AFL Legend

[Xman]

So its not a three strike policy?

Ilicit drug use for AFL players comes under two policies, the Ilicit drug policy and WADA.

If a player is caught on match day with evidence of ilicit drug use they are banned under WADA policy like many other world wide sporting codes. My understanding is that this is a 2 year ban with no chances.

Almost every other world sport stops right there. No additional testing. No additional policy. Players are never tested out of season or in their own time for ilicit drug use. In fact WADA don't really care whether a player uses ilicit drugs when not competing. To prove this point Michael Phelps was actually caught on camera using ilicit drugs at a party and WADA effectively ignored it. Phelps was later given a ban by the swimming body due to public outcry.

The majority of world sports follow WADA but have NO POLICY on ilicit drug use outside competition. WADA policy is essentially concerned with player peformance and ensuring competition is fair for all players.

The AFL also follows WADA but have an additional ilicit drug policy which was developed by a comprehensive committe of medical experts in the field of drug abuse and rehabilitation. This policy is designed to care for the players well-being by identifying players who may be experimenting with ilicit drugs and make them known to a team of medical professionals. They are then counselled, and educated about the dangers of ilicit drug use, and undergo further and more frequent testing. Further breaches are then dealt with more harshly.

There is no doubt the AFL's drug policies are the most comprehensive in world sport and have produced fantastic results that are fully transparent.

[Raiderdave]

So its not a three strike policy?

it is
it appears he doesn't understand the limp wristed AFL policy..

[Raiderdave]

So its not a three strike policy?

Ilicit drug use for AFL players comes under two policies, the Ilicit drug policy and WADA.

If a player is caught on match day with evidence of ilicit drug use they are banned under WADA policy like many other world wide sporting codes. My understanding is that this is a 2 year ban with no chances.

Almost every other world sport stops right there. No additional testing. No additional policy. Players are never tested out of season or in their own time for ilicit drug use. In fact WADA don't really care whether a player uses ilicit drugs when not competing. To prove this point Michael Phelps was actually caught on camera using ilicit drugs at a party and WADA effectively ignored it. Phelps was later given a ban by the swimming body due to public outcry.

The majority of world sports follow WADA but have NO POLICY on ilicit drug use outside competition. WADA policy is essentially concerned with player peformance and ensuring competition is fair for all players.

The AFL also follows WADA but have an additional ilicit drug policy which was developed by a comprehensive committe of medical experts in the field of drug abuse and rehabilitation. This policy is designed to care for the players well-being by identifying players who may be experimenting with ilicit drugs and make them known to a team of medical professionals. They are then counselled, and educated about the dangers of ilicit drug use, and undergo further and more frequent testing. Further breaches are then dealt with more harshly.

There is no doubt the AFL's drug policies are the most comprehensive in world sport and have produced fantastic results that are fully transparent.

It should be ANY time they're caught ... not just game day
what a soft co.ck policy

[Topper]

Excellent sumation, Xman.

[Xman]

So its not a three strike policy?

Ilicit drug use for AFL players comes under two policies, the Ilicit drug policy and WADA.

If a player is caught on match day with evidence of ilicit drug use they are banned under WADA policy like many other world wide sporting codes. My understanding is that this is a 2 year ban with no chances.

Almost every other world sport stops right there. No additional testing. No additional policy. Players are never tested out of season or in their own time for ilicit drug use. In fact WADA don't really care whether a player uses ilicit drugs when not competing. To prove this point Michael Phelps was actually caught on camera using ilicit drugs at a party and WADA effectively ignored it. Phelps was later given a ban by the swimming body due to public outcry.

The majority of world sports follow WADA but have NO POLICY on ilicit drug use outside competition. WADA policy is essentially concerned with player peformance and ensuring competition is fair for all players.

The AFL also follows WADA but have an additional ilicit drug policy which was developed by a comprehensive committe of medical experts in the field of drug abuse and rehabilitation. This policy is designed to care for the players well-being by identifying players who may be experimenting with ilicit drugs and make them known to a team of medical professionals. They are then counselled, and educated about the dangers of ilicit drug use, and undergo further and more frequent testing. Further breaches are then dealt with more harshly.

There is no doubt the AFL's drug policies are the most comprehensive in world sport and have produced fantastic results that are fully transparent.

It should be ANY time they're caught ... not just game day
what a soft co.ck policy

According to who? You?

What are basing your policy on? You realize it is also against your own codes policy?

What qualifications do you have in this area Raider?

Again, most other world sports give their athletes infinite chances out of competition. Therefore the AFLs policy is more extensive and severe than policies used for the majority of sports world-wide.

[Xman]

So its not a three strike policy?

it is
it appears he doesn't understand the limp wristed AFL policy..

I understand it perfectly.

[Raiderdave]

Ilicit drug use for AFL players comes under two policies, the Ilicit drug policy and WADA.

If a player is caught on match day with evidence of ilicit drug use they are banned under WADA policy like many other world wide sporting codes. My understanding is that this is a 2 year ban with no chances.

Almost every other world sport stops right there. No additional testing. No additional policy. Players are never tested out of season or in their own time for ilicit drug use. In fact WADA don't really care whether a player uses ilicit drugs when not competing. To prove this point Michael Phelps was actually caught on camera using ilicit drugs at a party and WADA effectively ignored it. Phelps was later given a ban by the swimming body due to public outcry.

The majority of world sports follow WADA but have NO POLICY on ilicit drug use outside competition. WADA policy is essentially concerned with player peformance and ensuring competition is fair for all players.

The AFL also follows WADA but have an additional ilicit drug policy which was developed by a comprehensive committe of medical experts in the field of drug abuse and rehabilitation. This policy is designed to care for the players well-being by identifying players who may be experimenting with ilicit drugs and make them known to a team of medical professionals. They are then counselled, and educated about the dangers of ilicit drug use, and undergo further and more frequent testing. Further breaches are then dealt with more harshly.

There is no doubt the AFL's drug policies are the most comprehensive in world sport and have produced fantastic results that are fully transparent.

It should be ANY time they're caught ... not just game day
what a soft co.ck policy

According to who? You?

What are basing your policy on? You realize it is also against your own codes policy?

What qualifications do you have in this area Raider?

Again, most other world sports give their athletes infinite chances out of competition. Therefore the AFLs policy is more extensive and severe than policies used for the majority of sports world-wide.

please name the other sports organisations that give their competitors " infinite " chances to use illegal substances out of competition with no consequences

& don't lecture me about the NRL's .. praised as the best in this nation
any druggo scum caught in our game is banned automatically ... unlike the near accepting of drug use AFL

for shame .. for shame

[Xman]

It should be ANY time they're caught ... not just game day
what a soft co.ck policy

According to who? You?

What are basing your policy on? You realize it is also against your own codes policy?

What qualifications do you have in this area Raider?

Again, most other world sports give their athletes infinite chances out of competition. Therefore the AFLs policy is more extensive and severe than policies used for the majority of sports world-wide.

please name the other sports organisations that give their competitors " infinite " chances to use illegal substances out of competition with no consequences

& don't lecture me about the NRL's .. praised as the best in this nation
any druggo scum caught in our game is banned automatically ... unlike the near accepting of drug use AFL

for shame .. for shame

Every sport who uses WADA only, which is the vast majority of world sports, do not do out of season or between game testing for ilicit drug use. FACT. Therefore they give their players infinite chances to use ilicit drugs in these times.

The NRL policy is a 2 strike policy. Results are not released to the public which has come under criticism. They have also been criticised for leaving the testing to the clubs themselves, which on one occasion was shown to be a farce because the club was not even testing their players according to the policy. No wonder they don't release the results! Shame shame!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sp ... 5811536274

The AFL's policy is based on total transparency with results released to the public for scrutiny every year. These results show the policy has been a resounding success. In fact the AIS have recently chosen to adopt the AFL's 3 strike model.

http://www.backpagelead.com.au/olympics ... kes-policy

For those critics who have condemned the AFL's IDP as going soft on drugs, it might come as some surprise that the Australian Sports Commission has only just followed suit, introducing their own Illicit Drugs in Sport Policy (the ASC IDiS Policy) effective 1 October this year.

As Australian Institute of Sport athletes, we were emailed details of the policy last week, and will undergo education sessions in the coming months, followed by inclusion in testing pools after that. Until now, our drug testing has been wholly governed by the WADA code where illicit drugs are only tested for in-competition.

By testing AFL players for illicit drugs out of competition, the AFL was actually going above and beyond their obligations under the WADA Code. The nature of the sanctions for those illicit drugs breaches - or the three-strike rule - should be understood in the context of the actual comprehensiveness of AFL's testing regime.

In fact, the AFL can take some form of comfort that their policy is now something of an industry blueprint. The purpose and principles guiding the ASC IDiS are largely identical to those of the AFL IDP. The focus is on education, the ASC IDiS preamble outlining that "[t]he use of illicit drugs is harmful to Athletes. The ASC seeks to educate Athletes to deter the use of illicit drugs. Further, the use of illicit drugs by Athletes can bring the ASC and sport into disrepute and sets a poor example for other members of the community who view Athletes as role models."

Lastly, the AFL policy was developed by experts based on current clinical research.

What is your opinion based on?

[Raiderdave]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sp ... 5868411656

a great read this story from an AFL jurno
sums it up nicely

the egomaniacal AFL is out to protect its image .. with no regard for its players
who'd know how many AFL players are on 1 & 2 strikes already .... but as long as none make the press .. thats all the AFL cares about
it is disgusting.
for shame .. for shame



THE AFL seems hooked on illicit drugs. Or at least bad news about them. Recovering addict Ben Cousins tells all, Mathew Stokes returns to the Geelong side after a court appearance over drug possession and Fremantle's Michael Johnson has been stood down by his club indefinitely.

In the middle of all this is the AFL's own illicit drug policy and the results of its testing over the past 12 months. If you are sympathetic to the controversial three-strike policy then the results are good. The percentage of players testing positive continues to fall.

If you want to take a whack at the AFL then the fact that 12 players returned a positive - and two of them twice is a significant indicator that the millions spent on player education are hardly producing value for money.

The AFL has not punished any player for drug use who has been caught in its unique system. Cousins, Stokes and Johnson have been humiliated in the media because of police intervention.

The AFL heavies speak glowingly about their policy. It was a world first, it is founded on the best advice and it is thought to be quite wonderful by other sports, both locally and internationally. But the praise mostly stops there and the policy draws scorn from those outside AFL House. Not everybody is critical, but there are enough who are for the policy to have become more burden than breakthrough.

From the outside it would appear the police are doing more to stop drug use in the AFL than the league itself. At least the police are seen to be doing something where the AFL actually conceals players it knows use drugs.

The fact that footballers using marijuana has dropped significantly does not necessarily mean fewer players are using drugs but maybe have turned to ones that clear the system more quickly than a joint. There is more evidence that illicit drugs are a problem in the AFL than not.

The Victorian Government is uncomfortable with the AFL policy. Victorian Police Minister Bob Cameron wants players breaking the law held to account. "This is ultimately going to be a matter for the AFL, but where people are involved in crime it's important that they're dealt with," Cameron said yesterday.

AFL boss Andrew Demetriou saw a more positive side to Johnson's woes. Demetriou said rather than harming the league's image, Johnson's case just strengthened its existing knowledge and resolve.

"It just again reaffirms, you heard last week our results, we had 14 positives," Demetriou said yesterday. "I think you also heard last week that cocaine seemed to be a drug that was on the up in numbers, so it confirms what we know. "We know that there are players out there who for whatever reason aren't getting the message or have got another issue."

While Demetriou's administration is committed to its three-strike protocols, its unhealthy weakness is that the policy invites experimentation among footballers because they are exposed only when they have returned a third positive test. This is balanced by the AFL reporting that it has saved players from addiction because those who return positive tests are counselled by experts.

But the AFL's commitment to helping guide players away from drugs is conditional.

The AFL encourages clubs to take some stern action with players who are publicly caught on drug issues. It all but hurls them aside. This appears to be an outrageous double standard when compared to its three-strike policy. The illicit drug code reads in part: "The AFL has been advised and accepts that a more rehabilitative model of management including education, counselling and monitoring treatment is appropriate in deterring the use of illicit drugs.

"For habitual offenders, however, the AFL proposes to protect the vast majority of its playing group and others in the community who are influenced and affected by the behaviour of players by administering strict and severe sanctions."

The AFL has said it has the best advice from people working in drug rehabilitation that naming a player for a drug breach makes it far more difficult to rehabilitate, so players who test positive with the AFL are not named.

Yet players who are found out by people other than AFL testers are thrown aside. For Stokes it was two months, for Johnson it is indefinitely. You are protected by the AFL provided you have not embarrassed them. Just when the drug experts say a player is at his most vulnerable they are shunned by the league.

If nurturing, protecting, embracing, counselling and education are considered the best way to ensure players do not fall into drug use, why is the consideration not given to a player caught by police? Stokes was banned for having one gram of cocaine in his possession. The AFL openly admits it has 10 players who have twice tested positive to ingesting illegal drugs. The unfairness is manifest. Not only is Johnson put on a strike, he is also stood down by the club. At every level.

The Stokes and Johnson cases lead to the inevitable conclusion that the drug policy has been put in place by the AFL to protect the image of the league and to hell with the players.

Increase Text Size Decrease Text Size Print Email Share
Add to Digg Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Kwoff Add to Myspace Add to Newsvine What are these?

[NSWAFL]

You show us which sports organisations have policies for out of season substance use and abuse, Dave!

[Raiderdave]

According to who? You?

What are basing your policy on? You realize it is also against your own codes policy?

What qualifications do you have in this area Raider?

Again, most other world sports give their athletes infinite chances out of competition. Therefore the AFLs policy is more extensive and severe than policies used for the majority of sports world-wide.

please name the other sports organisations that give their competitors " infinite " chances to use illegal substances out of competition with no consequences

& don't lecture me about the NRL's .. praised as the best in this nation
any druggo scum caught in our game is banned automatically ... unlike the near accepting of drug use AFL

for shame .. for shame

Every sport who uses WADA only, which is the vast majority of world sports, do not do out of season or between game testing for ilicit drug use. FACT. Therefore they give their players infinite chances to use ilicit drugs in these times.

The NRL policy is a 2 strike policy. Results are not released to the public which has come under criticism. They have also been criticised for leaving the testing to the clubs themselves, which on one occasion was shown to be a farce because the club was not even testing their players according to the policy. No wonder they don't release the results! Shame shame!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sp ... 5811536274

The AFL's policy is based on total transparency with results released to the public for scrutiny every year. These results show the policy has been a resounding success. In fact the AIS have recently chosen to adopt the AFL's 3 strike model.

http://www.backpagelead.com.au/olympics ... kes-policy

For those critics who have condemned the AFL's IDP as going soft on drugs, it might come as some surprise that the Australian Sports Commission has only just followed suit, introducing their own Illicit Drugs in Sport Policy (the ASC IDiS Policy) effective 1 October this year.

As Australian Institute of Sport athletes, we were emailed details of the policy last week, and will undergo education sessions in the coming months, followed by inclusion in testing pools after that. Until now, our drug testing has been wholly governed by the WADA code where illicit drugs are only tested for in-competition.

By testing AFL players for illicit drugs out of competition, the AFL was actually going above and beyond their obligations under the WADA Code. The nature of the sanctions for those illicit drugs breaches - or the three-strike rule - should be understood in the context of the actual comprehensiveness of AFL's testing regime.

In fact, the AFL can take some form of comfort that their policy is now something of an industry blueprint. The purpose and principles guiding the ASC IDiS are largely identical to those of the AFL IDP. The focus is on education, the ASC IDiS preamble outlining that "[t]he use of illicit drugs is harmful to Athletes. The ASC seeks to educate Athletes to deter the use of illicit drugs. Further, the use of illicit drugs by Athletes can bring the ASC and sport into disrepute and sets a poor example for other members of the community who view Athletes as role models."

Lastly, the AFL policy was developed by experts based on current clinical research.

What is your opinion based on?

the AFL told the " experts " it didn't want drug cases in the media
& so how do we have a policy that hides the abuse

the experts said you can't if you want to rehabilitate the offenders
the AFL said

F them
we want to protect our brand
find a way ... or you won't get paid

read the story above
what i said here ... is this in a nutshell.

for shame .. for shame

[Raiderdave]

You show us which sports organisations have policies for out of season substance use and abuse, Dave!

I asked for a list of sports that don't have a policy ... first
lets get that up shall we

[King-Eliagh]

Yes I still cant believe the "on game day" policy. Unbelievable really, makes little sense. Surely our biased AFL supporters agree this is strange?

[Xman]

That story is written by a columnist who makes money from creating controversy, not a medical expert. Enough said.

The list is endless. Name a sport that doesnt follow WAD only...........

Why have the AIS adopted the policy?

The thing people like you do not understand is that this Ilicit drug policy tests players in there own time like never before. It has been criticised as being an invasion of privacy. It is not designed to name and shame players but to be so thorough it finds players who are experimenting with drugs and changes their behaviour through education and counselling.

The punitive 'name and shame' policy previously used was acknowledged as inadequate by the team of experts who developed the policy. Education and support is the way to go.

[Raiderdave]

That story is written by a columnist who makes money from creating controversy, not a medical expert. Enough said.

The list is endless. Name a sport that doesnt follow WAD only...........

Why have the AIS adopted the policy?

The thing people like you do not understand is that this Ilicit drug policy tests players in there own time like never before. It has been criticised as being an invasion of privacy. It is not designed to name and shame players but to be so thorough it finds players who are experimenting with drugs and changes their behaviour through education and counselling.

The punitive 'name and shame' policy previously used was acknowledged as inadequate by the team of experts who developed the policy. Education and support is the way to go.

I don't care who wrote it
he is spot on .. the AFL's policy is a joke.... end of story.