What do you think of the AFL's new drug testing of players, policy?

Question

Dr Peter Harcourt of the AFL lectured WCE & Dockers players recently & advised that each individual player could be tested up to 12 times during this coming season.

This is a marked increase on previous years.

They are maintaining the three strikes policy because the AFL is too weak to buck the players association (union). The AFL has as much backbone as the ALP when it comes to dealing with unions.

Answer 1

One strike and your out, the same at many work places.

Answer 2

West Coast and Fremantle??? What has Freo done wrong?? And West Coast, who are they targeting now?? What about those players from Hawthorn that werent named. They should increase tests for all teams cos then its saying if you dont play in WA you cam go do drugs. Anyway, Id say the 3 strikes is an ok policy but they need to do more during th 1st and 2nd strikes. Target the player moregive them councilling and support. They cant just give a warning and walk away.

Answer 3

I think the AFL's drug testing policy should be just as it is in the workforce in private enterprise.

The AFL players association are claiming that playing AFL football is a trade & that the AFL follow the Trade Practice's Act when dealing with or punishing players.

Therefore the players should be subject to the same procedures as miners & other tradespeople who are regulary subject of drug testing as part of their employment. These people aren't allowed "three strikes". I am referring to the playing season - including official pre-season training & matters involved with & when they are representing their club.

Answer 4

Some earlier answers have plumped for the one strike and you're out - I disagree. The same penalty for being too high in caffeine, and having Es in your bag, and being caught sniffing a line, is ludicrous, in whatever place you work.

I agree with Clean and Sober - let the ratbags hang themselves by being repeat offenders, like Cousins. You need at least two strikes to make sure that the offence is deliberate and conscious - like drinking too much when driving.

Otherwise people will be caught in circumstantial situations rather than defying the rules, and incidentally the law.

After all - footballers have a limited time to make a splash in their profession, and they commit the worst sin against themselves if they abuse drugs in that narrow time. Staying drug-free and at the top of their form should be the greatest motivation - and regular testing only reinforces that. And I agree again with clean and sober that splashing the boots 12 times a year is really a tiny imposition to carry.

Answer 5

The AFL are giving the drug cheats every chance to hang themselves rather than create "martyrs" - if you recall there was a heap of protests the first time Cousins was nabbed. So the most offending teams are being put on notice that they can run, but they can't hide, and incidentally, other teams, that applies to you too. For example, a certain team that uses every chemical advantage they think they can get away with, and so far they have.

And the player unions are as fond of drug cheats as the AFL administration. They give the 95% of players who just give their best a hard time and a bad name.

What is so awful about being asked to micturate# in a bottle after every home game, on average, for a bloke who makes several thousand dollars for an hour's work?

#used this term because it's technical and non-offensive. Look it upif you need to!:

Answer 6

I think it should be - as stated by the person above me - one strike & you're out.

Even if the penalties are set from a low suspension - then increasing for any further offences - I think all illegal drug use offences should result in a suspension of some term or other.

Answer 7

I think the AFL s drug policy stinks.

Not that I am surprised . All sports nowdays are riddled with drugs & the players representatives are all left wing red-raggers who get pleasure out of bucking authority.