Either first strike and your out or just allow drug use!

[saintspremiers]

This whole Ivanhoe rehab/Dylan Howard debacle makes me think the AFL
have just two options re drug policy:

(1) First Strike and player gets named and suspended, harsh penalties from then on.

(2) Just allow drug use willy-nilly.

The three strike policy is a farce.

Dimwit, fall on your sword and admit defeat on this FFS!!!

[Solar]

oe bring in a two strikes but on the first the club is told.

[Solar]

oe bring in a two strikes but on the first the club is told.

[saintsRrising]

The current system in theory is ok as it is aimed at reforming players.

How the 3 steps is one two many

First strike =rehabiltation & club advised.
Second offence = 1 year ban.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

The current system in theory is ok as it is aimed at reforming players.

How the 3 steps is one two many

First strike =rehabiltation & club advised.
Second offence = 1 year ban.

i dissagree
just imagine your a club you have a player who is wayward and has had his first strike you would then trade him the new club would then get the bloke a few months later hes gets done again bang 1 year ban the club is down one player on its list and one player it traded for him you would be livid

1st strike players named publicly and under go rehab second strike ban
it should be a rule a player cannot be traded to a new club if he has a strike to his name unless both clubs are made aware of this and agree

[joffaboy]

so what happens if a players drink is spiked?

Suspended for being slipped a mickie???

[meher baba]

I have never supported drug testing by the AFL for illicit recreational drugs. My understanding is that this has been foisted on our sport by international drug-testing agencies who are themselves compelled to promote this by the absurdly puritanical USA: the country which probably consumes more illicit drugs than the rest of the world put together.

If some such drugs - for example ice and crystal meths - also have performance-enhancing benefits, then the AFL should test for these after games in the same way that they test for other stimulants.

The question of whether or not players are using illicit recreational drugs should - as is the case with alcohol - should only be a matter for their own club to worry about, unless they "do it in the street and frighten the horses".

Compulsory testing for illicit drugs should be restricted to people who hold other people's lives in their hands: car drivers, airline pilots, bus drivers, doctors in hospitals, etc. All football players ultimately do is entertain the public. Is anyone suggesting compulsory tests for illicit drug use on film actors, pop stars or comedians (there certainly wouldn't be too many videos or CDs left on sale at Sanity if we did)?

[Unforgiven]

I say bring in 2 strikes. Though the players deserve some leinancy, we would all be saying different if we were in their shoes. Poeple do make mistakes, the current rules and policies and drug testing procedures are to lax at the moment no doubt though.

[Mr Magic]

Firstly, do the AFL and the players agree there should be testing for illicit drugs?

If so, then the policy needs to be sensible.

Given my rants on this topic in previous threads, I'm sure what I am about to post will surprise most.

I don't see too much wrong with the current 3 strike policy other than the fact that the Club involved is not informed until the third strike.

I would change it to the following:-
1st Strike, Club and Doctor informed and monthly testing

2nd Strike, Club and Doctor informed, Enforced counselling for player and fortnightly testing

3rd Strike, Automatic 12 month suspension for player

BUT

The testing regime has to get fair dinkum. Every player should be tested regularly. It's not good enough for some players to get tested over and over (unless they are targetted) whilst others go years without ever having a test.

If we cannot perform a fair dinkum testing regime then abandon it altogether. I don't want to hear Dimwit and Monkeyboy proclaim how good our Drug Programme is when it is complete and utter BS.

[Dan Warna]

most athletes have a very harsh testing regime and earn pretty much less than a first year player.

they are either entertainers or athletes.

if they are athletes enforce an athlete type testing regime and documentation regime and enforcement regime.

if they are entertainer (ie WWE) throw the whole drugs policy out hte window and say they are entertainers.

the current system is 1/2 and 1/2 the testing regime is a joke (less than 1 test per person, per annum going to less than 2 tests per person per annum) with 3 strikes and your out rule on so so analysis of drugs, some are 'recreational' some are not on an iffy division line.

[Unforgiven]

The testing regime has to get fair dinkum. Every player should be tested regularly. It's not good enough for some players to get tested over and over (unless they are targetted) whilst others go years without ever having a test.

Yes, Also the AFL is they are serious, should put money into the drug testing. To my knowledge they use testing via urine, some blood and saliva. Though these only test for recent drug use.

Testing via hair follicle is more expensive, though has a range of 90 days. Detecting drugs in the system that have been there for upto a quarter of a year. This would be much more effective, as a player who did take drugs at some stage, could be found out in the 90 days.

It seems a smart option, though I dont know how much more expensive it is.

[Dan Warna]

The testing regime has to get fair dinkum. Every player should be tested regularly. It's not good enough for some players to get tested over and over (unless they are targetted) whilst others go years without ever having a test.

Yes, Also the AFL is they are serious, should put money into the drug testing. To my knowledge they use testing via urine, some blood and saliva. Though these only test for recent drug use.

Testing via hair follicle is more expensive, though has a range of 90 days. Detecting drugs in the system that have been there for upto a quarter of a year. This would be much more effective, as a player who did take drugs at some stage, could be found out in the 90 days.

It seems a smart option, though I dont know how much more expensive it is.

hair testing I remember listening on the radio was said to be, by an expert about 50% to 60% more expensive, however could detect stuff as you said 90 days in the past, which meant you could effectively test each player 2 or 3 times a season and cover every game in season!!!!!

whereas urine and blood tests for some drugs cover less than 48 hours.

player depilitation would become quite fashionable I suspect...

[st_Trav_ofWA]

in all honesty why dont the clubs just independently test the players themself
at my work we have spot testing for drug use
there for the clubs could deal with the illicit drug issuse in house (as it looks like the unnamed team have done )

i would like to think if the saints noticed a player on their list was going down the drugs path they would be directing them to rehab much like the unnamed club seem to have done why the AFL has to stick its grubby nose in every issue is beyond me the AFL should test for Performance enhancing drugs (if thats ice speed or coke then so be it ) the clubs should be given the rights to test their own players for anyother drugs and deal with it internally

[Solar]

didn't this come up around the time the phone convos involving kerr came up and all of a sudden kerr and judd had shaved heads for the upcoming game .....

[St DAC]

The question of whether or not players are using illicit recreational drugs should - as is the case with alcohol - should only be a matter for their own club to worry about, unless they "do it in the street and frighten the horses".

Compulsory testing for illicit drugs should be restricted to people who hold other people's lives in their hands: car drivers, airline pilots, bus drivers, doctors in hospitals, etc. All football players ultimately do is entertain the public. Is anyone suggesting compulsory tests for illicit drug use on film actors, pop stars or comedians (there certainly wouldn't be too many videos or CDs left on sale at Sanity if we did)?

A first ... the only post of yours I agree with 100%. Well said ...

(I don't necessarily completely disagree with your other posts, it's just that I'm a contrary bugger ... )

[Unforgiven]

didn't this come up around the time the phone convos involving kerr came up and all of a sudden kerr and judd had shaved heads for the upcoming game .....

Pretty sure it can be any bodily hair, not just the hair on the top of your head.

[vacuous space]

I have never supported drug testing by the AFL for illicit recreational drugs.

I'm not sure it's a smart idea. If you test for it, then there are going to be results, and eventually the results are going to leak out. It's going to bring unnecessary bad publicity. The 3 strikes policy itself is a PR nightmare. That doesn't mean it's wrong though. I hope they don't change it on account of public pressure. It makes sense to try and help those players who test positive to non performance-enhancing drugs.

My understanding is that this has been foisted on our sport by international drug-testing agencies who are themselves compelled to promote this by the absurdly puritanical USA: the country which probably consumes more illicit drugs than the rest of the world put together.

I don't get where that's coming from. If anything, the Americans have turned a blind eye to drug use in sports for several years across a wide range of sports. Ricky Williams was exiled for a year from the NFL only after repeated violations of the NFL's substance abuse program. Shawne Merriman tested positive for steroids and only got a four game suspension from the NFL. Jason Giambi basically admitted in court to having used steroids and MLB let him go without much more than a slap on the wrist. Plenty of recreational drug tests have come back positive there with little or no reaction. A positive drug test barely warrants a mention in the US. Here it causes a media frenzy.

I think the AFL and the AFLPA have the right idea here. I think the media is just out for blood like it always is. There's no real point to naming and shaming recreational drug users. It doesn't serve anybody's best interests. The players who test positive to these things need to be given whatever help they need. Because as bad as this publicity is right now, it's got nothing on what will happen if a player winds up dead.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

as a saints supporter i could care less what players at other clubs do in their spare time (smoking dope snorting coke doing heroin) as long as its not performance enhanceing its only going to make them a worse player.
as a saints member i would hope the clubs only concern is the players on its list drug habits as it will affect the players performance in a negative way

the AFL should be only concerned with performance enhancing drugs and associated masking agents

the way i see it is if player A is a heavy drinker the club is going to be the one who suffers from his drinking so the club should be incharge of his testing and disapline no strikes or anything they will decide what they will accept if that player gets traded the new culb must have the right to test the player for every substance it wants (heck we do it with regards to injurys) if player A is tested by his new club and they find hes been taking drugs its their choice to either take him or not

[Brewer]

Drugs are bad, mmkay?

Seriously, they are very bad. A decade ago a bit of pot was just a bit of pot. Nowadays a bit of pot is a genetically mutated brain-freeze in a bud.

Today's 'social' drugs are not as benign as they used to be, most of them have serious and unpredictable effects on the mind and body and these guys are earning big money supposedly to be the best athletes they possibly can. There is no room for 'recreational drugs' in a profesional athlete's life.

We owe it to the clubs and their supporters to stamp out drug use of all types, and we owe it to the young guys we put on our lists, pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and turn out on the street in fancy cars.

They are young, impressional, wealthy and vulnerable and to suggest that they should be entitled to take 'recreational' drugs with impunity is wrong IMO.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

There is no room for 'recreational drugs' in a profesional athlete's life.

We owe it to the clubs and their supporters to stamp out drug use of all types, .

hence why i would trust the clubs to be the ones testing than the AFL
the clubs would know who are the "at risk" ones were with the exception of performance enhancing drugs

i dont hold the AFL at fault for benny boi its his clubs responcabillity to identify the problem and if they choose to turn a blind eye to it then they should wear the crap for it when a player OD's the players are the clubs assets it shouldnt be up to the AFL to make sure they are looking after them

[The Peanut]

The question of whether or not players are using illicit recreational drugs should - as is the case with alcohol - should only be a matter for their own club to worry about, unless they "do it in the street and frighten the horses".

Compulsory testing for illicit drugs should be restricted to people who hold other people's lives in their hands: car drivers, airline pilots, bus drivers, doctors in hospitals, etc. All football players ultimately do is entertain the public. Is anyone suggesting compulsory tests for illicit drug use on film actors, pop stars or comedians (there certainly wouldn't be too many videos or CDs left on sale at Sanity if we did)?

A first ... the only post of yours I agree with 100%. Well said ...

(I don't necessarily completely disagree with your other posts, it's just that I'm a contrary bugger ... )

From listening to the radio, reading newspapers and threads on here I wonder what everyone is talking about . . . surely many young kids at AFL footballers age use recreational drugs at least once in their lives. How many games would there be on the weekend if everyone that used recreational drugs every now and then couldn't play. The AFL would be lucky to get two teams to play each other . . .

As for ripping into 'That team with yuckie jumpers' - I just hope we don't end up with egg of our own faces. Does anyone really believe that none of our lads haven't tried a snort of coke or some such at a party. There is also the matter of spicing up the drinks and food at parties these days too - some players may have had drugs when they were unaware.

Performance enhancing drugs is another issue completely - but it'll be ongoing as long the games are competitive and as soon as one is detected someone will come up with another.

To me it's just the times we live in. I am not condoning these drugs but realistically will all this media frenzy do anything to remedy the situation? - or just be free advertising for the elicit drug 'pushers'.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Well, the point seems to remain lost in the ether that the current system exists because it was agreed to by the AFLPA. Because it was agreed to by the players. As a health issue to protect young players with more money than life experience... and older ones with more money than common sense.

If a system such as this becomes the witch hunt that the media has worked everyone up into a frenzy for, the players will just scrap doing it at all. What's the consequence? Is anyone really going to turn in their membership because they don't not know who the AFL is pretending isn't on drugs?

As they should. This remains a free country. As long as Benny Cousins doesn't try and peddle his stuff to me and anyone I care about, I could care less about how he chooses to have his fun (that said, I wish him all the best in his rehab, it's a tough road).

There are over 20 posts in this thread. IIRC, drug use becomes a problem for 10% of the population at some point in their life, so if each post is by a different person, at least 2 posts in this thread are by people who have had, do have, or will have a drug problem. Since most people don't have an AFL income to support an expensive habit, rehab, etc., I'd be more worried about those 2 people than I am about AFLers.

[meher baba]

A first ... the only post of yours I agree with 100%. Well said ...

(I don't necessarily completely disagree with your other posts, it's just that I'm a contrary bugger ... )

So am I, which is probably why you generally don't agree with my posts 100%

[Eastern]

The real facts are that none of us fans would know even 1% of what really is hapening.

Let's not forget that a lot of the illicit (I refuse to use the term recreational) drugs are out of your system in 6-8 hours, meaming that occasional users are very unlikely to get caught. It is only the serious users that get caught and that is why the AFL chose the 3 strikes policy.

If the policy gets changed to 2 strikes, what hapens with the three guys who are already on 2 strikes (it is alleged that 2 of them have since changed clubs)?

The way I see it; drugs in the AFL is heading down the same path as drugs in society. IT IS GOING TO GET WORSE BEFORE IT GETS BETTER

How to deal with it in a balanced manner = VERY DIFFICULT !!

[Bernard Shakey]

Outlaw outlaw motorcycle clubs, end of illicit drug problem.

The only reason they thrive is because they are supplied by organised crime, which makes them even more incidious.

Why do these kids (that's what they are) use drugs?
Too much money, too much spare time on their hands, boredom.

AFL has to do more to develop these kids as well rounded human beings.