Right: Victorian Premier John Brumby: 'Footballers are role models and I think the less you can rely on drugs to lift you up, or slow you down, the better.'
Arguments in favour of the current AFL's illicit-drug use policy
1. The current policy is having a positive effectIt has been claimed that the AFL's illicit drugs policy has had a positive effect in curtailing recreational drug use among players. Over the five years of its operation (excluding 2010), the number of positive tests have ranged from 19 in 2005 to 14 in 2009. The number of tests administered has increased over time so that the 2005 figure represents a 4.03 failure rate for the 427 tests given. The 2009 failure rate is only .89 per cent of the 1568 tests administered. This represents a decline of over 400 per cent.
Commenting of the 2008 results which indicated a failure rate of .98 per cent, AFL general manager of football operations, Mr Adrian Anderson, said the results were proof that AFL's anti-drugs policy and the various education programs and counseling programs the AFL had put in place were helping change player.
Mr Anderson further stated, 'When you compare it against society, this is an incredibly low number of people within the population the size of our player group to be taking illicit drugs. With just about any workplace in the country it would compare favourably.'
Prior to the introduction of the policy in 2005, when the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, acting with the AFL, tested for illicit drugs for two years to provide statistical data, 915 tests produced 31 positive readings.
Five of those positive finds to cannabis were on match day and under current regulations, those five players could have been banned for up to two years. Since 2005, no AFL player has tested positive on a match day.
2. The current policy recognises that AFL players are community role models
The AFL in part justifies its position on drug-testing via its recognition that football players have a large shaping influence on the behaviour of young people. Their poor behaviour has the capacity to influence negatively and their good behaviour has the capacity to provide a positive example.
In an editorial published on the AFL News Internet site on May 27, 2007, it was stated, 'The tragic legacy from illicit drug use of drug overdose, drug deaths and drug-related youth suicides are clearly documented. As in the past with epilepsy, asthma, diabetes, depression and other illnesses that young people may have trouble admitting or discussing, leading AFL players with these conditions have been role models in encouraging young people that these are health issues for which treatment is available and acceptable.'
The AFL has applied the World Anti-Doping Authority's (WADA) reasons for banning performance-enhancing drugs to recreational drug use among players. These rationales are illicit drugs are against the spirit of sport; their use adversely affects health, and
athletes - being role models - should be seen to be 'clean' of illegal substances.
Victorian Premier, John Brumby, has similarly noted, 'Footballers are role models and I think the less you can rely on drugs to lift you up, or slow you down, the better.'
On September 6, 2007, Craig Hackney, writing for the online sporting news site, Sportingo, argued, 'Rightly or wrongly, sports stars are in positions of influence and we hold them to a higher standard. Yes, they are entitled to privacy, but the issue of drugs is directly relevant to their sport and that makes them fair game.'
3. The current policy focuses on the wellbeing of the players
It has been claimed that the primary focus of the AFL's anti-drugs policy is to ensure player well-being.
League operations manager, Adrian Anderson, has argued , 'Our whole Illicit Drug policy is about helping players - to offer support, counselling and treatment to address issues around illicit drug use. And - such as in the case of Travis Tuck - to provide expert counselling, treatment and support for clinical depression which was diagnosed only when he was seen by his drug addiction clinician.'
Mr Anderson has also claimed, 'There are some people who think any AFL player who takes drugs should be banned. We don't. We think they should be helped and supported. It is a far greater benefit to the community to change behaviour than to move it along and make it someone else's problem.'
Mr Anderson has explained that the AFL's anti-drugs' policy focuses on detection and treatment rather than punishment and that this focus exists to try to ensure the well-being of players. Mr Anderson has noted, 'We took advice from some of Australia's leading drug prevention experts about the most effective manner of dealing with drug use. Their view was that counselling and treatment was the best way to counter it and change behaviour although they agree that there also needs to be a punitive element to ensure compliance, hence a tribunal hearing after three failed tests.'
4. The current AFL anti-drug policy is in accord with federal initiatives to reduce the use of illicit drugs
The AFL has answered claims that its new policy may not be in line with the Federal Government's to reduce illicit drug usage. The AFL maintains that rather than being tolerant of drug usage it has demonstrated a zero tolerance for illicit drug use in its players, with a rigorous in and out of season drug testing program, and an immediate response for any and all positive drug tests.
However, while positive tests for performance enhancing drugs (for example, steroids) are met with the full force of international regulations and sanctions under the World Ant-Doping Authority (WADA) code, the AFL has established a further appropriate and responsible policy for treating all initial findings of illicit, non-performance enhancing drug use. This policy involves treating such drug use as a health problem, with a sophisticated and comprehensive medical intervention as the first response.
The AFL states that this is completely in keeping with most other workplace employee assistance programs for illicit drug use, and is also directly supportive of the Federal Government's own policies, for example as set out in the 'Talking With Your Kids About Drugs' information booklet that was delivered to all Australian families as part of the 'Tough on Drugs' strategy.
The AFL claims its policy provides very stringent rules for medical intervention, treatment and rigorous follow-up drug testing for any detected illicit, non-performance enhancing drug use. However, it notes, in keeping with all employee-related health issues, this is initially performed in confidence at the level of the AFL Medical Commissioner and individual club medical officer, and includes appropriate counselling and treatment services.
The AFL claims that federal authorities have long-recognised that simple prohibition is not enough and that its anti-drug policy shows a similar emphasis.
5. It is not always appropriate that clubs be immediately informed of a player's drug status
The AFL's anti-drugs policy includes the provision that a player's drug status only has to be reported to their club after their third positive drug test.
It has been claimed that this measure exists to protect the players' privacy and to guarantee their compliance. A treatment and support regime is put in place from the first positive. This regime is in part implemented by the club's doctor, who, alone, as a club official, has to be informed of the player's drug test result.
It has been suggested that were it necessary to inform the club after the first positive test result there would be many more players who would not support the League's testing regime and this would harm the health and general well-being of the players.
League operations manager, Adrian Anderson, has argued that if club bosses were required to know about individual drug-use issues, the illicit drug policy would not work.
Anderson has claimed, 'If a club was required to know about the policy, this (Tuck's mental health problems) would never have been detected.
The treatment that Travis Tuck has been receiving over the last year has been fundamental to him being in the position he is today. It could have easily been much worse.
If we said to the players that the only way we are going to have the policy is if we tell the presidents and the coaches and the CEOs - there would be no policy and there would be no detection and (Tuck's) depression wouldn't have been diagnosed and he would have been demonstrably worse off.'
Brendon Gale, former head of the AFL Players' Association, has claimed that strictest confidentiality was paramount to the success of the drug's policy. He has also argued that drug experts were far better equipped than football administrators to manage the complexities of a player's drug problem and associated health issues.