Earlier this week, Independent MP Andrzej Wilkie accused the AFL of conducting “unofficial” drug tests to discover substance-using players after which improperly withdrawing them from matches under false pretenses.
His comments caused a media firestorm, largely because he concluded it was a nefarious cover-up.
But Wilkie may not understand how and why Australian sports are being forced to take responsibility for safeguarding athletes, something the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Sports Integrity Australia (SIA) don’t do in relation to illegal drugs.
What is WADA’s position on illicit drugs?
Australia is a signatory WADA Code, which monitors the reliability of doping results. This includes substances which might be banned in any respect times, reminiscent of anabolic steroids AND EPOin addition to substances banned only in competition, especially cannabis, heroin, ecstasy and cocaine.
It is believed that the latter “narcotic substances” and are related to the so-called recreational use in society.
Scientists don’t consider them to enhance performance, and in the event that they do, they’re a compromise exercises AND resilience.
However, in response to WADA, these drugs violate two pillars (Section 4.3) Anti-Doping Code: are understood as a “threat to athletes’ health” and their use contrary to the “spirit of sport”.
Despite this position, WADA, and subsequently SIA, doesn’t monitor out-of-competition drug use; is only considering their use on match day.
Indeed, WADA’s reluctance to conduct out-of-competition testing for illegal substances (which it could do using the same urine sample as a doping test) signifies that it is left to sport to administer the risk of athletes taking drugs and obtaining tested positive on match day.
Why does the AFL have an illegal drugs policy?
Since 2005, the AFL has had an illicit drugs policy whose primary purpose is to watch substance abuse behavior. minimize the risk violations of WADA match day rules.
To do that, it pays a drug testing company to work on its behalf and reports to the league, which then communicates with club doctors.
It is a medical model where drug addiction staff work with players to try change substance abuse behaviors.
In the case of three ‘strikes’ the emphasis is on rehabilitation quite than punishment, although the player with the second or third strike will probably be named publicly, fined and missed matches.
Illegal drug policy is made possible by AFL Players Association – like their counterparts in the NRL, cricket etc. – have voluntarily agreed to this process, provided it is based on a medical model that protects players’ privacy until the second strike, when there will probably be consequences in the event of repeated misconduct.
But the confidential, medical nature of illegal drug policies has raised many critics who need to know which athletes have a substance abuse problem, especially when such information could possibly be used to realize media attention or political capital.
Does the AFL’s illegal drugs policy work?
Have illicit drug policies helped athletes fighting addictions avoid the risk of testing positive on game day?
All now we have to work with are raw numbers. There are roughly 800 players in the AFL men’s competition. In recent years, Sam Murray (Collingwood, 2018), Sam Gilbert (St Kilda, 2020) i Joel Smith (Melbourne, 2023) were issued anti-doping violations attributable to the presence of cocaine on match day.
Murray was given a four-year ban, but after an appeal was made that the drug was not intended for matchday use, the ban was reduced to 18 months.
Gilbert was not on the Saints player list at the time of the breach but managed to acquire a two-year career-ending ban. Murray never played in the AFL again. Smith’s case has not yet been heard.
Could the AFL’s illicit drugs policy be improved?
A review of this policy is already underway, nevertheless it seems unlikely that the underlying reasons – a medical model – will change.
Equally vital, the AFL’s role in working with drug testers to discover players in danger – and suspending them from play after they are suspected of being in breach of anti-doping rules – will proceed.
However, the mechanism for withdrawing players from games could be refined.
Athletes are unavailable for a variety of reasons, reminiscent of injury, illness or personal circumstances.
Wilkie’s speech to parliament suggested that players “fake” injuries with a purpose to “keep coaches in the dark” on why the player was unavailable for selection.
The AFL Medical Association (AFLDA) disputed this claim, reaffirming her commitment to truth and confidentiality in medical practice.
However, the query still arises as to what the player tells the coach about his inability to be chosen. The AFLDA notes that patients are free to ask doctors to share details about their condition and treatment with coaches, but without the athlete’s consent, confidentiality stays confidential.
The topic is broader than simply sports
According to Federal Government Report 2023almost three million Australians over the age of 14 admitted to having used cocaine throughout their lives, making the country a leading the highest percentage of drug users per capita in the world.
Given that athletes are part of a culture of substance abuse, it is no surprise that the AFL and other Australian sports are trying, even when inelegantly, to administer the risk of WADA penalties for match day breaches.
