohibited In-Competition Only This section focuses on substances that are prohibited in-competition, only. These substances are not tested for out-of-competition. It is very important to understand the definition of “in-competition.” Knowing how the sporting event defines the “in-competition” period is the athlete’s responsibility. Each International Federation (IF) may have a different definition and it may vary by event. For some events, this period may be defined as 12 hours before the start of the competition and different rules may apply to multi-day events (e.g, the Olympic Games)." So effectively seems like it relates to game day only.

They must have signed up when they were in their 30's then - the website says people who joined around 1990 will become full members this year which would make sense with your situation

I get what you're saying but I think you're overstating the effects of recreational drugs somewhat. People operating heavy machinery are tested for good reason. The risk of athletes to themselves or others days after having used something is so minimal as to be probably irrelevant. Put it this way, the cops drug test drivers for weed, amphetamines and opioids as far as I remember (coke is not tested for by the cops with the random drug driving tests). These tests generally only come up positive if you've taken something in the last few hours or so but possibly up to the next day (similar to alcohol breath testing) - and this is for people operating a vehicle on public roads. The potential for a footy player to cause harm to someone due to drug impairment days after consuming would be no different to someone a couple of days after a binge drinking session.

The point is though AFL players are tested above and beyond what a lot of other pro athletes are subjected to. Most athletes are signatories to the WADA code the AFL players also have an illicit drug code specifically for their competition. The NFL is not a signatory to the WADA code as far as I'm aware and there you see the ridiculous situation where a lot of players cop 4 week suspensions for PED's and others get a year for smoking weed and then another year for drinking alcohol after they were found guilty of smoking weed. Most other athletes though are not tested for recreational drugs because it has no impact on their profession.

Altered perception can also be caused by legal drugs like alcohol or excessive amounts of caffeine (like the Hawks - and others no doubt - were doing and probably still are). The AFL don't test for that though. You're probably as much of a risk to teammates at training hungover from alcohol than you would be coming down from ecstacy or coke.

Prohibited by WADA on match day, what they do in their personal time is their personal business.

What is the approximate wait? 20 years for Restricted and a further 20 years for full?

No wonder some of the oldies who might only go once or twice a year keep it. $15 is about what you'll pay for a coffee and sandwich these days. Would definitely contribute to the exorbitant waitlist

Haha no definitely not, state school all the way for me. No uniform let alone school tie and lots of old hippie teachers out Eltham way.

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.

Thanks for the responses guys, think I'll stick with my AFL membership - the wife would kill me if she knew I'd forked out hundreds of dollars for something I might get in a couple of decades haha

That's what I've already got at the moment - the only thing that got me thinking was the finals tickets prices, it cost me $20 a seat to "upgrade" to the Hawks/Cats QF in AFL Reserve, MCC is only $10. GF Tickets are around $200 for AFL Members these days, MCC get in for free don't they?

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.

Might be sooner than that if you're lucky Is anyone able to explain the difference between Provisional and Restricted Membership? Does it cost the same annual fee?

Thanks for the replies guys, trying to weigh up whether it's worth putting myself and the two kids (3 & 1) on the waiting list. They may get memberships by the time they're 40.

Do you have to pay an annual fee to stay on the waiting list?

I was having a look at the MCC Members waitlist/join page and besides the fact that I'll probably be dead before I'd qualify for a Full Membership was wondering if anyone here can provide some knowledge on the process. If I lodge the nomination form with the $110 application fee and it's then accepted, is there an ongoing fee to keep me on the waitlist? If so how much and does it differ for kids and adults? https://www.mcc.org.au/about-the-club/waiting-list

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.

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.

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.

But people break the law all the time and are dealt with through the appropriate channels (police and courts). It is not up to the employer to act as a semi-Stasi operation where they spy on their employees to dob them in to the authorities. And the issue is hardly the law being broken. How many players who fail an illicit drug test are handed over to the police? It's all about image and PR. The AFL want to be seen to be taking a tough stance on illicit drugs, but don't actually want to find anything that will harm their image and lead to players being suspended.

They should get tested for PED's and if they take an illicit drug cut with a banned substance they'll be banned. Breaking the law is not the domain of the AFL or any employer. It is a problem for a private citizen with the police and courts.

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?

Don't worry, I don't read the rag either but it was linked on BF.