Demetriou explains the AFL's Illicit Drug Policy

[Brewer]

From http://www.afl.com.au/Default.aspx?tabi ... wsId=50093

A copy of an article in Thursday's Age by AFL Chief Executive Andrew Demetriou explaining the AFL's illicit drug policy.

THE AFL does not, never has and never will condone illicit drug use. I wanted to say that straight out because people who have watched, listened to or read some of the commentary over the past week could be excused for thinking the AFL doesn't take the issue of illicit drug use seriously.

We take it so seriously that the AFL established an illicit drug policy in 2005 and today we remain one of only two sports in the country that tests its players out of competition.

To put that in perspective, some 88 other sports don't have an out-of-competition illicit drug testing regime. The AFL does. Our message is very clear - the AFL abhors illicit drug use and we want to do what we can to tackle an issue that causes enormous grief right across the community.

Illicit drug use is a massive issue across society and AFL footballers are part of society and subject to the same temptations as other people their own age. But they are tested for illicit drugs on match days (in competition) by ASADA under the World Anti-Doping Authority regime and if found positive they receive a two-year ban.

No AFL player has ever tested positive for illicit drugs on match day. But we do know that some AFL footballers use such drugs at other times because we test them out of competition and then release the statistical results.

In February this year, after the testing regime had run for two years, we announced the results again and told the media and the public that we have recorded 28 positive tests over two years. Three players had tested positive twice.

One positive test is one too many, but if there is good news it is that every player that has tested positive has been referred to the appropriate counselling and treatment to help them actually deal with the issue and change their behaviour. We don't want them to hide their problem. We want them to deal with it and to receive the support they need.

It's important to remember that Justice Murray Kellam in the Supreme Court last year accepted the argument that a policy that provided treatment for players to overcome illicit drug use out of competition was more important than the need for the public to know the names of those players.

It's also important to remember that this policy, which has been attacked by so many commentators but praised by so many drug prevention experts, is one that the players volunteered to take part in. They wanted to ensure that their teammates received treatment if they had made the wrong choices. They supported the system because it educates and prevents illicit drug use but also - where such drug use occurs - it takes immediate action to ensure that those players are referred to counselling and treatment.

The AFL could have pretended there wasn't a problem and left it alone, but that's not leadership. We became aware some players were using illicit drugs out of competition and we have tackled it. The result is that there are a number of players who have had a significant intervention in their life that has resulted in them seeking and receiving treatment.

We know there are differing views on our system. It is a complex area with no simple solutions but our policy was developed to tackle a real problem in the way that the experts in this field said was the most effective in changing behaviour.

Yesterday Victoria's Chief Commissioner of Police, Christine Nixon, supported the AFL system and its focus of seeking to refer players into treatment. As the Chief Commissioner pointed out, if police pick up someone who uses illicit drugs, the most likely outcome is that they are referred to treatment and counselling - just like AFL players.

Police too recognise that counselling and treatment is more effective in changing behaviour than the simplistic response of naming and shaming.

We do not and will not support a name-and-shame policy ahead of treatment and dealing with the problem.

The events of the past week show exactly why identifying players with problems doesn't work - there are some in the media who would put a story ahead of the welfare of patients, who are in treatment for a serious illness.

Today this issue will be back in court and the AFL will continue to support any action that keeps doctor-patient medical records private, as they should be.

The real issue over the past week was - and remains - the way that a patient's private medical records with a doctor were taken from a doctor's office, sold and then published.

Certainly the scramble to try and reveal details has shown little respect for the two players who are undergoing treatment and counselling.
We thank the Victoria Police for their work in charging two people with theft in relation to those documents.

The question for the AFL this week has been: Are you doing anything to combat illicit drugs? The answer is yes, and we will continue to do so.

AFL players recognise they are role models and I thank them for their support of their system and the way they continue to be held to high - sometimes impossibly high - standards that means they can never make a mistake.

The question for some in the media is whether they think their actions over the past week would meet that same high standard.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

I'm angry at channel 7 for putting me in the position of agreeing with Demitriou.

[Cityboy]

I'm angry at channel 7 for putting me in the position of agreeing with Demitriou.

I too am Boycotting talking to Channel 7 for the same reason!

DAMN THEM TO HELL!
________
MERCEDES-BENZ E-CLASS SPECIFICATIONS

[Sainterman]

This tackles the name-and-shame aspect, which is an area i agree with...but why these players continue playing AFL when they have such a problem...and why the clubs these players play for are not advised until it is too late, are issues that need more attention IMO.

[GrumpyOne]

The real issue over the past week was - and remains - the way that a patient's private medical records with a doctor were taken from a doctor's office, sold and then published.

Has this been confirmed from any other source? Up till now the "documents in the gutter" story was still running.

[Mr Magic]

The real issue over the past week was - and remains - the way that a patient's private medical records with a doctor were taken from a doctor's office, sold and then published.

Has this been confirmed from any other source? Up till now the "documents in the gutter" story was still running.

As far as I know, the two peole chrged over this have been charged with 'theft by finding' which would make you believe that either they did find them or that the police don't have enough evidence to prove that they stole them from the office.

Surely now that Chairman Vlad has pronounced that they were 'taken from a doctor's office' then the charges will be upgraded!

I'm not a lawyer but I would have thought that making the statement that he has in this article, Chairman Vlad has maybe jeopardized the upcoming trial of the 2 charged? Hasn't he publicly stated that they have taken the files from the doctor's office, therefore pronouncing guilt and prejudicing any potential jurors?

Maybe this the way to get rid of him?
Let's start a campaign demanding his resignation.

[Go Sretnias Go]

It is all very well for Demetriou to take and publish his purported high level ground of support in protecting players involved in the illicit drug issue.
The AFL drug policy, I must say, does allow "users" to participate in drug use, both ellicit AND performance enhancing drugs, with little fear that they will be exposed. The chance of being detected under the programme is at about 60% in a year and if that happens, the player can have a second shot at proberbly an 80% risk factor before his playing career is in jeopardy. It is the system therefore, that is condoning drug usage, not drug abuse.
There has been little publicity about the supply of both illicit and performance enhancing drugs to the football industry - that is something I am very curious about and would love to know who the providers might be. Are the known drug barons involved, one who is now in jail and one who is currently is in Greece?

[plugger66]

It is all very well for Demetriou to take and publish his purported high level ground of support in protecting players involved in the illicit drug issue.
The AFL drug policy, I must say, does allow "users" to participate in drug use, both ellicit AND performance enhancing drugs, with little fear that they will be exposed. The chance of being detected under the programme is at about 60% in a year and if that happens, the player can have a second shot at proberbly an 80% risk factor before his playing career is in jeopardy. It is the system therefore, that is condoning drug usage, not drug abuse.
There has been little publicity about the supply of both illicit and performance enhancing drugs to the football industry - that is something I am very curious about and would love to know who the providers might be. Are the known drug barons involved, one who is now in jail and one who is currently is in Greece?

They get 2 years as soon as they are caught with performance enhacing drugs. One person in 15 years has been caught. There is no second chance.

[Go Sretnias Go]

Plugger, some ellicit drugs are said to be performance enhancing - if you know more, please tell me. ALSO, how would you stop supply?

[plugger66]

Plugger, some ellicit drugs are said to be performance enhancing - if you know more, please tell me. ALSO, how would you stop supply?

If they have recreational drugs on match day they get 2 years as well. I doubt a recreational drug on a Saturday night helps your performance the next week. How would I stop Supply? What has that got to do with being a football problem. It is a society problem.

[Go Sretnias Go]

Plugger, if there is no supply, there is NO PROBLEM.
The AFL should support the exposing of suppliers at a greater level than the user level. And also, isn't EPO an ellicit drug that enhances performance?

[plugger66]

Plugger, if there is no supply, there is NO PROBLEM.
The AFL should support the exposing of suppliers at a greater level than the user level. And also, isn't EPO an ellicit drug that enhances performance?

How on earth would the AFL know who supplies. They wouldnt have any rights to ask the players and neither they should have. EPO is a performance enhancing grug on the WADA list.

[mischa]

Couldn't give a stuff about Demetrispew's garbage. I agree with Mick Malthouse that illicit drugs are performance enhancing-no wonder the club in question is doing so well! It's an unfair advantage.

[plugger66]

Couldn't give a stuff about Demetrispew's garbage. I agree with Mick Malthouse that illicit drugs are performance enhancing-no wonder the club in question is doing so well! It's an unfair advantage.

Well I would rather play a side withh 22 players on drugs than 22 not on drugs. I have seen guys using drugs and they would struggle to kick the footy. They mightnt be scared but coordination is out the door. Having said that no player has ever been caught using on match day.

[Go Sainters Go]

Plugger, are you for real

[plugger66]

Plugger, are you for real

What I meant by that is we would win easier playing guys on drugs than not on drugs. We would win by more. I dont want any players taking drugs I was just saying it doesnt help IMO thats all.