Right: Hawthorn Football Club president Jeff Kennett, who is also director of the national anti-depression organisation, BeyondBlue, argues that the AFL should have informed the club about Travis Tuck's test results, so that the Hawthorn officials and players could have helped Tuck with his problem.
.Arguments against the current AFL illicit-drug use policy
1. The policy violates players' privacySome critics of the current policy have challenged whether the AFL has the right to test its players for illicit recreational drugs. It has been claimed that such testing is outside the parameters of the employee-employer relationship and is an invasion of the players' privacy.
Stuart Munckton, in an article published in Green Left Weekly on September 4, 2010, asked, 'Does the AFL have the right to test for use of recreational drugs deemed illegal, but that are not performance enhancing, and mete out punishment for those caught?'
Munckton went on to challenge the right of any employer to drug-test his employees. Munckton concludes, 'Should bosses in general be allowed to drug test their workforce for drug use? It does take place in some industries, but many people would rightly see this as an invasion of privacy and an unfair regulation of a worker's private life.' These tests are occurring outside competition time and involve players' off-field behaviour. Critics claim that the AFL is significantly our-stepping its rights as an employer.
There are also those who have asked why it is only elite sportsmen in a minority of codes who are being subjected to such testing. While all Australian sports are subject to in-competition testing, the AFL is one of only three sports in Australia- the other two being cricket and rugby - that conducts out-of-competition testing. There have been those who claim that this is iniquitous.
The AFL presents its drug-testing regime as voluntary; however, players who refuse a test are treated as though they have registered a positive reading in a drug test. It has been claimed that this effectively makes the test compulsory as those who do not take it attract the penalties that apply for a positive reading.
Bob Stewart, Associate Professor in Sport Studies in the School of Human Movement, Recreation and Performance at Victoria University, has stated, 'By taking on the responsibility for monitoring illicit drug use out-of competition it [the AFL] has over-reached its role as the manager of a professional sports league, the keeper of the code, and the body responsible for growing the sport. It is not the player's moral guardian, and nor is it responsible for the behaviour of players once they leave their workplace, which in this context is the playing field, the training ground, and the club room.'
2. The AFL's positive testing results are too low to be credible
It has been suggested that the figures offered for the number of AFL players testing positive for recreational drugs are so low that they are not credible.
In the general community, approximately 30 per cent of 20 to 29 year-olds are estimated to take recreational drugs. It has been suggested that the AFL's rate over several years of between one and four per cent looks suspiciously low in comparison.
On March 11, 2006, The AFL Player Spectator noted, 'In other words, AFL players take drugs at a rate of one tenth of the rest of the population. This is such a ridiculous conclusion that we can safely dismiss any notion that the testing regime is working.
After all, well-known drug-taker Laurence "Moses" Angwin reported very widespread abuse of ecstasy, pointing out that "it wasn't just Carlton where this was happening, it was just commonplace, especially amongst the younger blokes". He suggested that of those indulging, most were taking it fortnightly.'
The claim has been made that players and perhaps clubs are finding ways of circumventing the testing.
3. The policy is too lenient
There are those who consider that the 'three strikes' approach of the AFL to illicit drug use is too lenient.
Former Eagles coach, John Todd, has stated, 'One strike and out, nary as simple as that. Too much leniency. I think the AFL has got to take a stronger stance on this because it's reflecting badly on our game.'
Similarly, former federal sports minister, George Brandis, has given his opinion that, 'What the AFL needs to do is to enforce the strongest possible illicit drug policy. Its existing policy is not the strongest possible illicit drug policy.
The AFL's policy is a policy of three strikes, and even then there aren't necessarily any sanctions after a third strike. You can't have zero tolerance and three strikes at the same time.'
Referring to the AFL's previous management of Ben Cousin's drug problems, George Brandis has said, 'Frankly, particularly in the events that have happened over the past several months ...I don't think there would be an AFL fan in Australia who wouldn't be expecting the AFL to take a good look at their policy.'
A similar point has also been made by Christopher Pyne, the former federal minister for drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Mr Pyne has stated, 'The message the Government is sending people is that drugs do you damage and that you don't know where they're being made and you don't know what damage they're doing to your body. The AFL is sending a different message.
It is cutting across the Government's very clear message ... and for that reason they need to explain themselves to the Federal Government and to the Australian taxpayer.'
4. The policy is not being consistently implemented
It has been claimed that reducing the penalties that could have been applied to Travis Tuck because he is not a 'recreational' drug user is inconsistent.
Some commentators have noted that even though Ben Cousins never failed a drug test he was suspended from playing AFL football for twelve months for having brought the game into disrepute. Travis Tuck has received only a 12-week suspension and the $5,000 fine he could have been given was waived.
Luke Buttigieg writing for sportal.com.au on September 1, 2010, has noted, '[Adrian] Anderson [the League's operations manager] made the point that his [Cousin's] and Tuck's cases are different because Tuck was not a recreational drug user but has had a problem with illegal substances because of his clinical depression but the fact remains he has now effectively tested positive three times and been banned for only 12 weeks.'
Critics have noted it would surely be possible to conclude that Ben Cousins also had a number of mental health issues which may have at least partially accounted for any drug-use problems he had.
Luke Buttigieg went on to note, 'Developing a policy to cover a host of clubs and more than 700 players is obviously a difficult process but surely it is incumbent on the AFL and the players' association to rethink some aspects and consider involving more people from a club when a player tests positive a second time.'
5. The policy bypasses the clubs
There has been concern expressed that the current ALF anti-drugs policy bypasses the clubs and so denies clubs necessary information and a chance to give the drug-using player addition support.
Hawthorn football club administrators were concerned that under the current guidelines Hawthorn was not made aware of Travis Tuck's drug problem and associated mental health issues until his third positive test.
But club chief executive Stuart Fox told The Age his club should have known before the weekend of Tuck's drug issues and that the club would officially protest to the AFL.
The club believes its extensive welfare network could have prevented Tuck's third indiscretion, which under AFL rules, means that his identity is revealed publicly and can be announced in the media.
Under the three-strike policy, a player receives counselling after the first positive reading, the club doctor is informed after the second and the club is not told until after the third.
Mr Fox said, 'We are very concerned; we haven't been able to supply any guidance or counselling to Travis as he's been going through all of this. The hierarchy of the club was not advised earlier; no one in our administration knew about this. We support the framework of the three-strikes policy but we think it could be altered to get a better outcome for our player. We believe we should have known before now.'
Mr Fox concluded, 'I'm not saying that we would have done anything to supplement the AFL's program. I'm saying we could have.'
Sydney Swans coach, Paul Roos, has stated. 'There's something wrong with the system when a player can have something as significantly wrong as that, and the AFL knows, and you don't as a football club. That's the flaw. If I was the parent of an AFL player, and the AFL knew my son was on two strikes, and the only obligation they had was to tell the club doctor, I would be absolutely horrified. That's what hit me.'
A similar view has been expressed by Hawthorn President, Jeff Kennett. Mr Kennett is a former Victorian premier and the founding president of the depression awareness and support group 'Beyond Blue'.
Mr Kennett stated he had written to the AFL to say how 'absurd' it was that neither he nor Hawks chief executive officer, Stuart Fox, had any idea what was going on in Travis Tuck's life regarding either his depression or his drug issues.
Mr Kennett stated that he believed the club could have given Tuck further assistance had its administrators known of the problem. Mr Kennett has also stated that he believes the current situation where the Club doctor is informed but is unable to inform the club puts the doctor in a 'compromised' position.