General footy chat Alleged AFL hiding of positive drug tests

[Maltopia]

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/news/afl-drugs-bombshell-mp-tells-federal-parliament-of-secret-illicit-drug-tests-allegedly-authorised-by-leagues-top-medico/news-story/e5999f6f4d289e358d3fa0c4533c1a38

Blowing up a bit on BF and Reddit.

Friendly reminder, please don’t say anything defamatory or libellous about this matter to save the mods having to edit your posts!

[KTigers]

I think when you have a three strikes policy just by definition you are hiding up to two positive tests.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Isn’t this all well known under the self-reporting provisions under the voluntary code that applies to illicit drug use outside match day?

It’s worth remembering:

- the WADA provisions only apply on match day, so if a player ain’t playing, it’s not captured
- the AFL rules outside match day are captured under a voluntary code
- players have always been able to self-report under the voluntary code
- it’s designed to protect both player’s wellbeing and the integrity of the game by ensuring players using illicit drugs don’t take the field.

Whether it’s precisely the best model, who knows. But it’s better than zero tolerance, which doesn’t work. And I’ll guarantee two things with zero tolerance - players would fake an injury anyway, and/or some of the greatest players to have played the game in recent years would have been busted when they were young and silly and lost to the game, rather than given the chance to change their lifestyle.

[707]

Where there's smoke, there's fire so the saying goes. Too many people have been forced out of the Dees in recent times when they've wanted to address this issue.

Using parliament to bring it to a head is interesting, if any proper inquiry is done into these current allegations, there's a few kicked out people will be willing to tell the 'truth' about what's going on at the Dees.

Let's see if anything happens now or whether in true AFL fashion they look for a rug to sweep it under

[i'm-uninformed2]

Where there's smoke, there's fire so the saying goes. Too many people have been forced out of the Dees in recent times when they've wanted to address this issue.

Using parliament to bring it to a head is interesting, if any proper inquiry is done into these current allegations, there's a few kicked out people will be willing to tell the 'truth' about what's going on at the Dees.

Let's see if anything happens now or whether in true AFL fashion they look for a rug to sweep it under

I wouldn’t assume this is isolated to Melbourne.

In fact, and I’m not making a claim here but just seeking to explain how it works, under the policy, if it has happened at the Swans, the only two people who know will be the player and the doctor. The doctor is bound under the policy to help the player and can’t report them without the player’s consent.

I get the secrecy bothers some people, including some people at clubs. But that’s how it works.

[KTigers]

If it's just between the doctor and the patient (the footballer) then in a way it's just as "secret" as when you go and see your
GP. And everybody is okay with that being confidential. Partially the fuss about the so-called "secrecy" emanates from people
outside the consulting (or drug testing) room feeling entitled to know what is going on in the room. When in my opinion it's
none of their business.

[707]

Ah, I see Dillon has had a presser to indicate there's nothing untoward happening here, this is AFL A ok policy used by all clubs. Wilkie is apparently just a storm in a teacup.

AFL patsy journo's (like at a Putin presser) ask harmless pre sanctioned questions at the presser, Dillon feels like he's been hit with a limp lettuce leaf, breathes sigh of relief, public attention will quickly turn to the clash of the winless at the Gabba.

All good, rug lifted, nasty Wilkie accusations swept under, play on

[BRS328]

I’m’
I am in agreement with you on this. The current AFL rules clearly exceed the WADA code that is limited to match day testing only. Under the AFL code players can be tested at any time, and if a club has a suspicion for whatever reason, they have the right to have a player tested.

Surely this is better than allowing the game and players to take unnecessary risks with far worse consequences for all concerned.

I actually think the current AFL drug code which has buy in from the players association is working. I am sure many will come back and disagree, however it is a voluntary code that clearly exceeds the WADA rules

[i'm-uninformed2]

Ah, I see Dillon has had a presser to indicate there's nothing untoward happening here, this is AFL A ok policy used by all clubs. Wilkie is apparently just a storm in a teacup.

AFL patsy journo's (like at a Putin presser) ask harmless pre sanctioned questions at the presser, Dillon feels like he's been hit with a limp lettuce leaf, breathes sigh of relief, public attention will quickly turn to the clash of the winless at the Gabba.

All good, rug lifted, nasty Wilkie accusations swept under, play on

What’s been swept under the rug? The AFL (for whom I usually show no love) basically confirmed it and said this is the regime that has been in place for 20 years. Which I thought most people knew.

I’m also not sure what people expect - the players to sign onto a code that allows for breaches of doctor-patient privilege? No one in their right mind would do that.

[rb4x]

Doctor-patient privilege is not all encompassing. e.g. Doctors are required to report suspected cases of child abuse. Current practice requires doctors, clubs and players to lie to the fans as to the players supposed injury. This places all players who experience an unexpected short term injury under a cloud. We can question therefore how genuine was the calf injury that had Fox missing the bombers game. As an alternative they can say nothing which an have us question what is the reason for Buller not playing against Coburg in the VFL. Not suggesting that there was anything untoward re either Fox or Buller but the current practice leaves both under a cloud. I do not like any practice that basically requires a doctor to lie to the public.

What would be the consequences of mandating that doctors report illicit drugs? Players would have to decide for themselves whether to fake an injury. Pretty similar to what is happening now. If they take the risk and play and get caught they would face the WADA consequences which are very severe. Serve them right. If mandatory reporting meant that there was less use of illicit substances then I would consider that a win. These players are supposedly professionals and should be expected to be taking maximum care of there bodies which should mean staying off drugs. I realise mandatory reporting would be considered unacceptable at present but that might be the direction the AFL might be forced to look at. Just like concussion.

[Mel_C]

Buckley said something interesting about when he was coach. After a training session the doctor came up to him and said that 2 players had done their hamstring and would be out for 4 weeks. He said he was confused because it seemed the players had successfully completed training. So after the latest drug revelations, he is now questioning whether they were actually injured.