AFL"s Illicit Drug Policy

[Baloo]

I think most agree on the off season/holiday testing.

But I see no issue with on-season/training testing. Nor with sanctions being imoposed if the player gets caught doing anything illegal during the off season by police/press.

 

[Rfc4Ever]

Or to labour another analogy, is it ok for a boss to monitor whether I speed while on a driving holiday...?

That depends.

IMO a boss has a right to know if you lose your licence (for offences such as speeding) if your role involves driving.

 

[lukeanddad]

That depends.

IMO a boss has a right to know if you lose your licence (for offences such as speeding) if your role involves driving.

... and most organisations require that an employee advises their boss if it were to occur. No problems with that.

This is common sense ... to coin a phrase.

 

[lamb22]

That depends.

IMO a boss has a right to know if you lose your licence (for offences such as speeding) if your role involves driving.

I dont think anyone questions that. The issue is can the boss monitor and report your speeding to the police.

 

[Ian4]

This image in the paper today may shake the AFL to really do something and not bend to the ALFPA.

and this is my concern. the media is putting pressure on the AFL to make its illicit drugs policy even stricter than it is when there should be no policy whatsoever.

The players should say that they agree to in season testing for performancing enhancing drugs and tell the AFL they should screw themselves in relation to testing for recreational drugs.

If the AFL don't agree the players should go on strike.

The present scenario was a good attempt at harm minimisation where players VOLUNTARILY accepted more restrictions on their lives in return for a welfare based approach.

However due to the nongs in the press and the general public sensationalising what appears to be drug use well below the norm in society we have come to this witchhunt and bull$hit bastardry masquerading as brainless middle class morality.

just about the best post I've even seen from you lamby :clap

people are quick to forget that the 3 strikes illicit drug policy was totally voluntary by the AFLPA.

I'm thinking that most people on this thread are arguing whether or not a boss can force an employee to take a drug test.

and in most industries (including the AFL) the answer is no IMO (for illicit drugs that is).

 

[Baloo]

The issue is can the boss monitor and report your speeding to the police.

Not really. The issue is whether the boss can monitor you for illegal activities while you are on holiday.

There's no need for the boss to report you to the police. The boss can imose their own sanctions as long as that right and the extent of sanctions is spelled out and agreed to by both boss and employee.

 

[jb03]

Much better. Then softly softly approach has been counter productive.

Drink a glass of wine the night before a match and you get suspended for a match. Do a few lines and there is no penalty, no public naming and shaming, no real issue.

Where is the logic in that?

NOt sure any of the players have done lines the night before the match, or have been caught for it anyway.

 

[Baloo]

NOt sure any of the players have done lines the night before the match, or have been caught for it anyway.

We know for sure no player has been publicly exposed for doing that, but I certainly wouldn't bet my house that no player has done it. Would you ?

 

[lamb22]

Not really. The issue is whether the boss can monitor you for illegal activities while you are on holiday.

There's no need for the boss to report you to the police. The boss can imose their own sanctions as long as that right and the extent of sanctions is spelled out and agreed to by both boss and employee.

Fair enough. Although in the AFL scenario, name and shaming (ie public release of information) has the potential to lead to criminal sanction.

 

[lamb22]

By the way staring at white powder is not illegal.

Harley should just get the Essendon supplements records keeper to testify on his behalf they dont know what the substance was but they are certain its not illegal.

 

[Baloo]

Fair enough. Although in the AFL scenario, name and shaming (ie public release of information) has the potential to lead to criminal sanction.

Potentially, yes, I guess.

 

[lukeanddad]

By the way staring at white powder is not illegal.

Thank goodness. I spilled some flour while baking last night and had to leave the room

 

[Baloo]

By the way staring at white powder is not illegal.

true, but being in possesion of it is.

 

[lamb22]

true, but being in possesion of it is.

No its not.

Necessarily.

 

[Baloo]

No its not.

It all depends on what your baby laxative was cut with I suppose.

 

[lamb22]

If they ever charge Harley he should ask to be judged by the AFL anti doping panel.

Judgement. We accept the white powder bought from X by Y was Speed.

We note Y bought the powder from X for Harley.

We note the powder was delivered to Harley.

We are not comfortably satisfied* the white powder in the picture was speed.

* Noting that comfortably satisfied is a lower bar than beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

my opinion hasn't changed. there should be no illicit drugs policy.

My agreement with your opinion hasn't changed.

My agreement, with your agreement, of his position...hasn't changed.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Then they are performance enhancing. WADA have a list. That should be the guide. Next bull$hit argument?

Is coke/speed/ice on Wada's list? Be very surprised if they're not.

 

[jb03]

We know for sure no player has been publicly exposed for doing that, but I certainly wouldn't bet my house that no player has done it. Would you ?

No. Though alcohol is performance prohibiting whereas drugs in most forms are performance enhancing so i can see clubs turning a blind eye.

It is not surprisingly young players cut like Arnie with an eye on their skinfolds, and with spare cash and time would use illicit drugs in lieu of alcohol.

 

[Ian4]

Is coke/speed/ice on Wada's list? Be very surprised if they're not.

they are if taken on match day I believe.