AFL"s Illicit Drug Policy

[Carter]

Further to my previous post, my nephew loves Dusty (as do I). He got a Dusty haircut for his u16 finals last year, tried to get the whole team to follow him to intimidate the opposition but their parents got a bit precious about their boys locks, anyway he knows Dusty might not be a pefect person. He understands that, its part of the appeal, but by no means does that mean he'll do whatever Dusty does.

Yeah you make a good distinction TS. I guess the other side of the coin is someone like a Dane Swan with his "get off my back" routine for media and fans alike.

Yes the media is rabid, and the fans can be annoying.

But both entities are effectively paying their wages. Wages that are far beyond the norm.

I don't think it's too much to ask them to remain clean for as long as they are receiving AFL income.

I think it was Linus who made the point that AFL players shouldn't be under drug surveillance 24 hours a day including holidays.

I respectfully disagree. The clubs already control what they eat and drink in their personal time. It's part and parcel of being a highly visible AFL product. That might sound overly corporate but that's what they are.

 

[lukeanddad]

I think many of you are missing the point and spending too much time arguing in favour of a no brainer. There are thousands of work places where drug testing is mandatory in the work place and it's a sackable offence if you get caught. The company my wife works at has a zero alcohol policy, you can get breath tested and sacked straight away if you have a drink at lunch time.

However, my wife's company cannot follow her home on the weekend, or front up in the middle of her holiday and demand a urine sample. This is where the line is drawn. They have every right to check an employee for drugs that may effect their performance and safety in the workplace. They have no business in what we may do in our holidays.

And I don't buy the role model rubbish. One Direction are role models. The entire cast of neighbours are role models. I don't see the music producers or TV companies turning up at the Logies or the Aria's chasing the stars with a test tube. Good forbid, there would be a few strikes handed out there!

A voice of reason. Well done.

I'd be more interested in ensuring that my orthopaedic surgeon, train driver or A380 Captain were drug tested while on holiday. To my knowledge, they aren't - and nor should they be.

 

[linuscambridge]

If I was a football club spending oodles of dollars monitoring a professional footballers health, fitness and training I'd sure want to know if they were doing drugs.

Want to do drugs? Do it in the bush leagues.

Many may be surprised that I actually agree with you here ToO. A footy club has the right and the duty to ensure their players turn up for work in a fit state to look after themselves and the players they train with. But this is where the AFL stuffed up. You make it a workplace safety issue and nobody can complain, not the players or the players association. Test them in the workplace and if they fail you have every right to apply whatever sanction you feel is necessary. And with the odd hours of training/recovery sessions etc. it's going to be a brave player who takes any drugs all through the footy season, even several days before training. Half life's of drugs are unpredictable. You would have little control over their holidays, but to my mind it's a small price to pay to preserve the rights of the players.

People forget that footy is the livelihood for our professional players. This is their career and they deserve to participate with as much protection as the rest of us get in our jobs. Sure they get well paid, but most of them probably get less than a crane operator or a train driver, and you try trampling on their workplace conditions and see how far you get.

Everybody has a hard on for Ice at the moment, and rightfully so, it's a horrible drug. But don't forget a player could effectively get banned from their job for having a sneaky joint with their mates on their weekend off. The player could have a family to feed, mortgage payments to make, and some of you want to take the food off their table and roof over their head for a little puff on their holidays!

 

[lamb22]

Skydiving isn't the same as taking drugs but if you think so knock yourself out.

Why not? It gives you a rush and it can harm or kill you.

A lot of posters get caught up in this illegal thing as if its synonomous with harm. Its not, many legal drugs are more dangerous than some illegal drugs as are many legal actvities such as skydiving or flying ultralites.

Your argument was that having spent lots of money on footballers clubs need to protect their investments. But you dont actually believe that. If you did activities such as sky diving etc fall neatly into your argument. Rather you use that argument as a fig leaf for some moral argument on drugs.

The validity of a moral argument on drugs is quite tenuous.

I smoke tobacco, I'm moral, I drink beer, I'm moral, I take exctasy I'm immoral.

Really?

 

[lamb22]

Everybody has a hard on for Ice at the moment, and rightfully so, it's a horrible drug. But don't forget a player could effectively get banned from their job for having a sneaky joint with their mates on their weekend off. The player could have a family to feed, mortgage payments to make, and some of you want to take the food off their table and roof over their head for a little puff on their holidays!

I think Germany between the wars is prescient here. As long as the trains run on train, civil liberties can take a back seat.

 

[linuscambridge]

I think Germany between the wars is prescient here. As long as the trains run on train, civil liberties can take a back seat.

I do love catching a train in Germany and Japan. Very punctual.

 

[lamb22]

I do love catching a train in Germany and Japan. Very punctual.

I haven't been to Japan, but those trains in Germany are top notch, Linus.

You'll also be glad to know that while I was in Koblenz and on the way from the train station to the river to catch a ferry which we were running late for, an octagenerian from 50 metres away, waved his walking stick and chastised us for jaywalking across an empty street with zero traffic.

I think he posts on this thread too.

 

[AngryAnt]

I think Germany between the wars is prescient here. As long as the trains run on train, civil liberties can take a back seat.

they also use to say that about Mussolini's Italy, but in fact it was a myth and trains ran as late as ever.

 

[Baloo]

That's because Italian trains only had 1 forward gear and 5 reverse.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Eh? “illicit” drugs means the drugs are illegal. Forbidden. You know….against the law.
Sorry to be glib...I appreciate that wasn't the thrust of your point, but as new drugs come into the market, do you propose we ditch the concept of them being viewed as potentially harmful just because they haven’t been historically listed and recognised yet?
There has to be some sort of framework to allow for measurability of law that is based on the well being of it's people.

And with regard to looking at the people, not the substance….this is a hopelessly narrow and incorrect way of viewing this issue. Sure, looking at people and their motivations is always a factor. Yeah, some people just do bad things. But to ignore drugs as a massive factor in influencing people doing bad things is unbelievably naïve. You couldn’t be more wrong quite frankly.

Yes, the players are paid to play. But this is just one basic element. Being selected to play in the AFL is a lot more complex than just that and the players know it (or learn it quickly enough). The clubs now interview them on their characters and background for example. Players are taught how to present themselves in the media. Why bother if their image is unimportant? Their image is an integrated part of their involvement in the AFL. The AFL is not just 'playing footy'.

The AFL and the managers of One Direction both sell images. Slightly different images, but the product still has to meet expectations. Rock stars, boy bands, etc vs AFL players will get different good and bad press for different sets of behaviours. You’re going to get different levels of acceptance if say Lemme Kilmister downs a bottle of Jack and throws up in a taxi compared with if Harry Styles did it. Motorhead ain’t gonna lose fans for that, but One D might….and their managers would act on it.

One Direction, the cast of Neighbours and the AFL players all come under different levels of scrutiny from different angles and is part of the territory and relative compensations for each. Not everyone is cut out for various roles in societies, but various roles have their own requirements good and bad.

The image of the players that the AFL sells is of one of role models. The illicit drug policy is just a part of this. Gone is tolerance of brawls, racial vilification and other aspects of old world football for better or for worse. And part of being an AFL player….to get signed up for the glory and the dollars….to be in that hard to break into, elite group….is that you toe the line of the of the expected standards. And if the AFL say to be part of this exclusive arena, one of the burdens you must bear even if you’re not ‘at work’ is that you are subject to drug testing…then that’s what the players sign up for. It’s not a regular work place in some respects, but even then….if ‘regular’ employers paid you big dollars and had the resources to check on you because it was part of their big picture, then you would be subject to it too.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think that I'm hearing any arguments that players should not be tested for performance enhancing drugs in their private time. If they’re cheating the rules of playing the sport clean, then they should be busted for it, whether they’re on holiday or not. Why is it such a stretch to test them for cheating the laws of the land? Why should the AFL not have the ability to put this requirement on their product?

Another work analogy…Some people must be contactable by phone even if they are on holidays because of security, specific knowledge, sole approval status, medical instruction, etc, etc.
Don’t like being on call on your holidays? Then you might not be able to meet the requirements of that job.

Doing "bad" things? Are we children? Why is it bad? People have been getting high in a variety of ways since homo erectus took his first bipedal steps. The most commonly used and dangerous substance is not illegal but why should that matter? I understand why clubs and the AFL care, I just don't accept that they have a right to police players during their personal time. Do they get paid a lot? Sure. Do squeaky clean players get paid more than gun midfielders with questionable habits? Nope. Know why? Because they are paid to play.

You've got the cart before the horse dude. The drugs are the reaction not the cause. I've never used any of the drugs we are discussing. I have been offered. I have been the only person in a room of very annoying people all doing coke. Not because I am a saint. Just because I try only to do things based on my own understanding rather than social pressure. Were I in a different mental state I might have made a different choice. The drug is not the cause. The drugs aren't "bad". The question is why people use them? Ian4 will tell us that recreational use where you know what you are taking and know the side effects and are in trusted company is just a buzz. I haven't experienced it but I don't see why I shouldn't take him at his word? You seem to be taking the "all illegal drugs are bad" route. This is patently nonsense. Weed is far less harmful than alcohol or tobacco and very helpful in cancer patients. Its illegal status is historical and political and unrelated to its actual effects. Everyone is losing their *smile* over "ice". I don't doubt it is a very harmful substance. But people in a healthy state of mind don't drink drain cleaner. The problem is in the person long before the drug is.

If the AFL want to get their teeth into societal issues start testing the wives and girlfriends and one-night stands for signs of abuse.

No I do not accept that players should be expected to be more than players. Yes The AFL sells a product. That is its business. The players sign up to play and the AFL extract the extra cash through marketing. It makes sense for them to care about that product but that does not imply that the players owe the AFL a duty to be good citizens. Role models schmole models. Do kids love certain players? Sure. Do they ape the behaviours of those players? Not in my experience?

 

[Tigers of Old]

Everybody has a hard on for Ice at the moment, and rightfully so, it's a horrible drug. But don't forget a player could effectively get banned from their job for having a sneaky joint with their mates on their weekend off. The player could have a family to feed, mortgage payments to make, and some of you want to take the food off their table and roof over their head for a little puff on their holidays!

There was a post on another thread about the word 'drugs' being the blanket word for a whole host of substances of varying dangers and I found it really thought provoking and quite enlightening.
It's not helpful when we paint all 'drugs' as bad but there are no doubt drugs which are genuinely bad. All 'illicit' drugs are not equal.
It's where a lot of the arguments get muddled, on both sides of the equation.
Ice is the one most are trumpeting now because as I understand it the addiction rate from just one hit of the stuff is so high and it's so destructive to the user.
Skydiving it ain't.
We've near all experimented with some kind of drug or other but we don't get addicted to them.

I think Ice is the no.1 reason that this whole issue has reared it's head in the AFL and it needs to be taken very seriously.

 

[Dyer'ere]

I have read in the papers over the years (usually after an injury) that AFL players have in their contracts that are banned from:

Other sports (including indoor cricket and local basketball)
Motorcycling
Wearing thongs
Surfing
Gardening
Use of power tools
Waterskiing
Snow sports including skiing
Mountain biking
Hang gliding
Parachuting

That's why they use drugs. They've got nuthen else to do.

 

[Rosy]

I have read in the papers over the years (usually after an injury) that AFL players have in their contracts that are banned from:

Other sports (including indoor cricket and local basketball)
Motorcycling
Wearing thongs
Surfing
Gardening
Use of power tools
Waterskiing
Snow sports including skiing
Mountain biking
Hang gliding
Parachuting

That's why they use drugs. They've got nuthen else to do.

Having a bath.

 

[Mac]

I was wondering if the sometimes romanticised cannabis would be raised in argument. Ok, it's not as bad as something like ice, but it enjoys a deceptive and underestimated status to the point many people dismiss it as being near harmless.

Yeah, I actually can see the merits of considering its decriminalisation in some circumstances. And I'm definitely not elevating alcohol above it as less of a problem (due in part to the availability of such a variety of alcohol).... I agree alcohol abuse is one of societies biggest problems. And it hasn't been ignored in this discussion. But cannabis can be very detrimental to many people too. But it gets a bit of a cool reputation despite the problems it can bring. Eg, Research, studies and statistics have categorically demonstrated that the earlier in age kids try it, the more likely they will become addicted to it later - that is not me expressing an opinion. And if addicted to it, it can very much be a problem for people. Not saying it's a problem for everyone who uses it.... just playing devils advocate against it being used as a counter argument.

And for what it's worth mentioning, it's also 20 times more carcinogenic than tobacco. 20 times!! Next spiff anyone has, remember you're sucking in a pack of cigs in terms of carcinogens... just thought it worth putting out there.

Anyway, that's specific stuff getting slightly off track. You're still totally wrong about illicit drugs not influencing people's decisions and behaviour. You're wrong to simplify it to a 'cart before the horse' off handed cliché. That's just not correct.

But I've had my say, so that'll do from me. I clearly won't change your mind and you won't change mine. Cheers.

 

[Bullarto Tiger]

And the fervent alcohol lobby will be very quietly thrilled that there is such an emotive focus on illicit drugs ... because all the while it can continue to peddle its legal drugs unabashedly
The fact that "legal drugs" cause more deaths in Australia than "illegal drugs" remains a fascinating issue that fails to gain real traction with the media coverage. Such is the desire for hysteria!

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I was wondering if the sometimes romanticised cannabis would be raised in argument. Ok, it's not as bad as something like ice, but it enjoys a deceptive and underestimated status to the point many people dismiss it as being near harmless.

Yeah, I actually can see the merits of considering its decriminalisation in some circumstances. And I'm definitely not elevating alcohol above it as less of a problem (due in part to the availability of such a variety of alcohol).... I agree alcohol abuse is one of societies biggest problems. And it hasn't been ignored in this discussion. But cannabis can be very detrimental to many people too. But it gets a bit of a cool reputation despite the problems it can bring. Eg, Research, studies and statistics have categorically demonstrated that the earlier in age kids try it, the more likely they will become addicted to it later - that is not me expressing an opinion. And if addicted to it, it can very much be a problem for people. Not saying it's a problem for everyone who uses it.... just playing devils advocate against it being used as a counter argument.

And for what it's worth mentioning, it's also 20 times more carcinogenic than tobacco. 20 times!! Next spiff anyone has, remember you're sucking in a pack of cigs in terms of carcinogens... just thought it worth putting out there.

Anyway, that's specific stuff getting slightly off track. You're still totally wrong about illicit drugs not influencing people's decisions and behaviour. You're wrong to simplify it to a 'cart before the horse' off handed cliché. That's just not correct.

But I've had my say, so that'll do from me. I clearly won't change your mind and you won't change mine. Cheers.

I know it is off topic but if you are going to drop casual falsehoods I am going to address them. Where are you getting your statistics?

"While cannabis smoke has been implicated in respiratory dysfunction, including the conversion of respiratory cells to what appears to be a pre-cancerous state [5], it has not been causally linked with tobacco related cancers [6] such as lung, colon or rectal cancers. Recently, Hashibe et al [7] carried out an epidemiological analysis of marijuana smoking and cancer. A connection between marijuana smoking and lung or colorectal cancer was not observed. These conclusions are reinforced by the recent work of Tashkin and coworkers [8] who were unable to demonstrate a cannabis smoke and lung cancer link, despite clearly demonstrating cannabis smoke-induced cellular damage."

from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/

Cannabis is not an "addictive" compound in the way that tobacco is. People can become dependant but that is different:

"Marijuana produces dependence less readily than most other illicit drugs. Some 9 percent of those who try marijuana develop dependence compared to, for example, 15 percent of people who try cocaine and 24 percent of those who try heroin. However, because so many people use marijuana, cannabis dependence is twice as prevalent as dependence on any other illicit psychoactive substance (cocaine, 1.8 percent; heroin, 0.7 percent; Anthony and Helzer, 1991; Anthony, Warner, and Kessler, 1994)."

from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2797098/

It is the social factors not the drug. Why are these people using this substance at a young age and high frequency? The drug is not the cause and weed's low chemical addictive nature is further suggestive that the problem is not related to the chemical:

"Approximately half of the individuals who enter treatment for marijuana use are under 25 years of age. These patients report a distinctive profile of associated problems, perhaps due to their age and involvement in other risky behaviors (Tims et al., 2002). Adolescents who smoke marijuana are at enhanced risk of adverse health and psychosocial consequences, including sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, early school dropout, delinquency, legal problems, and lowered educational and occupational aspirations."

from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2797098/

Alcohol is not "one of societies biggest problems" it is the biggest. In terms of dependence, family/domestic violence, road deaths, hospital admissions, cancer..etc.

Feel free to get back on topic now but try not to use fallacious statistics to back your argument.

 

[linuscambridge]

I tried Ice once. It was a wild 24 hours with an evil mate and a couple of "working girls" experiencing sights and sounds of the seedy side of Hong Kong. It was a lot of fun. Wouldn't do it again though, had a splitting headache for 3 days. I'll stick to bourbon thanks.

 

[22nd Man]

The one reason I don't agree in a hard line stance on recreational drug use by players is that the players will be ostracised at a time when they need to be fully supported. It's a complex issue.

It's this fully supported but that always riles me. A player glasses his wife has to be fully supported. A player who decks a bloke in a pub has to be fully supported. A player who turns into a coke head has to be fully supported.

Cannot think of any employer (maybe other than public sector) who would fully support an employee in any of these scenarios. You'd be on your own, continue to get paid if you work but that's all. I am sick of the prevailing attitude that says players have to have special treatment not afforded to other adults in society.

 

[Mac]

Feel free to get back on topic now

Fair call.

But you've really only just confirmed what I was getting at anyway... weed is underestimated as being harmful. You've gone into bat for it which was my point. You've confirmed young people are most risk for developing a dependence on it. I did say it's not as bad as something like ice. I didn't say "It's less bad ergo it's good". And while you haven't quite said that either.... your raft of quotes fit my argument that it enjoys an underestimated status because - it is often compared to worse drugs to make it look better or good. I also acknowledged it to be worthy of decriminalisation...you've mentioned cancer patients as one instance - it may surprise you, but I agree with this (although it's the oil rather than the smoke that seems to have that benefit)

You didn't include any more recent studies that link weed to schizophrenia, depression and anxiety. But you're right, discussing the benefits or otherwise of it is getting off topic.

I am glad you raised a good point about social behaviours and the use of many drugs not just one. This is a really good point that gets back on the subject of the thread.

Before getting back there, I do note that you continue to state it is social factors not the substance. Maybe I'm taking you out of context here and reading your statement as absolute, when you are really meaning it's part of the big picture. I've already agreed that people's motives, backgrounds and behaviours are a factor. But your comments have been that there is NO link to substances and behaviour. This just isn't true. Do they go in hand? Of course, in many cases as your stats quoted have indicated a percentage display distinctive traits and socio-economic background, etc that play a role.

On track, your sources indicate that areas of drug use are often not isolated to one substance. "One thing leads to another" is too simplified, but parents get worried about their kids doing weed because it's use is often linked to being an avenue into using harder drugs by young people who develop that dependence early. It's also on the thread subject track in that the AFL drugs policy needs to be a wide umbrella because of the nature of drug use and to concur in part to your point, the nature of drug users (hand in hand, not "it's the user, not the substance"). Again, where do they draw a cut off point between which substance(s)?

Lastly, I haven't anywhere defended alcohol and didn't demonise weed relative to it to elevate the status of alcohol. I agree it's a massive problem. I haven't used any arguments "for" it at all. You've picked me up on the point that I've written "One of the biggest problems" and then trumped me by saying its THE biggest problem. Ok....you've got me there (although I personally think gambling is right up there too)..... but you do realise that you've just claimed that a SUBSTANCE is the problem and not necessarily just the people using it, which pretty much contradicts a lot of what you've argued. I agree.... alcohol is the prime example of a substance compounding the issues of someone predisposed to certain behaviours, but it is also a substance that creates problems where there were none.

 

[Rosy]

........
You didn't include any more recent studies that link weed to schizophrenia, depression and anxiety.

......

A lot of that is manifesting many years after people smoked dope too.

(This drug discussion doesn't belong on DyerTribe. Will move the thread tonight)