Article re drugs policies

[cd]

From today's Age in Melbourne from the AFL CEO - worth a read - FYI - presonal post

Col D

Keeping our goals in sight
ANDREW DEMETRIOU
Helping young men beat drugs should not be turned into a publicity circus.
THE AFL does not, never has and never will condone illicit drug use. I wanted to say that straight out because people who have watched, listened to or read some of the commentary over the past week could be excused for thinking the AFL doesn't take the issue of illicit drug use seriously.
We take it so seriously that the AFL established an illicit drug policy in 2005 and today we remain one of only two sports in the country that tests its players out of competition.
To put that in perspective, some 88 other sports don't have an out-of-competition illicit drug testing regime. The AFL does.
Our message is very clear - the AFL abhors illicit drug use and we want to do That we can to tackle an issue that causes enormous grief right across the community. Illicit drug use is a massive issue across society and AFL footballers are part of society and subject to the same temptations as other people their own age.
But they are tested for illicit drugs on match days (in competition) by ASADA under the World Anti-Doping Authority regime and if found positive they receive a two-year ban. No AFL player has ever tested positive for illicit drugs on match day.
But we do know that some AFL footballers use such drugs at other times because we test them out of
competition and then release the statistical results. In February this year, after the testing regime had run for two years, we announced the results again and told the media and the public that we have recorded 28 positive tests over two years. Three players had tested positive twice.
One positive test is one too many, but if there is good news it is that every player that has tested positive has been referred to the appropriate counselling and treatment to help them actually deal with the issue and change their behaviour. We don't want them to hide their problem. We want them to deal with it and to receive the support they need.
It's important to remember that justice Murray Kellam in the Supreme Court last year accepted the argument that a policy that provided treatment for players to overcome illicit drug use out of competition was more important than the need for the public to know the names of those players.
It's also important to remember that this policy, which has been attacked by so many commentators but praised by so many drug prevention experts, is one that the players volunteered to take part in. They wanted to ensure that their teammates received treatment if they had made the wrong choices. They supported the system because it educates and prevents illicit drug use but also - where such drug use occurs - it takes
immediate action to ensure that those players are referred to counselling and treatment.
The AFL could have pretended there wasn't a problem and left it alone, but that's not leadership. We became aware some players were using illicit drugs out of competition and we have tackled it. The result is that there are a number of players who have had a significant intervention in their life that has resulted in them seeking and receiving treatment.
We know there are differing views on our system. It is a complex area with no simple solutions, but our policy was developed to tackle a real problem in the way that the experts in this field said was the most effective in changing behaviour.
Yesterday Victoria's Chief Commissioner of Police, Christine Nixon, supported the AFL system and its focus of seeking to refer players for treatment. As the Chief Commissioner pointed out, if police pick up someone
who uses illicit drugs, the most likely outcome is that they are referred to treatment and counselling - just like AFL players. Police, too, recognise that counselling and treatment is more effective in changing behaviour than the simplistic response of naming and shaming.
We do not and will not support a name and shame policy ahead of treatment and dealing with the problem.
The events of the past week show exactly why identifying players with problems doesn't work - there are some in the media who would put a story ahead of the welfare of patients, who are in treatment for a
serious illness. Today this issue will be back in court and the AFL will continue to support any action
that keeps doctor-patient medical records private, as they should be.
The real issue over the past week was and remains - the way that a patient's private medical records with a doctor were taken from a doctor's office, sold and then published.
Certainly the scramble to try and reveal details has shown little respect for the two players who are undergoing treatment and counselling.
We thank the Victoria Police for their work in charging two people with theft in relation to those documents.
The question for the AFL this week has been: Are you doing anything to combat illicit drugs? The answer is yes, and we will continue to do so.
We don't want (AFL footballers) to hide their problem. We want them to deal with it and to receive the support they need. AFL players recognise they are role models and I thank them for their support of
their system and the way they continue to be held to high - sometimes impossibly high - standards that mean some people believe they can never make a mistake.
The question for some in the media is whether they think their actions over the past week would meet that same high standard.

[Aerie]

For once I agree with Andrew Demetriou. Good article. In particular the following with reference to the latest case with Channel 7:

"It's important to remember that justice Murray Kellam in the Supreme Court last year accepted the argument that a policy that provided treatment for players to overcome illicit drug use out of competition was more important than the need for the public to know the names of those players."

[pipers]

For once I agree with Andrew Demetriou. Good article. In particular the following with reference to the latest case with Channel 7:

"It's important to remember that justice Murray Kellam in the Supreme Court last year accepted the argument that a policy that provided treatment for players to overcome illicit drug use out of competition was more important than the need for the public to know the names of those players."

Maybe, but by releasing stats, but then not naming the offenders, aren't you actually perpetuating or even creating a media feeding-frenzy?

If you want a transparent drug policy look at the Lazaridis case in the A-League over the past few months.

[spell_check]

What's the difference between a gambling addiction and a drug addiction then?

[pipers]

What's the difference between a gambling addiction and a drug addiction then?

Great question...

[Aerie]

What's the difference between a gambling addiction and a drug addiction then?

The only thing I'd say to that is if players were caught taking drugs that could be argued were contriving the result of a game (i.e. performance enhancing) then they would be named and shamed immediately. Just as the gamblers were. Well, that's how I understand it anyway, there isn't a three strike deal with performance enhancing drugs is there?

As far as releasing the statistics to the public re illicit drugs, but not the names - I think that is fair enough. It creates a general awareness of the problem, but at the same time gives the individual a chance to kick the problem without all the media hoo ha. You would hope the warnings are enough to make them realise what's at stake (not just with regards to their football career) and they would go through the process of cleaning up their act while they still can.

More testing would be good. Players shouldn't be thinking they have a chance to get away with taking drugs.

[pipers]

As far as releasing the statistics to the public re illicit drugs, but not the names - I think that is fair enough. It creates a general awareness of the problem, but at the same time gives the individual a chance to kick the problem without all the media hoo ha.

I agree in principle I guess, but there's been a fair bit of hoo-ha this week anyway, and let's be honest, most people know who the players involved are...

Besides, isn't the first step in kicking an addiction admitting that you actually have a problem?

I should know - Hooray for beer!

[CENTURION]

Personally, I can't see what the problem is, after all, they're not performance enhancing, therefore they're not drug cheats. It's ok to smoke a pack of Winfield a day, it's ok to drink a carton of Crownies a night, so what's the big deal in dropping the odd goog on the way out to HQ? They're only harming themselves.

[LPH]

What's the difference between a gambling addiction and a drug addiction then?

Err... gambling IS legal & drugs are NOT!!!

Slight difference one would have thought

[CUTTERMAN]

For once I agree with Andrew Demetriou. Good article. In particular the following with reference to the latest case with Channel 7:

"It's important to remember that justice Murray Kellam in the Supreme Court last year accepted the argument that a policy that provided treatment for players to overcome illicit drug use out of competition was more important than the need for the public to know the names of those players."

Maybe, but by releasing stats, but then not naming the offenders, aren't you actually perpetuating or even creating a media feeding-frenzy?

If you want a transparent drug policy look at the Lazaridis case in the A-League over the past few months.

FA, Lazaridis was banned for taking something for his hair loss. Serious! He wasn't taking illicet or performance enhancing drugs.
Malthouse's comments yesterday were interesting in that he refered to Cousin's drug abuse and basically said "you can't tell me that they're not performance enhancing"

[Dissident]

What's the difference between a gambling addiction and a drug addiction then?

Err... gambling IS legal & drugs are NOT!!!

Slight difference one would have thought

Err.... but what's that got to do with naming one and not the other?

[Dissident]

Jessica Alba is a performance enhancing drug.

[silicone skyline]

Personally, I can't see what the problem is, after all, they're not performance enhancing, therefore they're not drug cheats. It's ok to smoke a pack of Winfield a day, it's ok to drink a carton of Crownies a night, so what's the big deal in dropping the odd goog on the way out to HQ? They're only harming themselves.

The clubs don't want players taking them for that very reason,plus they're illegal.
And the fact their image has to be user friendly, not drug associated.
That's why they are banned.
Drugs are traditionally trouble, which is why the image of the AFL must be anti-drug.
There is no other way aorund it.

[JK]

For once I agree with Andrew Demetriou. Good article. In particular the following with reference to the latest case with Channel 7:

"It's important to remember that justice Murray Kellam in the Supreme Court last year accepted the argument that a policy that provided treatment for players to overcome illicit drug use out of competition was more important than the need for the public to know the names of those players."

Maybe, but by releasing stats, but then not naming the offenders, aren't you actually perpetuating or even creating a media feeding-frenzy?

If you want a transparent drug policy look at the Lazaridis case in the A-League over the past few months.

FA, Lazaridis was banned for taking something for his hair loss. Serious! He wasn't taking illicet or performance enhancing drugs.
Malthouse's comments yesterday were interesting in that he refered to Cousin's drug abuse and basically said "you can't tell me that they're not performance enhancing"

Haven't followed the case, but surely he must have been suspended for taking a banned substance, which usually has a decent reason for being on the banned list in the first place, whether it be potentially performance enhancing or as a masking agent?

[LPH]

What's the difference between a gambling addiction and a drug addiction then?

Err... gambling IS legal & drugs are NOT!!!

Slight difference one would have thought

Err.... but what's that got to do with naming one and not the other?

Err... NO MEDICAL CONFIDENTUALITY !!! (Common Law Issues)

[Dissident]

What's the difference between a gambling addiction and a drug addiction then?

Err... gambling IS legal & drugs are NOT!!!

Slight difference one would have thought

Err.... but what's that got to do with naming one and not the other?

Err... NO MEDICAL CONFIDENTUALITY !!! (Common Law Issues)

There's medical confidentiality with Doctors and Patients....
I'm talking about once the AFL knows about either a gambler or a drug taker - it's the same.

[LPH]

No, it's NOT the same.

The AFL & the AFLPA have an agreement with signaturies from BOTH sides on Dug Testing/Results.

My understanding is that NO SUCH ARRANGEMENT EXISTS in terms of Gambling @ present.

You are comparing 'apples to oranges' as it were.

Go You Blues !!

[LPH]

also dRug testing oops

[Jar Man Out]

What's the difference between a gambling addiction and a drug addiction then?

fantastic point. answer :society completely scared of drugs. not so much gambling.

both are addictions and they should be treated the exact same way.

$40000 fine halfed incase Ward and Goodwin do it again DISGRACE!!!!. How about if they do it again youll rip up their afl contracts.

Interesting to note the players association had no dramas with the gamblers names being leaked thru the media. Or Aker drug allegations being leaked. Players getting suspended for 7 games on no evidence. But a medical report found on the ground by a member of the public is the final straw.

[silicone skyline]

The document was stolen and sold to the seven network.
there was nothing innocent about it JMO.