government about to get tough on afl over drugs.....

[stinger]

Sports drugs ultimatum

Carmel Egan
October 7, 2007


THE Federal Government plans to shame the AFL into abandoning its controversial three-strikes-you're-out drugs policy, and has accused the league of undermining its tough anti-drugs campaign.

Federal Sports Minister George Brandis yesterday warned that community expectations and peer group pressure would see the AFL embrace the Government's new drugs policy and impose immediate sanctions on players caught using illegal drugs.

The Government's $21 million program will fund 6000 out-of-competition drug tests a year, impose suspended fines or bans on first-time offenders, and name-and-shame the guilty for a second breach.

Those found guilty for a third time of using illegal drugs face lifetime bans.

It would be untenable for any major Australian sporting organisation not to embrace the new policy, or to promote a weaker standard as acceptable, Senator Brandis said.

"There will be remorseless pressure on any national sporting organisation which stands apart from the consensus," he said.

Leading cycling, swimming, cricket, rugby and soccer organisations are all considering the new regime, but Cricket Australia yesterday ruled out life bans for players who produce three positive tests, despite endorsing the broad principles of the new policy.

With cricket to unveil its illicit drugs code in the next fortnight, chief executive James Sutherland said its priority was to balance rehabilitation and deterrence — but there would be no life bans.

Cricketers are expected to face counselling after one positive test, and punishment after a second.

But the main thrust of the Government move was against the AFL's "three strikes" code.

"Recent evidence of drug use by high-profile players is unequivocal evidence the current system is not working, and we need to reform it," Senator Brandis said.

"The community has a right to expect these young men and women will obey the law. Those who continue to break the law and abuse their position as role models are now on notice. Illicit drug use in sport — in or out of competition — will not be tolerated.

"If you want to be an elite athlete, you can't do drugs."

The federal minister responsible for illicit drugs, Christopher Pyne, used the launch to hammer the AFL's three-strikes policy for what he said was sending the wrong message to young Australians.

"Three strikes and you may be out is not good enough," he said. "In May, when there were a number of high-profile cases involving AFL players, the AFL described their policy as a 'zero tolerance'.

"We felt that undermined the Government's approach. I would be very surprised if the AFL, which has announced a review of its drug policy, doesn't recognise this as a substantially better model."

But AFL spokesman Colin McLeod said the league would not respond to the ministers' comments until it received a briefing on the new policy.

"We can only respond to those comments when we understand the information they have been provided with by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority," he said.

The recent death of former West Coast Eagle Chris Mainwaring and the tearful drug-cheat confession of triple-gold Sydney Olympian Marion Jones highlighted the need for tough action against drugs in sport, Mr Pyne said.

But West Coast Eagles president Dalton Gooding disputed the claim, saying he failed to see any connection between Mainwaring's death from a suspected drug overdose last week and the issue of drugs in sport.

"Even though Chris Mainwaring's death has been a tragedy, I fail to see how you can draw a parallel," Mr Gooding said.

Testing under the new regime is expected to begin in July next year, but an amnesty from penalties will apply until January 2009 for intervention programs offering counselling and education. Government funding will target sports with the highest impact on the community, and the highest-profile players.

with CHLOE SALTAU

[Armoooo]

Still too lenient.
IMO it should be like this....
Recreational Drugs:
1st Strike : Named & Shamed + 11 match suspension
2nd Strike: 1 year suspension and heavy fine
3rd Strike: Removed from the record books completely and banned from playing AFL ever again.
However I believe that players should only be tested during the season and 4 weeks before the NAB cup starts.
Performance Enhancing Drugs:
1st Strike: 2 Year ban, every time your name appears in the record books there should be an * next your achievements.
2nd Strike: Removed from the record books completely and banned from playing AFL ever again.

[luckysaint]

I like the idea of the players getting counselling about drugs if they have a problem. We are obsessed with tall poppy syndrome. If the governement try and do this then i would fully back the players decision to pull out of the arrangement.

[matty]

i rekon this teachs the players and aflpa a lesson, if you play with the big boys of our world expect the worst, so now the organisation that is supposed to protect player interests has undermined them and the sport as well as the children (sic).

i say what about an individuals right to live as a free man. this doenst not interfere with there work so why should there work be allowed such unrestrained access to its workers. this is a sign of encroaching authoritianism, today its them tomorrow its the guy down the road, who has no right to say no to medical procedures, and is treated as guity until proven innocent.

serves the players right though for being naive wankers to pass a policy that was always going to become a political footy. which results in everyone lossing.

p.s

im no left pinko either, i just like living in a Australia that is free, so i would like it kept that way.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Wow, with grandstanding rhetoric like that, you'd think there was an election on...

[saintspremiers]

Wow, with grandstanding rhetoric like that, you'd think there was an election on...

regardless of the erection.....it's time the AFL pulled their heads into line with the government.

Whatever Dimwit thinks, he is NOT bigger than the government.

I suspect a policy such as what Howard has outlined would have bi-partisan support.

Of course the Greens would want it abolished and all drugs to be legal but that's for another post/forum!!!

[rexy]

regardless of the erection.....it's time the AFL pulled their heads into line with the government.

Didnt know Viagra was on the banned list?

[aussierules0k]

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Wow, with grandstanding rhetoric like that, you'd think there was an election on...

regardless of the erection.....it's time the AFL pulled their heads into line with the government.

Whatever Dimwit thinks, he is NOT bigger than the government.

I suspect a policy such as what Howard has outlined would have bi-partisan support.

Of course the Greens would want it abolished and all drugs to be legal but that's for another post/forum!!!

Well, without going into this too deeply, keep in mind that the Libs are exactly the opposite of the greens... I don't know if folks have heard Bronwyn Bishop's rhetoric lately on the subject, but she's been campaigning against "harm minimisation" as a whole, not just in sport. Lines like "the war on drugs in winnable", and "zero tolerance" play awfully well in a conservative electorate.

She's got a report in hand which names the expert proponents of harm minimisation as the "drug elite", and assigns them the agenda of not just decriminalisation, but legalisation.

I'm not sure on the policy Howard has outlined, but to assume bi-partisan support for the stuff Bishop's been peddling is a big call. At the same time, during an election cycle, politicians live in fear of being labelled "soft on drugs". Expert opinion doesn't fit into a sound bite, and so we get fear, uncertainty and doubt up to our ears... and while as a major ongoing issue that should be high on the governments agenda regardless of their outlook or solutions (be it Libs/Labor/Greens whomever), election time is ironically when it will be most talked up with the least constructive outcome.

The AFL is not even the real target (or even the AFLPA, who would need to be armwrestled into line on any change), however it's certainly not going to be bad politics to point at the AFL and say "soft on drugs" during an election...

[stinger]

Still too lenient.
IMO it should be like this....
Recreational Drugs:
1st Strike : Named & Shamed + 11 match suspension
2nd Strike: 1 year suspension and heavy fine
3rd Strike: Removed from the record books completely and banned from playing AFL ever again.
However I believe that players should only be tested during the season and 4 weeks before the NAB cup starts.
Performance Enhancing Drugs:
1st Strike: 2 Year ban, every time your name appears in the record books there should be an * next your achievements.
2nd Strike: Removed from the record books completely and banned from playing AFL ever again.

sure that you wouldn't like to hang them as well....or would you just be happy to settle for public floggings??????????

[saintspremiers]

Still too lenient.
IMO it should be like this....
Recreational Drugs:
1st Strike : Named & Shamed + 11 match suspension
2nd Strike: 1 year suspension and heavy fine
3rd Strike: Removed from the record books completely and banned from playing AFL ever again.
However I believe that players should only be tested during the season and 4 weeks before the NAB cup starts.
Performance Enhancing Drugs:
1st Strike: 2 Year ban, every time your name appears in the record books there should be an * next your achievements.
2nd Strike: Removed from the record books completely and banned from playing AFL ever again.

sure that you wouldn't like to hang them as well....or would you just be happy to settle for public floggings??????????

people pay good money for that Stinger.......undoubtedly you've represented a few in your time!

[Dan Warna]

The entire Gov and AFL must be tested daily - it's obvious they are all on drugs!

STOP trying to turn footballers into role models.

nothing to do with being role models IMO AOK, its about cheating and getting an unfair advantage for me.

if folks want to smoke some dope, IMO thats fine, i would also decriminalise drugs and make them available from pharmacies. Hunt down and gaol forever dealers and manufacturers and drug/drivers.

either that or make drugs free for all in the sporting arena, let em chock up of EPO and speed midway through the game and steroids.

as it is some are getting an unfair advantage.

[Armoooo]

The entire Gov and AFL must be tested daily - it's obvious they are all on drugs!

STOP trying to turn footballers into role models.

nothing to do with being role models IMO AOK, its about cheating and getting an unfair advantage for me.

if folks want to smoke some dope, IMO thats fine, i would also decriminalise drugs and make them available from pharmacies. Hunt down and gaol forever dealers and manufacturers and drug/drivers.

either that or make drugs free for all in the sporting arena, let em chock up of EPO and speed midway through the game and steroids.

as it is some are getting an unfair advantage.

This is exactly my point, I don't think that players should be able to cheat, I don't care how much drugs they do in their own time but anything they do could give them an unfair advantage. I don't believe in thie crap about role models, I think that if a player gets drunk and starts a brawl he should be dealt with by the law not the AFL however when it comes to altering your mind and body the AFL are also involved.

[plugger66]

Still too lenient.
IMO it should be like this....
Recreational Drugs:
1st Strike : Named & Shamed + 11 match suspension
2nd Strike: 1 year suspension and heavy fine
3rd Strike: Removed from the record books completely and banned from playing AFL ever again.
However I believe that players should only be tested during the season and 4 weeks before the NAB cup starts.
Performance Enhancing Drugs:
1st Strike: 2 Year ban, every time your name appears in the record books there should be an * next your achievements.
2nd Strike: Removed from the record books completely and banned from playing AFL ever again.

You surely are joking. Named and shamed because you are stupid enough to do what 70% of 18 year olds do but never get tested or shamed.

[Armoooo]

Still too lenient.
IMO it should be like this....
Recreational Drugs:
1st Strike : Named & Shamed + 11 match suspension
2nd Strike: 1 year suspension and heavy fine
3rd Strike: Removed from the record books completely and banned from playing AFL ever again.
However I believe that players should only be tested during the season and 4 weeks before the NAB cup starts.
Performance Enhancing Drugs:
1st Strike: 2 Year ban, every time your name appears in the record books there should be an * next your achievements.
2nd Strike: Removed from the record books completely and banned from playing AFL ever again.

You surely are joking. Named and shamed because you are stupid enough to do what 70% of 18 year olds do but never get tested or shamed.

Surely 70% would be an exaggeration, and I believe that they should be able to do it as often as they want in the off season, then it is up to the laws to decide their punishment. However all recreational drugs affect the central nervous system and if the CNS has been affected who knows what the side effects could be... something like feeling reduced pain would come in very handy in such a physical sport don't you think. Also if something could calm you down in an important match. The fact is that recreational drugs have a lot of side effects, we all know about the bad ones but some could come in handy for a professional athlete.

[plugger66]

Still too lenient.
IMO it should be like this....
Recreational Drugs:
1st Strike : Named & Shamed + 11 match suspension
2nd Strike: 1 year suspension and heavy fine
3rd Strike: Removed from the record books completely and banned from playing AFL ever again.
However I believe that players should only be tested during the season and 4 weeks before the NAB cup starts.
Performance Enhancing Drugs:
1st Strike: 2 Year ban, every time your name appears in the record books there should be an * next your achievements.
2nd Strike: Removed from the record books completely and banned from playing AFL ever again.

You surely are joking. Named and shamed because you are stupid enough to do what 70% of 18 year olds do but never get tested or shamed.

Surely 70% would be an exaggeration, and I believe that they should be able to do it as often as they want in the off season, then it is up to the laws to decide their punishment. However all recreational drugs affect the central nervous system and if the CNS has been affected who knows what the side effects could be... something like feeling reduced pain would come in very handy in such a physical sport don't you think. Also if something could calm you down in an important match. The fact is that recreational drugs have a lot of side effects, we all know about the bad ones but some could come in handy for a professional athlete.

Most are out of your system in 24 hours so how does that help on match day? Also there is no law against taking drugs.

[Armoooo]

Still too lenient.
IMO it should be like this....
Recreational Drugs:
1st Strike : Named & Shamed + 11 match suspension
2nd Strike: 1 year suspension and heavy fine
3rd Strike: Removed from the record books completely and banned from playing AFL ever again.
However I believe that players should only be tested during the season and 4 weeks before the NAB cup starts.
Performance Enhancing Drugs:
1st Strike: 2 Year ban, every time your name appears in the record books there should be an * next your achievements.
2nd Strike: Removed from the record books completely and banned from playing AFL ever again.

You surely are joking. Named and shamed because you are stupid enough to do what 70% of 18 year olds do but never get tested or shamed.

Surely 70% would be an exaggeration, and I believe that they should be able to do it as often as they want in the off season, then it is up to the laws to decide their punishment. However all recreational drugs affect the central nervous system and if the CNS has been affected who knows what the side effects could be... something like feeling reduced pain would come in very handy in such a physical sport don't you think. Also if something could calm you down in an important match. The fact is that recreational drugs have a lot of side effects, we all know about the bad ones but some could come in handy for a professional athlete.

Most are out of your system in 24 hours so how does that help on match day? Also there is no law against taking drugs.

Most of the chemicals are out of yous system within 24 hours however there are also longer lasting effects... Everyone knows drugs kill brain cells, some drugs effect the CNS and leave the brain slightly worse for wear and a side effect of the could be being able to play through pain more effectively. And for everyone that thinks this naming and shaming is such a big punishment then surely it will deter any players that are considering going down that path.

[plugger66]

Still too lenient.
IMO it should be like this....
Recreational Drugs:
1st Strike : Named & Shamed + 11 match suspension
2nd Strike: 1 year suspension and heavy fine
3rd Strike: Removed from the record books completely and banned from playing AFL ever again.
However I believe that players should only be tested during the season and 4 weeks before the NAB cup starts.
Performance Enhancing Drugs:
1st Strike: 2 Year ban, every time your name appears in the record books there should be an * next your achievements.
2nd Strike: Removed from the record books completely and banned from playing AFL ever again.

You surely are joking. Named and shamed because you are stupid enough to do what 70% of 18 year olds do but never get tested or shamed.

Surely 70% would be an exaggeration, and I believe that they should be able to do it as often as they want in the off season, then it is up to the laws to decide their punishment. However all recreational drugs affect the central nervous system and if the CNS has been affected who knows what the side effects could be... something like feeling reduced pain would come in very handy in such a physical sport don't you think. Also if something could calm you down in an important match. The fact is that recreational drugs have a lot of side effects, we all know about the bad ones but some could come in handy for a professional athlete.

Most are out of your system in 24 hours so how does that help on match day? Also there is no law against taking drugs.

Most of the chemicals are out of yous system within 24 hours however there are also longer lasting effects... Everyone knows drugs kill brain cells, some drugs effect the CNS and leave the brain slightly worse for wear and a side effect of the could be being able to play through pain more effectively. And for everyone that thinks this naming and shaming is such a big punishment then surely it will deter any players that are considering going down that path.

Most of the guys who have been caught using drugs in the AFL have been alcohol impaired. I dont think when use they will be thinking about being named. As for the notion that drugs kill brain cells so you play better in pain well so does grog so we better ban that. i really think that is a low bow to say you will feel pain because you have an eccy 2 weeks earlier. Also didnt you say they can use what they like out of season. Well that means they can wreck their brain out of season as well.

[Solar]

easy one

AFL has two options

Keep what they are doing, test players outside competition and be ahead of the whole entire world or

Just test on match days like WADA dictates and ban players for testing positive. This means that there will be no out of match day testing and most players will continue on taking

Just more grandstanding by the Federal Government.

NOTE: personally the only thing I would change would be forcing clubs to pass on information after trades had been completed. Only real danger of not naming 1/2 strikers.

[Armoooo]

Most of the guys who have been caught using drugs in the AFL have been alcohol impaired. I dont think when use they will be thinking about being named. As for the notion that drugs kill brain cells so you play better in pain well so does grog so we better ban that. i really think that is a low bow to say you will feel pain because you have an eccy 2 weeks earlier. Also didnt you say they can use what they like out of season. Well that means they can wreck their brain out of season as well.

The effects of alcohol has been studied a lot more than the effects of recreational drugs (aswell as the fact that every pill is different) and it has been deemed that alcohol is acceptable. As well as that alcohol is a very big part of our society and it would be far too hard to stop the players from doing. So what I am trying to say is that everytime you drink alcohol there are no surprises you know what will happen and what wont, whereas with drugs it is more of a lucky dip and seeing as there is no way that they can all be tested to make sure that none are performance enhancing they must all be banned.

[plugger66]

Most of the guys who have been caught using drugs in the AFL have been alcohol impaired. I dont think when use they will be thinking about being named. As for the notion that drugs kill brain cells so you play better in pain well so does grog so we better ban that. i really think that is a low bow to say you will feel pain because you have an eccy 2 weeks earlier. Also didnt you say they can use what they like out of season. Well that means they can wreck their brain out of season as well.

The effects of alcohol has been studied a lot more than the effects of recreational drugs (aswell as the fact that every pill is different) and it has been deemed that alcohol is acceptable. As well as that alcohol is a very big part of our society and it would be far too hard to stop the players from doing. So what I am trying to say is that everytime you drink alcohol there are no surprises you know what will happen and what wont, whereas with drugs it is more of a lucky dip and seeing as there is no way that they can all be tested to make sure that none are performance enhancing they must all be banned.

But they are out of your system in 24 hours so how can they help your performance on match day apart from not feeling pain because part of your brain is dead which I really doubt.

[Armoooo]

Most of the guys who have been caught using drugs in the AFL have been alcohol impaired. I dont think when use they will be thinking about being named. As for the notion that drugs kill brain cells so you play better in pain well so does grog so we better ban that. i really think that is a low bow to say you will feel pain because you have an eccy 2 weeks earlier. Also didnt you say they can use what they like out of season. Well that means they can wreck their brain out of season as well.

The effects of alcohol has been studied a lot more than the effects of recreational drugs (aswell as the fact that every pill is different) and it has been deemed that alcohol is acceptable. As well as that alcohol is a very big part of our society and it would be far too hard to stop the players from doing. So what I am trying to say is that everytime you drink alcohol there are no surprises you know what will happen and what wont, whereas with drugs it is more of a lucky dip and seeing as there is no way that they can all be tested to make sure that none are performance enhancing they must all be banned.

But they are out of your system in 24 hours so how can they help your performance on match day apart from not feeling pain because part of your brain is dead which I really doubt.

Most are out of your system, again it comes down to what can be considered performance enhancing and what can't be, for all we know there could be drugs that can stay in your system for weeks. Because there are so many different types of drugs that have so many different effects they should all be banned, and for something to be banned it can't be optional there have to be tough consequences.

[Otiman]

Most are out of your system, again it comes down to what can be considered performance enhancing and what can't be, for all we know there could be drugs that can stay in your system for weeks. Because there are so many different types of drugs that have so many different effects they should all be banned, and for something to be banned it can't be optional there have to be tough consequences.

It honestly sounds like you're saying "I don't know anything, but drugs are bad, ban them all".

[Armoooo]

Most are out of your system, again it comes down to what can be considered performance enhancing and what can't be, for all we know there could be drugs that can stay in your system for weeks. Because there are so many different types of drugs that have so many different effects they should all be banned, and for something to be banned it can't be optional there have to be tough consequences.

It honestly sounds like you're saying "I don't know anything, but drugs are bad, ban them all".

I'm not an expert but I know enough about the CNS to know that there are so many variables and that so many drugs are unchartered territory it would be ridiculous to let players take them because who knows if it can beneifit people. If they still feel the need they can take as many as they want during the off season. Just for the record most steroids are made out of a combination of different chemicals and substances, some because of the effect that they have on the body and some for other little bonuses such as making the steroids undetectable and according to some studies there there are a wide range of substances that can mask the effects of steroids, such as cocaine.

[Megamaguire]

More grandstanding from the little dictator and his cronies. This is pure mindless searching for an issue that is not climate change related and preferably an issue that acts as a red herring to take attention of the despicable IR laws introduced by his dictatorship (Howard). The afl does a better job than just about any other sporting body on this issue. I can't even write the d word as i'm sick of hearing it. There are a stack of more important issues our 'representative ' federal government should be tackling but wont (climate change; mistreatment and fleecing of workers; independence of the media; iraq; democratic sensibilities; health; education; bank regulation; mortage crisis etc. The Howard government is drunk on its own notion that it has to control EVERYTHING. Dont get sucked in to their very questionable motivations.

Back to footy - Saw in the herald bum that Xavier Clarke was highlighted as a player the club could and maybe would trade in the persuit of C.Wood. Xavier has been in the frustrating category for a few years now as most of us feel he hasn't actualised his potential but i'd like to see him get another chance. I thought he showed a lot of good form at times this year especially with winning the ball and with his delivery into the forward line. Consistency is the thing though. I really hope the Clarkes come on.

G O S A I N T S !