SA Footy

I'm interested in what the astute judges on this august forum think of the AFL's illicit drug policy.

The 3 strike policy was implemented as a trade off for the AFL being able to test players when they are out of competition, ie - on their mandatory 6 week break at the end of the season. The most aggressive testing procedure of any professional sporting organisation in the world.

In essence, the players said "Sure, test us when you like, but we've got to have at least two chances to clean our act up". In essence, the AFL said "Sure, go nuts over the summer break and if you get busted then we'll keep it quiet and fix it all up before anyone finds out".

In my opinion the AFLPA and the AFL have to much say in this policy and I believe it should be the employers, the clubs, who have the most power in this instance. Much as all of our employers do "in the normal/real world".

I also believe that without question the clubs have an obligation to report illicit / illegal drug use to the relevant authorities in the state, the police.

I would be for zero tolerance, but, a 19 year old kid who makes one mistake could have his life ruined with the publicity and ridicule that would come with a midseason sacking from a club. Can you imagine the media attention?

So, I think one strike where the clubs are informed and a healthy fine is implemented. This way the player can remain all but anonymous ( if a player got suspended by 6 months from a club we'd all be able to do the maths ) and continue playing.

I think a positive test to illegal drugs - 50% of the players salary for that year with counselling and support offered to the player. Second strike the club can sack you immediately. But of course, the AFLPA wouldn't have that.....

Thoughts folks....?

I'm all for having a three strike policy but the major issue is self reporting does not incur a strike.
Someone said last night (could of been 5AA) that why don't they start with a one game suspension for a first strike and go up from there. I think that also has merit. The same person (could of been Dwayne Russell actually) reckons being exposed will help them get through it (i.e. Stokes)

What grinds my gears with this policy is the former players who come out and offer their advice and usually as statements and not opinions. They don't have any expertise and yet they are the only voices that get air time. I don't have a clue personally whether the current system is better than the one they propose and I strongly suspect people like Warren Tredrea have as much idea as I do. The AFL set this up with as much input from experts as they could and I'm confident they've looked at it a lot, especially in the early days. I suspect the public perception will force some changes but I hope any changes they do make are based on something more than meat head footballers who get the ability to spout their uninformed opinions.

The policy was set up many years ago now, and was based on the most likely drug they would be caught using being dope. It was deemed too harsh to out a player and finish his career based on hooving a few bongs.

The landscape has changed dramatically since the policies inception, with ice now the drug of choice. The damage this drug can do in a matter of months is astounding, and if you give anyone three chances with this stuff, odds are their life is already out of control and they are fully addicted to it, with a huge task ahead to get back from it.

The drug culture has outgrown the policy by a long way, I wouldn't want my kid getting chances if he's on ice. They need help as soon as people become aware, or it's too late. Look at Cuz and Garlett.

I tend to agree with your opening post Booney.


3 strikes is just far too many opportunities

Brendon Goddard and Nick Dal spoke really well about it on the footy show last week and pretty much said it should be a one strike policy. Its a tough one and like Booney said if a 19 year old makes one mistake (Like so many of us did or will do) then should they be punished and lose everything they love and be dragged through the media.

I would be happy with one chance depending on the circumstances and then thats it. Its a serious issue in the community and needs to be looked at every level.

Two strike policy and no exemption for self-reporting for mine. I agree the AFLPA have too much power in this (and other) matters, and the AFL has traditionally tried to act publicly like a ruthless organisation, but they are always trying to best protect their brand as priority number 1.

I don't think they should test for it at all.

Q. wrote:I don't think they should test for it at all.

For one moment consider how many occupations have random drug testing done by the employer. Do you believe none of them should be tested either?

Exactly. I don't think anyone should be tested.

Q. wrote:I don't think they should test for it at all.

I used to think that way too, but have changed my stance over the years

So rights to privacy > safety?

On my phone, so I'm being short, but in occupations where you're not responsible for the safety and well being of citizens, there's no need for drug testing.

yeah, that works only if you work for yourself and have no contact with anybody else

Wut, how is a footballer directly responsible for a citizens welfare during his job?

Q. wrote:On my phone, so I'm being short, but in occupations where you're not responsible for the safety and well being of citizens, there's no need for drug testing.

Interesting.

It's ridiculous that you can be hungover in any job, but you can be drug tested for things that you took more than 48 hours prior.

Q. wrote:It's ridiculous that you can be hungover in any job, but you can be drug tested for things that you took more than 48 hours prior.

Or you can nip outside 5 times a day for a cigarette and nobody bats an eyelid.

I disagree with your drug testing thoughts though.

Besides my ethical objection to it, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that drug testing generally has no effect on workplace productivity or safety and is a massive waste of resources.

I sooooo want to ask about the drug use of posters.