Earlier this week, Independent MP Andrzej Wilkie accused the AFL of conducting “unofficial” drug tests to identify substance-using players and then 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 protecting athletes, something the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Sports Integrity Australia (SIA) do not 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 that are banned at all times, such as anabolic steroids AND EPOas well as 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 do not consider them to improve performance, and if they do, they are a compromise exercises AND resilience.
However, according 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 therefore SIA, does not monitor out-of-competition drug use; is only interested in 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) means that it is left to sport to manage 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 monitor substance abuse behavior. minimize the risk violations of WADA match day rules.
To do this, 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 rather than punishment, although the player with the second or third strike will 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 be consequences in the event of repeated misconduct.
But the confidential, medical nature of illegal drug policies has raised many critics who want to know which athletes have a substance abuse problem, especially when such information could be used to gain media attention or political capital.
Does the AFL’s illegal drugs policy work?
Have illicit drug policies helped athletes struggling with addictions avoid the risk of testing positive on game day?
All we have to work with are raw numbers. There are approximately 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 due 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 obtain 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, but it seems unlikely that the underlying reasons – a medical model – will change.
Equally important, the AFL’s role in working with drug testers to identify players at risk – and suspending them from play when they are suspected of being in breach of anti-doping rules – will continue.
However, the mechanism for withdrawing players from games can be refined.
Athletes are unavailable for a variety of reasons, such as injury, illness or personal circumstances.
Wilkie’s speech to parliament suggested that players “fake” injuries in order 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 question still arises as to what the player tells the coach about his inability to be selected. The AFLDA notes that patients are free to ask doctors to share information about their condition and treatment with coaches, but without the athlete’s consent, confidentiality remains confidential.
The topic is broader than just 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 attempting, even if inelegantly, to manage the risk of WADA penalties for match day breaches.
