-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
AFL"s Illicit Drug Policy
- Thread starter waiting
- Start date
Ian4 said:
What about Ice Ian?
It seems a drug you don't like to go near when debating this subject.
Tigers of Old said:
Like any drug there are a wide spectrum of user types ranging from casual and occasional users, to regular "functional" users who use on the weekend but have otherwise normal lives, to dependent users who cannot function without the drug and suffer extreme consequences for their health, employment, relationships and of course have high morbidity.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/phd-npi-methamphetamine-report-feb09-l~users
Like most debates around drugs the ideas that the Hun/Current Affair and the like promote of "take ice, become a berserker or zombie and then die" is a whole lot of *smile*.
Ice is a dangerous, dangerous drug but don't believe everything you read.
Ian4 said:
I'm with you Ian, it's none of the AFLs business. It's actually quiet absurd that the AFL have chosen one little part of the penal code and decided they would go over and above what any other worker in Australia has to tolerate in a vain attempt to socially engineer a drug free competition.
If we are genuinely looking to stamp out any undesirable behaviour by AFL players, why just choose illicit drugs? Why not have alcohol interlocks on all AFL players cars, or perhaps nanny cams in players bedrooms to stamp out sexual assault? Oh that's right, neither of those are the flavour of the month in the media right now.
Anybody that has watched this issue from an informed and clear thinking perspective would have known that the only reason this policy exists in the first place is because the AFL already had the players urine in a jar courtesy of ASADA. If the AFL had approached the players out of nowhere and said "hey, we want to knock on your door in the middle of the night and get you to *smile* in a jar to find out if you take illicit drugs", there is no way it would get over the line.
Ask yourself how you would feel as a 25 year old on a weekend away with your mates if your boss woke you up and compelled you to participate in a drug test, for no other reason than the argument that they didn't think you should take illicit drugs in your spare time.
And consider why they keep running this past the players association before they make any changes? Clearly there is a workplace lawyer somewhere in the AFL that knows the entire policy is built on a house of cards. It would only take one player to get a ban and take it to fair work Australia to have the whole policy thrown out. There is no way it would be legal for a boss to follow his or her employees around in their time off or on holidays to check and see if they are breaking any laws!
I too agree with Ian. If it's an illegal drug it's a matter for the police. If it's performance enhancing it's a matter for ASADA.
We have to stop treating these young men differently to anyone else in society.
We have to stop treating these young men differently to anyone else in society.
Linus professional athletes have been subject to random drug testing for the last 20 years so the AFL players are not being singled out.
The AFL make a truckload of money out of the television rights and the players get their share too. The image of the game and players is crucial to getting the $ out of the TV, Radio and Sponsors.
Is it that hard not to do drugs for 6-10 years of your life in exchange for $300,000 (ave) a year?
The AFL make a truckload of money out of the television rights and the players get their share too. The image of the game and players is crucial to getting the $ out of the TV, Radio and Sponsors.
Is it that hard not to do drugs for 6-10 years of your life in exchange for $300,000 (ave) a year?
The AFL is one of many industries that require employees to undergo illegal drugs testing. I've worked in one that had random testing. At the end of the day it was my choice. Work in a well paid industry I enjoyed and stay saintly clean, or find another job somewhere else that didn't have such tough restrictions.
At they end of the day it was my choice and I didn't feel someone, or society, owed me the opportunity to take the best of both worlds.
Players know before going in what the AFL requirements are. They need to choose what's more important to them and accept the decision they make.
At they end of the day it was my choice and I didn't feel someone, or society, owed me the opportunity to take the best of both worlds.
Players know before going in what the AFL requirements are. They need to choose what's more important to them and accept the decision they make.
I agree with those last three posts, that sum up the issue for me.
ie,
1. there are grey areas of what illicit drugs may or may not also be performance enhancing. You need to be able to apply penalties that cover a wide range of scenarios, otherwise there'd be too many loop holes for the guilty to worm out of.
2. The players are in a highly paid, highly public industry that relies to a significant degree on image. The two go hand in hand. Bums on seats gets you lots of dosh, and the bums want their consumable product to match the fee they pay. This also argues against Chris Judd's early attitude of "I'm not a role model" - he has since come to realise that whether he liked it or not, he is a role model while he is in this industry. It's part of the overall deal of working that job. Being "clean" is part of the job description and contractual arrangement that you are required to comply with.
3. It's not just this industry that extends selected parts of the law of the land and beefs them up and reinforces them for specific tasks. Operating machinery, or traffic control where you can risks lives, you need to be drug free. Working with children, you need certain checks done. Working in the financial industry has insider trading rules. You can't work as a lawyer if you have any criminal record.
I do see the arguments to a degree of "why have a code on illicit drugs and not other things?". But there are expectations (admittedly some stressed more than others) for behaviours such as alcohol abuse, racial vilification, abuse of women, adherence to road law, etc. There's also the ability for the AFL and clubs to fine players for misdemeanors that are even difficult to define or prove...."bringing the game into disrepute" if some blonk head is caught on CCTV urinating on a street corner....yes, he's penalised under the law, but do the AFL just put their hands up and say 'not for us to judge, this bloke we pay massive amounts of money to' and the mums and dads out there raise eyebrows and take their sons (and daughters) to play another sport. Or do they protect their marketability and demonstrate that their code doesn't stand for that sort of thing? And there's my other point.....
4. The market. Going the extra yard on illicit drugs is about protecting the 'brand'. And that's probably the most telling point for the AFL if I allow myself to be cynical about it all. They hypothetically may not care about a bloke doing recreation drugs on New Year's Eve (although they probably do)....until it hurts their brand and therefore their potential revenue. If the number of people yelling "what about the children?" outnumber the people yelling "ah fair dinkum, the bloke just shared a spliff for cryin out loud!", then they'll go with the numbers the market dictates.
And the moral message is that illicit drugs are a huge problem in society, so the AFL want to try and control it as much as practicable.... and I agree they should probably have a stronger alcohol abuse code
(footnote - they also have a strong gambling code, but that runs into a whole other discussion of what is AFL law compared to it to being all about their revenue)
ie,
1. there are grey areas of what illicit drugs may or may not also be performance enhancing. You need to be able to apply penalties that cover a wide range of scenarios, otherwise there'd be too many loop holes for the guilty to worm out of.
2. The players are in a highly paid, highly public industry that relies to a significant degree on image. The two go hand in hand. Bums on seats gets you lots of dosh, and the bums want their consumable product to match the fee they pay. This also argues against Chris Judd's early attitude of "I'm not a role model" - he has since come to realise that whether he liked it or not, he is a role model while he is in this industry. It's part of the overall deal of working that job. Being "clean" is part of the job description and contractual arrangement that you are required to comply with.
3. It's not just this industry that extends selected parts of the law of the land and beefs them up and reinforces them for specific tasks. Operating machinery, or traffic control where you can risks lives, you need to be drug free. Working with children, you need certain checks done. Working in the financial industry has insider trading rules. You can't work as a lawyer if you have any criminal record.
I do see the arguments to a degree of "why have a code on illicit drugs and not other things?". But there are expectations (admittedly some stressed more than others) for behaviours such as alcohol abuse, racial vilification, abuse of women, adherence to road law, etc. There's also the ability for the AFL and clubs to fine players for misdemeanors that are even difficult to define or prove...."bringing the game into disrepute" if some blonk head is caught on CCTV urinating on a street corner....yes, he's penalised under the law, but do the AFL just put their hands up and say 'not for us to judge, this bloke we pay massive amounts of money to' and the mums and dads out there raise eyebrows and take their sons (and daughters) to play another sport. Or do they protect their marketability and demonstrate that their code doesn't stand for that sort of thing? And there's my other point.....
4. The market. Going the extra yard on illicit drugs is about protecting the 'brand'. And that's probably the most telling point for the AFL if I allow myself to be cynical about it all. They hypothetically may not care about a bloke doing recreation drugs on New Year's Eve (although they probably do)....until it hurts their brand and therefore their potential revenue. If the number of people yelling "what about the children?" outnumber the people yelling "ah fair dinkum, the bloke just shared a spliff for cryin out loud!", then they'll go with the numbers the market dictates.
And the moral message is that illicit drugs are a huge problem in society, so the AFL want to try and control it as much as practicable.... and I agree they should probably have a stronger alcohol abuse code
(footnote - they also have a strong gambling code, but that runs into a whole other discussion of what is AFL law compared to it to being all about their revenue)
Ben Cousins received a sanction and didn't even have a positive test.
Would Fair Work Australia come in boots and all if the AFL did an out of season test? Dunno. Maybe, but....
http://www.news.com.au/finance/small-business/fair-work-australia-consents-to-forced-drug-tests-for-building-workers/story-fn9evb64-1226164728044
And while this is referring to drugs on site, FWA support a crack down on work industry drug use. It would be tricky for them to then turn around and condone illicit drug use even if out of work times.
And if the AFL need ASADA to carry out the testing for them, so be it. I don't see the problem. It's not like the players haven't been educated in this as a requirement of being part of this association. Do we think it's ok for Essendon players to take a 'non performance enhancing' anti obesity drug because they want to look good in a photo? Grey area of what a drug is intended for vs what it's allegedly for when they get busted. So what about non-illicit, non-banned drugs. I can see the merit in improving the current drug code, but not diminishing it.
And when is taking illicit drugs a protected right? There seems to almost be an implication from some arguments here that taking illicit drugs is "ok". That it's the individual's private business to have the right to dabble in this stuff. That it's no concern of an overbearing employer to think that you shouldn't take illicit drugs in your spare time. Illicit means just that. It's not nanny state stuff to say you can't carry out illegal activities. Criminal conviction can have an influence on your right to be employed in many circumstances.
And while I agree that alcohol and gambling can also be major problems, they are currently not illegal, which makes a ban policy on these more difficult for the AFL than unlawful substances.
Would Fair Work Australia come in boots and all if the AFL did an out of season test? Dunno. Maybe, but....
http://www.news.com.au/finance/small-business/fair-work-australia-consents-to-forced-drug-tests-for-building-workers/story-fn9evb64-1226164728044
And while this is referring to drugs on site, FWA support a crack down on work industry drug use. It would be tricky for them to then turn around and condone illicit drug use even if out of work times.
And if the AFL need ASADA to carry out the testing for them, so be it. I don't see the problem. It's not like the players haven't been educated in this as a requirement of being part of this association. Do we think it's ok for Essendon players to take a 'non performance enhancing' anti obesity drug because they want to look good in a photo? Grey area of what a drug is intended for vs what it's allegedly for when they get busted. So what about non-illicit, non-banned drugs. I can see the merit in improving the current drug code, but not diminishing it.
And when is taking illicit drugs a protected right? There seems to almost be an implication from some arguments here that taking illicit drugs is "ok". That it's the individual's private business to have the right to dabble in this stuff. That it's no concern of an overbearing employer to think that you shouldn't take illicit drugs in your spare time. Illicit means just that. It's not nanny state stuff to say you can't carry out illegal activities. Criminal conviction can have an influence on your right to be employed in many circumstances.
And while I agree that alcohol and gambling can also be major problems, they are currently not illegal, which makes a ban policy on these more difficult for the AFL than unlawful substances.
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.
Want to do drugs? Do it in the bush leagues.
Ian4 said:
Of course.
And for example if a crane driver kills 6 people while stoned, in addition to him being nabbed by police, Work Cover with a raft of lawyers will come in and ask his employer "what did you do to prevent this from happening?"
If the crane driver had a history of drugs, or could have been deemed a demonstrable risk through practicable checks and the employer did not take reasonable steps to ensure the health and safety of those 6 people AND the crane driver himself, they are partially liable.
If a teacher is put in charge of children and he turns out to be a 'inappropriate', he might get thrown in the clink, but his employer was still responsible to ensure the children are safe.
Sure, these are markedly different cases to playing football. But my point is that just because the law operates on separate platform, it doesn't absolve the employer from being responsible for appropriate outcomes for it's employees. Employers have to meet minimums. If they see benefits in going over and above, to discourage this seems pretty counterproductive to me.
And to take it to the next conclusion, what if Ben Cousins OD'd and the AFL had not had an illicit drugs policy/program. Would his family be entitled to sue them for neglecting Ben's health? For knowing this can be an issue yet doing nothing? Quite possibly.
B
Bill James
Guest
I don't understand how it complies with workplace safety. If you know an employee is taking illicit drugs and you continue to allow them to work in a hazardous occupation where reaction times are essential for well being, I just don't understand how the employer (AFL) is not then liable if said player, or worse a third party, is injured where drugs are a contributing factor.
That said, I understand the sentiment that it is a community health issue more than a criminal issue and education rather than sanction will be more beneficial to the individual in the long run. I just struggle to see how that philosophy is compatible with the very real workplace safety issues.
That said, I understand the sentiment that it is a community health issue more than a criminal issue and education rather than sanction will be more beneficial to the individual in the long run. I just struggle to see how that philosophy is compatible with the very real workplace safety issues.
