That Clinic in Ivanhoe !!

[Mr Magic]

Don't apologise Magic, you make good points and I'm certainly not in any position to defend the AFL.

I think what we have here is a policy which would work well - I think the '3 strikes' idea is a generous one but it is done with the best of intentions. However, it is really only effective as long as the testing is intensive enough.

On the current regime you could argue that 2 strikes is too generous, given how long players can go between tests. If, on the other hand, all players were tested 4 times a year then the AFL's progressive 'rehabilitation' policy would seem fair.

It amazes me how the AFL can cry poor over such insignificant costs like drug testing and fixed cameras at grounds. Maybe we are talking about a few thousand dollars per club per year but the AFL turns over hundreds of millions of dollars, and is a laughing stock because of these 2 issues.

There's no excuse for it IMO.

Brewer, I agree with you on this.
Their actions don't seem to match their stated goals.
They either have a ploicy of stamping out all behind the play incidents with cameras at all grounds or they don't
They eitehr have a drug testing programme to stamp out illicit drug use or they don't.

I didn't tell them to institute either policy. They did that on their own.
All I'm asking is that once they make the decision to have those policies then they need to show they are FAIR DINKUM about them and not serve up the crap that they have been and ecpect us to willingly accept their spin bs.

[Brewer]

I really suspect the problem is the AFL's (and presumably Demetriou's) arrogance - it acts like one of those annoying people that will automatically try to defend itself without giving any thought to your point and the fact that you may actually be right.

Time and time again it will take a firm yet apparently ridiculous stance on a subject where it is clearly misguided.

Why is Demetriou a household name FFS? How many other sporting body CEO's are in the news so regularly and so familiar to us?!

[Mr Magic]

They are not allowed to test players for 8 weeks in the off season so that is why Fletcher wasnt tested as agreed by the AFL and players association. There will be over 1000 tests next year and I also beleive they will only get one strike before it goes public so as of next year I think that should be much better.

Everyone deserves one chance before being on the front of every paper in Australia dont you think.

One other question what about all the other sports in the world who have no recreational drug policy. Surely what the AFL are trying to do is better than not trying at all.

Plugger66, I'm not suggesting that it is fair that players fnd themselves in the media just because they are footballers. And I look forward to the testing program being improved, but I would humbly suggest that 1000 tests is also not a lot.

If they were serious why not just announce that every player will be randomly tested 4 times a year and additionally that there will be targeted testing of some players.
Why would the players object to randomly being tested 4 times in a year?

My point is that once the AFLPA, on behalf of the players, made the decision to agree to random illicit drug testing by the AFL, why does it appear that the program is designed not to catch anybody?

If they don't want to catch anybody then why bother with this farce?

As for why other sports don't have a recreational drug policy, I don't know. That is their issue.

But why do we have a Racial Villification Policy? I am sure there were many sports around the world that didn't have a similar program when we instituted it and have since put one in place. Somebody has to lead the way on these things and all kudos to the AFL for being proactive, albeit due to a few indigenous players making not too subtle points about it at the time.

There was no mandatory wearing of seatbelts in this country until Victoria passed the Law. Did that mean that we were wrong to do it at that time because we were out of step with the rest of Australia and probably the rest of the world?
Hindsight would suggest not.

It all comes down to what it is you are trying to achieve?
A drug free sport or the public appearance of a drug free sport. They are not the same thing.

[plugger66]

They are not allowed to test players for 8 weeks in the off season so that is why Fletcher wasnt tested as agreed by the AFL and players association. There will be over 1000 tests next year and I also beleive they will only get one strike before it goes public so as of next year I think that should be much better.

Everyone deserves one chance before being on the front of every paper in Australia dont you think.

One other question what about all the other sports in the world who have no recreational drug policy. Surely what the AFL are trying to do is better than not trying at all.

Plugger66, I'm not suggesting that it is fair that players fnd themselves in the media just because they are footballers. And I look forward to the testing program being improved, but I would humbly suggest that 1000 tests is also not a lot.

If they were serious why not just announce that every player will be randomly tested 4 times a year and additionally that there will be targeted testing of some players.
Why would the players object to randomly being tested 4 times in a year?

My point is that once the AFLPA, on behalf of the players, made the decision to agree to random illicit drug testing by the AFL, why does it appear that the program is designed not to catch anybody?

If they don't want to catch anybody then why bother with this farce?

As for why other sports don't have a recreational drug policy, I don't know. That is their issue.

But why do we have a Racial Villification Policy? I am sure there were many sports around the world that didn't have a similar program when we instituted it and have since put one in place. Somebody has to lead the way on these things and all kudos to the AFL for being proactive, albeit due to a few indigenous players making not too subtle points about it at the time.

There was no mandatory wearing of seatbelts in this country until Victoria passed the Law. Did that mean that we were wrong to do it at that time because we were out of step with the rest of Australia and probably the rest of the world?
Hindsight would suggest not.

It all comes down to what it is you are trying to achieve?
A drug free sport or the public appearance of a drug free sport. They are not the same thing.

This is were we think differently. I dont think it is a farce. So you test them 4 times ayear. What will that prove. some players are tested that much and some not all but the players dont know that when they go out at night and may be offered a drug to take. 97% so no. 3% say yes. unless you test every player every day we will never know the exact number so AFLPA and the AFL have decised on 750 tests at the moment with 3 strikes before being named. Next season I would suggest it will be over 1000 and 2 strikes before being named. If the AFL go over the top and want 3000 tests and named and one positive do you think the AFLPA will agree. I dont think so.

[Mr Magic]

Why not?
If you are correct and 97% are clean then they have nothing to lose and if it comes to a vote as to whether the players are prepared to accept a rigorous testing programme then I'm sure there would be a majority voting in favour, if they are clean.

And you know what, I'm happy to leave the 3 strikes policy in provided the AFL gets serious on testing.

I want the sport drug free and I'm happy to accept superior medical knowledge as to the best treatment policy. ]

BUT

for the sport to be drug free they have to test and what they have at the moment is a joke. As I posted earlier, I believe the testing programme we currently have has been designed by the AFL and the AFLPA not to catch too many players.

How would the public view the game and its players if the numbers purportedly at the Club named by Ch7 was translated to all Clubs? That would make it around 15-18% of all players which would make it around 100 to 120 players across the AFL. Would you think they might view that as epidemic proportions?

[plugger66]

Why not?
If you are correct and 97% are clean then they have nothing to lose and if it comes to a vote as to whether the players are prepared to accept a rigorous testing programme then I'm sure there would be a majority voting in favour, if they are clean.

And you know what, I'm happy to leave the 3 strikes policy in provided the AFL gets serious on testing.

I want the sport drug free and I'm happy to accept superior medical knowledge as to the best treatment policy. ]

BUT

for the sport to be drug free they have to test and what they have at the moment is a joke. As I posted earlier, I believe the testing programme we currently have has been designed by the AFL and the AFLPA not to catch too many players.

How would the public view the game and its players if the numbers purportedly at the Club named by Ch7 was translated to all Clubs? That would make it around 15-18% of all players which would make it around 100 to 120 players across the AFL. Would you think they might view that as epidemic proportions?

I think it is only 2 players not 7 as first mentioned so that would be 5% but we cant use those figures because we are just making it up. The AFL already know about these players so they included in the figures of 27 positives in 2 years. So do we test all players every day as I said as that is the only way we can be sure of exact results. Dont you think that is more than any person should be asked to do. The sport will never be drug free but it is getting better as the figures tell us.

[Mr Magic]

No, the Ch7 report stated 2 players who have tested positive twice and 5 others who have tested positive once - a 'group' that enjoys taking ecstasy.

The figures you are quoting from are last years figures and have nothing to do with the figures being mentioned now.

[Mr Magic]

Plugger, If I seriously thought that the sport was becoming cleaner I would be posting on here that the AFL should be applauded for their efforts.

You and I obviously have diametrically opposite opinions on this matter and I hope and pray that you are correct and I am wrong. My fear is that I am correct and that sometime soon we are going to see the most tragic headlines we can imagine about a player suffering a drug overdose or being involved in one.

Maybe that's what it will take for the AFL to get serious on this issue?
I sincerely hope not.