And the gold for back-flipping goes to ... AFL hierarchy.
INFORMED allegations that AFL clubs have thrown matches. Not helpful. Young and promising footballer found in the gutter unconscious and in possession of an illegal drug. Probably didn't need that. Port Adelaide sacks second coach in four years while feeding on a $9 million AFL subsidy. Not happy. Dane Swan on the grog and suspended. Mmmmm. Thinking setback.
By any code's standards, this has been a disruptive two weeks for the AFL. We could get comment from AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou or commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick but they're in London, the heartland of the indigenous code. Every one of the incidents mentioned above has serious ramifications for the AFL. Tanking cuts directly to the game's integrity; Tom Liberatore's collapse into the gutter outside a Melbourne nightclub challenges the league's adored illegal drug policy; Collingwood champion Swan's alcohol breach exposes the very fluid, flawed culture of the game; and the utter waste of AFL money by Port Adelaide questions the future of the competition structure.
Major issues, all of them. Normally the AFL would be fighting these problems on radio, social media, internet, television and print. But it isn't. Thank God for the Olympics is the league's new motto. The latest and biggest name is Swan, a Brownlow medallist and key to Collingwood premiership hopes, but even his stupidity will be nothing but a shandy if Sally Pearson wins gold in London overnight.
We'll just take one issue. Liberatore, son of gun Bulldogs player Tony, has been suspended for four matches by the club, banned from attending training, fined $5000, and assigned to more counselling than Britney Spears.
The punishment was reached by the club administration in conjunction with the team's leadership group. It is tough but the offence deserved such a serious response. The Bulldogs have formed an almost impeccable reputation lately for the manner in which their players represent the club, its supporters, sponsors and patrons.
But it gets confusing after that. Not for the Bulldogs but the AFL. On Monday afternoon, the league issued a press release which quoted AFL football manager Adrian Anderson: "The club has kept the AFL informed and we are satisfied with the way it has dealt with the matter."
This response by Anderson is in outrageous contrast to the league's own policy which does not ban players but hides drug offenders from public scrutiny. In documents outlining the league's illicit-drug policy and the reason why players are not named even after two positive tests, the AFL includes support from Margaret Hamilton, executive member of the National Council on Drugs.
Part of the professor's testimony is this: "I am aware that the media and community regularly call for tough, confrontational naming and shaming-type responses. In my experience, these are most unhelpful in actually achieving behavioural change."
The AFL documents also carries an open letter signed by 21 drug prevention experts. It reads in part: "We commend and support the AFL and the AFL Players Association for taking a reasoned, sensible and strong leadership stance in relation to these issues, and for resisting the pressures from populist quarters to use such issues for partisan ends. Such populist approaches ignore the mass of evidence that humane harm minimisation and treatment approaches to issues of illicit-drug use are far more effective at diminishing drug-related harm to the individual and the community than are punitive 'name and shame' approaches."
Now, the AFL has taken all this advice very seriously. So seriously that it has been prepared to go to court to suppress the names of players who have tested positive under the league scheme. No doubt it will do this every time a news outlet prepares to name players within the league's rehabilitation program.
Of course, this is at odds with the Western Bulldogs' punishment allotted to Liberatore. You might suggest that Liberatore is being suspended or shamed not because of his drug violation but because of a breach of player rules about curfews and alcohol.
And that might be the case. However, the AFL's treasured letter, signed by the drug prevention boffins, also says: "We further believe that the prime objective of any 'drugs in sport' policy must be the health and welfare of the player concerned. Where this conflicts with another objective of the club concerned, the AFL or the government, the player's welfare must be paramount."
And there's John Currie, the director of addiction medicine at St Vincent's Hospital. The AFL policy proudly quotes him saying: "The most important thing is drug problems are health problems; they're not criminal problems, they're not moral problems and one of the reasons I am so supportive of the AFL's illicit-drug policy is it treats it as a health issue and not as a moral problem or as a criminal problem."
So it is obvious the Bulldogs' punishment of Liberatore defies the AFL illicit-drug policy. The bit about putting the player's health above all else. Keeping offending players within the support structure and certainty of life at a football club. Yet Anderson, the league's architect of the drug regime, supports the very public whack given to Liberatore. A decision that shatters the philosophy and strategy of the illicit policy gets a tick from the league. Madness. Or is it brand management?
The AFL would know if it intervened and made void the four-week ban, the angry shouting from the public would cut through even the saturation Olympic coverage. So it abandons its own policy. And the efficacy of the policy as a deterrent and teacher would appear limp when we look at Liberatore and his gutter slumber.
Gold, gold, gold to the AFL for the fine art of back-flipping.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/o ... 6445133598
Well done AFL HQ..
