Talking Footy

AS A united force, AFL club doctors have hit back at critics of football's illicit drugs policy in light of Travis Tuck's three strikes and implored the league not to change the contentious code in any way.

Hawthorn's club doctor Peter Baquie was among the supporters of a letter sent to the AFL last week, which is significant given the impassioned criticism of the illicit drugs code voiced by the Hawks' president, chief executive and coach following Tuck's third strike.

In a two-page statement, Dr Hugh Seward, the executive officer of the AFL Medical Officers Association that comprises all club doctors, has outlined in the strongest terms why doctors - rather than coaches or other club bosses - should know about a player recording a first or second drug strike.

The Western Australia branch of the Australian Medical Association has also supported the AFL's illicit drugs policy since Tuck became the first player to register three strikes and receive an extended playing ban. "Criticism of the AFL's three strikes policy has largely been self-serving, putting the interest of football clubs, coaches and administrators front and centre," said AMA (WA) president associate professor David Mountain.

LEADING specialists in addiction medicine have expressed their concern at reports suggesting a conflict between the Federal Government's policy on illicit drug use and that of the AFL.
The specialists said many media reports were founded on a misunderstanding of the AFL’s policy.
Professor Jon Currie, Director of Addiction Medicine at St Vincent's Hospital and his two colleagues, Dr Yvonne Bonomo and Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones made the following statement:
WE ARE concerned that recent media reports emphasising an apparent disagreement between the Federal Government's policy on illicit drug use and that of the AFL, arise more from a misunderstanding of the AFL's policy than from any real differences in approach to illicit drug use. Unfortunately, this deflects attention from the common goals that are strongly held by both parties.
Much emphasis in the media has centred on the concept of "three strikes" for drug testing, with the clear implication that drug use by players is tolerated, and no action or intervention is taken by the AFL until a third offence takes place. This is highlighted by the comments attributed to Peter Costello in the Herald Sun (page 1, May 22), including that the AFL drugs code, under which offenders are not named or sanctioned until their third offence, was not tough enough, and that the AFL code actually allows people to be caught using drugs like cocaine or other illicit drugs without any consequences.
This is not the AFL's policy.

Xman wrote:

http://www.theage.com.au/AFL/AFL-news/c ... 15awg.html

Club doctors implore AFL to keep illicit drugs policy just as it is

AS A united force, AFL club doctors have hit back at critics of football's illicit drugs policy in light of Travis Tuck's three strikes and implored the league not to change the contentious code in any way.

Hawthorn's club doctor Peter Baquie was among the supporters of a letter sent to the AFL last week, which is significant given the impassioned criticism of the illicit drugs code voiced by the Hawks' president, chief executive and coach following Tuck's third strike.

In a two-page statement, Dr Hugh Seward, the executive officer of the AFL Medical Officers Association that comprises all club doctors, has outlined in the strongest terms why doctors - rather than coaches or other club bosses - should know about a player recording a first or second drug strike.

The Western Australia branch of the Australian Medical Association has also supported the AFL's illicit drugs policy since Tuck became the first player to register three strikes and receive an extended playing ban. "Criticism of the AFL's three strikes policy has largely been self-serving, putting the interest of football clubs, coaches and administrators front and centre," said AMA (WA) president associate professor David Mountain.

Please can someon tell me what agenda these medico's are pushing? Are they not impartial? Why are they so supportive of the policy when doing so does not directly benefit them? It benefits their patients by keeping the policy.

Beaussie wrote:

Xman wrote:

http://www.theage.com.au/AFL/AFL-news/c ... 15awg.html

Club doctors implore AFL to keep illicit drugs policy just as it is

AS A united force, AFL club doctors have hit back at critics of football's illicit drugs policy in light of Travis Tuck's three strikes and implored the league not to change the contentious code in any way.

Hawthorn's club doctor Peter Baquie was among the supporters of a letter sent to the AFL last week, which is significant given the impassioned criticism of the illicit drugs code voiced by the Hawks' president, chief executive and coach following Tuck's third strike.

In a two-page statement, Dr Hugh Seward, the executive officer of the AFL Medical Officers Association that comprises all club doctors, has outlined in the strongest terms why doctors - rather than coaches or other club bosses - should know about a player recording a first or second drug strike.

The Western Australia branch of the Australian Medical Association has also supported the AFL's illicit drugs policy since Tuck became the first player to register three strikes and receive an extended playing ban. "Criticism of the AFL's three strikes policy has largely been self-serving, putting the interest of football clubs, coaches and administrators front and centre," said AMA (WA) president associate professor David Mountain.

Please can someon tell me what agenda these medico's are pushing? Are they not impartial? Why are they so supportive of the policy when doing so does not directly benefit them? It benefits their patients by keeping the policy.

Thanks for explaining the policy in this thread. Been a very interesting and informative read. I cannot understand how anyone could criticise the AFL policy once the facts and details as you have outlined here have been put out there. =D> =D> =D>

The AFL has since signed the WADA code

Raiderdave wrote:

Beaussie wrote:

Xman wrote:

http://www.theage.com.au/AFL/AFL-news/c ... 15awg.html

Club doctors implore AFL to keep illicit drugs policy just as it is
Please can someon tell me what agenda these medico's are pushing? Are they not impartial? Why are they so supportive of the policy when doing so does not directly benefit them? It benefits their patients by keeping the policy.

Thanks for explaining the policy in this thread. Been a very interesting and informative read. I cannot understand how anyone could criticise the AFL policy once the facts and details as you have outlined here have been put out there. =D> =D> =D>

probably because its ****

just ask the govt

Government gets tough on AFL over secrecy surrounding drug-testing policyEmailPrintNormal fontLarge fontSeptember 8, 2006

Advertisement


http://www.smh.com.au/news/AFL/governme ... 64974.html

This comes after the Herald was prevented from publishing the names of three players, who have twice returned positive drug tests, following a late-night injunction taken out by the AFL and the AFL Players' Association. The Victorian Supreme Court has ordered the names must remain confidential.

But the Federal Minister for Sport, Rod Kemp, told parliament late on Wednesday night that the sanctions and reporting arrangements of the AFL's illicit drug policy were "out of touch with community expectations". He said the government had "zero tolerance of doping in sport".

Relations between the AFL and the Federal Government became fractured after the league was reluctant to embrace the mandatory World Anti-Doping Agency testing regime. The AFL has since signed the WADA code but the lack of transparency in its in-house illicit drug code has raised the ire of both political parties.

"They are not seen to be rigorous enough," Senator Kemp said in response to questioning from Opposition sports spokesperson Kate Lundy. "I think sporting clubs want to know the names of the players, and I have called on the AFL to have another look at their code - which is in addition to the WADA code - and look more closely at how the sanctions are applied and how the reporting arrangements are applied."

Senator Lundy claimed the AFL was undermining the government's zero tolerance approach to drugs in sport.

Senator Kemp said the AFL had to show leadership on this issue. "In my view, with the additional testing that they do, the AFL can now take a real lead, look more closely at their sanctions and have some tougher sanctions and a more open and transparent reporting process," he said.

The secret nature of the illicit drug code - which involves keeping the names of positive drug users a closely guarded secret until the third offence - has been criticised by International Olympic Committee member Kevan Gosper.

However, the National Rugby League is looking at introducing a similar policy, providing a uniform out-of-competition testing regime across all clubs.

Raiderdave wrote:

The AFL has since signed the WADA code

is that WADA code ..... or W@NKA .. code ?

AFL ... soft on drugs

NSWAFL wrote:

I think it's about time Dave was called on this, and told to either provide opposing MEDICAL evidence or shut up on this subject.

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

The AFL has since signed the WADA code

is that WADA code ..... or W@NKA .. code ?

AFL ... soft on drugs

So far you've proven nothing that confirms your opinion.

The AFL follow WADA. They were apprehensive at first because they believe their policy is better, and so do I. Now they run both, making the AFLs drug policy one of the best and most comprehensive world wide.

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

is that WADA code ..... or W@NKA .. code ?

AFL ... soft on drugs

So far you've proven nothing that confirms your opinion.

The AFL follow WADA. They were apprehensive at first because they believe their policy is better, and so do I. Now they run both, making the AFLs drug policy one of the best and most comprehensive world wide.

ah no
it is the softest .. most ineffective policy in the world

WADA are a disgrace .... so are the AFL

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

is that WADA code ..... or W@NKA .. code ?

AFL ... soft on drugs

So far you've proven nothing that confirms your opinion.

The AFL follow WADA. They were apprehensive at first because they believe their policy is better, and so do I. Now they run both, making the AFLs drug policy one of the best and most comprehensive world wide.

ah no
it is the softest .. most ineffective policy in the world

WADA are a disgrace .... so are the AFL

Intentcity wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

So far you've proven nothing that confirms your opinion.

The AFL follow WADA. They were apprehensive at first because they believe their policy is better, and so do I. Now they run both, making the AFLs drug policy one of the best and most comprehensive world wide.

ah no
it is the softest .. most ineffective policy in the world

WADA are a disgrace .... so are the AFL

so what's the answer then?, a zero strike policy perhaps?

Let's face it, the AFL doesn't have anymore of a drug problem then any other code, we have a hell of a lot more listed players than the NRL, IMO a 2 strike policy would be better, I can condone a player getting on it once but not twice but in saying that I don't think it's a bad policy.