2010/17: The Travis Tuck case: is the AFL's policy on illicit-drug use adequate?

Echo Issue Outline ... to return to the page you "clicked" from, simply close this window

Related issue outlines:
2008/04: Was Ben Cousins treated fairly by the West Coast Eagles and the AFL?

Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).

Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis

For later or follow-up newspaper items (additional to the items displayed in the newspaper items section at the end of this outline) , go back to the Newspaper Index section of the Echo site. Use the search-words travis and tuck

2010/17: The Travis Tuck case: is the AFL's policy on illicit-drug use adequate?

What they said...
'The fact remains he [Tuck] has now effectively tested positive three times and been banned for only 12 weeks'
Luke Buttigieg writing for sportal.com.au

'Our whole Illicit Drug policy is about helping players - to offer support, counselling and treatment to address issues around illicit drug use'
League operations manager, Adrian Anderson

The issue at a glance
On September 1, 2010, it was announced that Hawthorn midfielder, Travis Tuck, was to be banned for 12 weeks from playing within the AFL competition after confessing to the use of the illegal substance GHB.
Travis Tuck is the first player to appear before an AFL Tribunal for a third offence against the League's illicit-drugs code. Tuck was fined $5000 for the first offence, banned for six games for the second, and suspended for another six games for the third. However, because of 'extenuating and compelling circumstances', Tuck, who is being treated for clinical depression, will not have to pay the fine and will be able to return to the VFL after missing eight games.
The case has provoked significant controversy. Tuck's appearance has led to claims that the illicit-drugs code is not working, that it is too lenient, too harsh and most particularly, that it ignores the rights of the clubs and their capacity to assist their players.

Background information
In 1990 the AFL developed an anti-doping code in an attempt to prevent players taking performance-enhancing drugs.
In 2005, the AFL extended its anti-doping policy to other illicit drugs, which included cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy. With the addition of its illicit-drug policy, testing would be done both in-season and out-of-season, and both pre and post match. This measure was taken in part because the AFL believed it had an obligation to protect the health of athletes and the good name and integrity of the sport.
This policy was endorsed by the AFL Players' Association (AFLPA) on the grounds that it would provide an early warning of problem drug-use, and in addition the standard playing contract included a clause that required players to submit themselves 'without
limitation (to) a blood or urine test'.
The AFL resolved that its illicit-drugs policy should be both preventative and punitive. That is, it should aim to educate, counsel and treat players on illicit drug use as well as punishing those who used a banned substance.
By 2007, the AFL's Illicit-drugs Policy had been further refined and now operates in the following manner:

The testing
Every AFL player is tested out of competition for illicit drugs at least once a year.
There will be up to 1500 illicit drug tests to be conducted over a 12-month period.
Greater target testing of players returning to the club out of season will take place from the end of 2008.
Players who record a failed drug test are also target-tested.

The drugs
Players are tested for all the major illicit drugs including heroin, cocaine, cannabis, ice, ecstasy, Ketamine and GHB

The sanctions
Sanctions apply on the first and second time a player fails an out of competition illicit drug test.
A fine of $5000 applies to the first failed test and a 6 week suspension applies on the second. Both sanctions are suspended and are activated on the third failed test, bringing suspension up to a maximum of 18 weeks.
The suspension for a failed third test for marijuana has been increased to a maximum of 12 weeks in line with the other illicit drugs, on the advice of experts of marijuana's increasingly harmful effect on mental health.
On the third test failure a player has to appear before a specially convened AFL tribunal.

Support
For a first in- or out-of-season offence players have to undertake private counselling, while for a second offence they are asked to submit to a rehabilitation program.
Additional medical and other support will be given as required. The club's medical officer is informed of and may be involved in these treatment decisions.

Confidentiality
After a first and second test failure the only member of the club who is informed is the club's medical officer, who has a role in assisting the player's rehabilitation.
Where multiple failed tests have occurred at a club, the Club's CEO is formally informed of the failed tests but the identity of the player(s) involved remains confidential until the third failed test.
When a player who has failed a test is traded to, or drafted by, another club, the new club's chief medical officer is informed of the failed test(s).

Test-record lapses
A players' failed test will lapse if there is no repeat offence over four years.

Internet information
At the end of 2007, the AFL extended its illicit-drugs policy. The details of this extended policy can be found at http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/13144/Default.aspx?newsId=66504
Further information on the policy can be found at http://www.afl.com.au/Default.aspx?tabid=12211

In 2008, Professors Bob Stewart, Geoff Dickson and Aaron Smith wrote an article titled, 'Drug Use in the Australian Football League: A Critical Survey'. It was published in Sporting Traditions, 25(1): 57-74 (2008).
The article gives a detailed account of the AFL's illicit-drugs policy, its development and its operation. It gives detailed accounts of the manner in which a number of players who tested positive have been treated under it. Though it recognises the AFL's generally good intentions, the article is critical of the intended scope of the illicit-drugs policy and its actual effectiveness. The full text of this article can be found at http://www.aaronctsmith.com/Article%20PDFs/Stewart%20ST.pdf

On February 3, 2010, the AFL news publication, Roar, published an opinion piece by Luke D'Anello titled, 'Forget the criticism, AFL's drug testing not a soft hand'. The article suggests that the AFL's illicit-drugs policy is rigorous in its application.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/02/13/afls-drug-testing-is-not-a-soft-hand/

On September 1, 2010, the AFL news publication, Roar, published an opinion piece by Michael DiFabrizio titled, 'Has the AFL's three strikes policy been vindicated?', Though the piece argues that the current plight of Travis Tuck indicates there is still room for improvement, it is essentially positive in its attitude to the AFL's illicit-drugs policy. The full text of this opinion piece can be found at http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/09/01/has-the-afls-three-strikes-policy-been-vindicated/

On September 2, 2010, AFL general manager of operations, Mr Adrian Anderson, issued a statement defending the AFL's illicit-drugs policy and its operation in the case of Travis Tuck. The full text of this statement can be found at http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/101796/default.aspx

On September 2, 2010, The Age's 'Real Footy' supplement included an article by Samantha Lane giving the views of Melbourne's Cameron Schwab and Richmond's Brendon Gale both of whom support the current AFL illicit-drugs policy.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/club-doctor-is-best-choice-20100901-14niz.html

On September 2, 2010, Hawthorn President Jeff Kennett criticized the AFL's illicit-drug's policy for not informing the club when Travis Tuck first tested positive for illicit drugs. Mr Kennett argues that the policy denied the club a chance to assist its player.
A summary of Mr Kennett's views and a link to the full 3AW interview can be found at
http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-football-blog/kennett-again-slams-afl-drug-policy/20100902-14o95.html

On September 3, 2010, The Adelaide Advertiser published an opinion piece by Ken McGregor in which he defended Australian Rules football against allegations that it was violent and drug-ridden. He commended the operation of the AFL's illicit-drugs policy. The full text of the article can be found at http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/my-pride-in-afl-mates-values/story-e6frea83-1225914031796

On September 4, 2010, the radical online magazine 'Green Left' published an opinion piece by Stuart Munckton titled, 'Fresh hysteria on drugs and sport'. The piece is critical of the AFL's illicit-drugs policy for being intrusive and trespassing in players' private lives. The full text of this article can be found at http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/45272

On September 5, 2010, The Age's 'Real Footy' supplement included an opinion by Caroline Wilson in which she suggested that the Hawthorn football club should have handled the cases of a number of its former players with mood disorders with greater understanding. Her implication is that the club is in no position to simply be critical of the AFL's illicit-drug policy for not being notified of Travis Tuck's emotional problems. The full text of the article can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/hawks-not-blameless-20100904-14vc1.html

Arguments against the current AFL illicit-drug use policy
1. The policy violates players' privacy
Some 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.

Arguments in favour of the current AFL's illicit-drug use policy
1. The current policy is having a positive effect
It 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.

Further implications
This is not a simple issue. It is hard not to agree that the AFL crossed a significant line when it instituted a policy which sees it actively monitoring the off-field behaviour of its players in what would normally be regarded as their private lives. The League's motives are likely to have been mixed - a combination of care for the wellbeing of its players and concern that its multi-million dollar brand not be tarnished by off-field antics. The compliance of the Australian Football League Players' Association can probably be attributed to a not dissimilar mix.
In terms of the effectiveness of the illicit-drugs policy it would seem to have been a success. As detected under this testing regime, AFL players appear to use illicit-drugs to a far lesser extent than their peers in the general community. Indeed the rate of usage is so low that it has led to speculation that either the players are not being tested frequently enough or they have found ways of faking the test.
With regard to whether the policy is too punitive or too protective, the treatment of Travis Tuck would seem to indicate that the balance is about right. The young man is being offered continued support; however, the public attention now directed to his condition should make it apparent that he will not be able to go on playing if he continues to take illicit substances. From the point of view of the sport's public image, this is doubtless a good thing. It remains to be seen how positive it turns out to be for the young man in question. The inducement of being able to continue his football career may be a good thing; the public exposure and the increased pressure may not. Only time will tell.
The AFL cannot be condemned for trying to build a strong public image; however, it is inevitable that this will sometimes be at the expense of some of its sons who have difficulty maintaining the standards expected. Media exposure has both made the sport the highly profitable industry it is and increased the pressure on those who play it.
It will be interesting to see where the sport goes in its treatment of that far more pervasive social problem - the excessive consumption of alcohol.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline (see also the Web Links / Internet Information section)
Herald-Sun: September 2, page 34, comment by Rebecca Wilson, `Footy drugs rule a sham'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/footy-drugs-rule-a-sham/story-e6frfhqf-1225913006088

Herald-Sun: September 2, page 34, comment by Adrian Anderson, `Guiding principle for the AFL is the wellbeing of all our players'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/wellbeing-of-all-players-is-our-guiding-principle/story-e6frfhqf-1225913007796

Herald-Sun: September 1, page 30, editorial, `AFL has own drug problem'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/afl-has-own-drug-problem/story-e6frfhqo-1225912537024

Herald-Sun: September 1, pages 4, comment by Mike Sheahan, `Third strike just a matter of time'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/third-strike-a-matter-of-time/story-e6frf9ox-1225912551681

The Australian: September 1, page 3, news item (photo of Tuck) by Courtney Walsh, `Three strikes leads to AFL drug disgrace'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/three-strikes-lead-to-afl-drug-disgrace/story-e6frg7mf-1225912532744

The Age: September 1, page 1, news item (photo) by Caroline Wilson, `Three-strikes policy failed Tuck: Hawks'. (Video in online version)
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tucks-three-strikes-end-in-12game-ban-20100831-14fja.html

The Age: September 5, page 11, news item (photo of Travis Tuck) by J Stark, `Player "mental checks" urged'.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/player-mental-checks-urged/2010/09/04/1283020745283.html