Is the AFL 3 strikes policy harm minimisation or damage control

[baysieguy1]

Listening to the news last night and this morning about Travis Tuck I am interested on peoples views on the AFL 3 strikes illicit drug policy.

My understanding until the last 24 hours was that the drive behind the policy was to enable players caught using illicit drugs to be counselled and assisted with their "drug problem".
It would seem however that this process is more about keeping the AFL out of the news than it is about looking after the player.

As I understand, Travis Tuck has a mental health problem and has depression. His football club were not advised about his first or second strike and apparently only became aware of the issue in the last 48 hours. If this is the case, how could the club be a part of the process and assist Travis with his problems.

I am afraid that my view on this matter is more about keeping the AFL out of the news in regards to illicit drugs than it is to do with looking after the player.

It would seem that Travis has been hung out to dry when he needed help with his mental health issues.

Your thoughts?

 

[Busty St Clare]

Personal choices..... he made them. If you are a cop you can't drink drive, otherwise you lose your job, likewise if you are a professional sportsman you can't take drugs and expect not to be punished. Except if you are an AFL player. Sure there should have been someone helping him with his "problems" but so far all he has copped is a 12 week (half a season) ban. Compare this to say Wendell Sailor who tested once to cocaine, that he admitted to, and was handed a 2 year ban (in all codes) and had his contract torn up. I admire not hanging the bloke out to dry but personally I think the clubs should be informed, at least after the 2nd test. (I doubt Hawthorne will bother renewing his contract to be honest.... he ain't that good).

You can claim "Mental issues" all you want but he was retarded. Surely after being caught twice by the testers you would look at how you are living your life and perhaps decide what you want more, a career doing something that every school boy dreams of or getting G'd in your car, alone, in a dark Melbourne alley. It's a lot different to Cousins who lived the high life and was never caught by the AFL. Even after he was banned he still never tested positive.

 

[bud.lightyear]

this seems slightly strange....it is my understanding that GHB cannot be tested for at all. both due to it being processed so quickly, and G naturally occuring in your body anyway.....yet a few media articles were talking about the expense and hassle of testing for GHB, indicating that it is possible. and now he's "failed his third test" but did he really? and what was the paraphernalia they caught him with? most articles didn't say so i assume plunger, but someone said it was a crackie so yea then he'd be testing positive to other junk....



i mean really tho what was this guy thinkin....hes an afl player for christ' sake, he should be doing coke off strippers titties at the sickest nightclubs around.
instead he's by himself blowing out on juice in BERWICK of all places.....pathetic

 

[Sameria]

For all we know he could have been somewhere near his car partying hard and (chose) his car to pass.

Not much point in speculating really, it won't get us anywhere except around in circles

 

[drug_mentor]

Ofcourse its about keeping the AFL out of the papers, at the end of the day the actions of the players DOES impact the image of the sport, whether you think it should or should not is irrelevant. As an organisation they exist to make money, and it is arguable that tarnishing the image through illicit drug use will cost them money. I don't think people deserve to be ostracised for having a drug problem, but I also think its acceptable for an organisation to protect its interests by intervening on some level.

In my view, they shouldn't give a fuck about use of non performance enhancing drugs, and if they removed drug testing for recreational substances then they would seldom have a problem with players drug use impacting on the AFL's image.

At the end of the day I don't think its an employers responsibility to minimise harm to their employee's who choose to indulge in illicit substances, that is the individual drug users responsibility really. It is however an organisations responsibility to protect its image wherever possible and as a result I see nothing unethical about the AFL's decision to protect their image over minimising harm to the player, at the end of the day the player should take responsibility for their own actions and understand that these are the consequences.

The opposition to recreational drug use in sports is something that has always baffled me, like it gives you a fucking disadvantage really and if you can still be at the top of your game in a professional setting then power to you. I do understand illicit drug use is frowned upon and athletes are often seen as role models, particularly in Australian culture, but the thing is the AFL is actually making it more public by implementing recreational drug testing at all. If they REALLY wanted to sweep it under the rug then they wouldn't bother testing.

I do think it kinda sucks for professional athletes, but shit, how long is a professional sporting career really? They are more than compensated for a few years of abstinence. I LOVE my drugs, I haven't gone a day without intoxicants for years but if you offered me the wage of a professional athlete to stop for 5 years starting tommorrow you bet your ass I would do it! There is plenty of time to party after retiring at 27 years old. Not to mention, it doesn't seem like it really takes a rocket scientist to get away with it, after watching the Ben Cousin's doco last week I don't think the AFL's drug testing regime is very effective.

 

[drug_mentor]

this seems slightly strange....it is my understanding that GHB cannot be tested for at all. both due to it being processed so quickly, and G naturally occuring in your body anyway.....yet a few media articles were talking about the expense and hassle of testing for GHB, indicating that it is possible. and now he's "failed his third test" but did he really? and what was the paraphernalia they caught him with? most articles didn't say so i assume plunger, but someone said it was a crackie so yea then he'd be testing positive to other junk....



i mean really tho what was this guy thinkin....hes an afl player for christ' sake, he should be doing coke off strippers titties at the sickest nightclubs around.
instead he's by himself blowing out on juice in BERWICK of all places.....pathetic

This post made me laugh, because I study in Berwick and I also spent most of my teenage years in an area very nearby and there definately is a big juice culture there in my age group (say 16-25) and has been for years. I don't know why but it always seemed like a very large % of the heavy G users in the area came from Berwick. When I was in high school there was an incident at a high school in Berwick (not my school) where a student blew out on juice on school grounds and was subsequently expelled. It was talked about a lot at the time and although kids were starting to dabble in G around that time it was pretty hardcore for someone to blow out on school grounds, that school in particular had a bigger juice culture than any of the other ones around here, for whatever reason. This all happened a few years ago though...

I can see why he would think it was safer to go on a bender in the outer suburbs than in the CBD of a weekend, much less likely to run into either cops or media. The night life out here doesn't rival the CBD, but you can have a decent night out with the right crowd and the right gear.

BTW to any law enforcement, I don't actually live in Berwick and technically never did. Even if I did I am not worth your time, so go bust real bad guys.

To the mods, I don't know if its considered inappropriate to comment on my experience in a pretty specific area, as I feel my comments had relevance to the thread I feel it's really a personal choice on my part if I take the risk, but if you want to edit me then feel free...

 

[sir pacman]

Nothing wrong with Berwick.

Think this is a bigger problem than the AFL would like to admit.

 

[baysieguy1]

Personal choices..... he made them. If you are a cop you can't drink drive, otherwise you lose your job, likewise if you are a professional sportsman you can't take drugs and expect not to be punished. Except if you are an AFL player. Sure there should have been someone helping him with his "problems" but so far all he has copped is a 12 week (half a season) ban. Compare this to say Wendell Sailor who tested once to cocaine, that he admitted to, and was handed a 2 year ban (in all codes) and had his contract torn up. I admire not hanging the bloke out to dry but personally I think the clubs should be informed, at least after the 2nd test. (I doubt Hawthorne will bother renewing his contract to be honest.... he ain't that good).

You can claim "Mental issues" all you want but he was retarded. Surely after being caught twice by the testers you would look at how you are living your life and perhaps decide what you want more, a career doing something that every school boy dreams of or getting G'd in your car, alone, in a dark Melbourne alley. It's a lot different to Cousins who lived the high life and was never caught by the AFL. Even after he was banned he still never tested positive.

Hi Busty, I wasn't actually defending the player, I was more condemning their policy. And even more so I am condemning their facade that the policy is to support players in a high pressure high, high profile occupation. The AFL say it is to help the players by supporting them, whereas it is obvious that they are just trying to protect their own image.

If they were really concerned about the player(s), they would have told the club after the second incident, especially due to the fact that that the president of the club, in this case, is the chairman of Beyond Blue which to quote their own website is

"a national, independent, not-for-profit organisation working to address issues associated with depression, anxiety and related substance misuse disorders in Australia."

which is what Adrian Anderson of the AFL is quoted as saying is the problem with the player in question.

So this about the AFL not about the players.

 

[fivelinefury]

First of all I beleive alot of people forget how many players there actually are under the AFL (and with any other codes), and these young players like Tuck deal with problems such as mental illness, drug addiction, etc. And there is still more drugs in sport than what anyone would beleive today.

If Tuck's club didn't know what was going on until within the past 48 hours, then thats just simply because he most likely found it too difficult to tell people around him at the time. Thats just human. (I think Adrian Anderson mentioned something along those lines about the club not knowing).

As for the AFL 3 strike drug policy, I see nothing wrong with it, I actually think its great. The AFL now conduct the most drug tests in a majority of sports in the world. They never used to be so stricked, but part of this started after Ben Cousins and the AFL seeing more players with shaved heads.

So the way I see it, they don't "give the players the arse" straight away because the AFL are aware of what is happening in society, but at the same time on the other end of the scale players are tested alot.

 

[puckboy]

I think the 3 strike policy isn't perfect, but leans more towards HR than damage control for the AFL. Strike 1, the player and club doctor are informed so action (if required) can be taken if the player is suffering from a drug addiction and/or mental illness. And in theory the player can be helped and will not end up with another strike against his name. Strike 3 means the public and your club will know, which isn't necessarily a good thing IMO. Leave it up to the player themselves and the medical professionals.

You can claim "Mental issues" all you want but he was retarded

Mate, as someone who suffers from a mental illness alongside drug problems, all I have to say to that comment is you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Sure there should have been someone helping him with his "problems"

Why are 'mental issues' and his 'problems' in inverted commas? I hope not because you take mental illness lightly and think these people are just 'retards'?

 

[Busty St Clare]

I think they can be used as an excuse far too easily by people who have been caught. It's an easy out when 80% of the time it is just bad decision's and lack of will power. The bloke can barely get a game and from all reports was looking like he was going to be delisted before all this went down. Of course he was depressed, he was going to have to get a real 8-5 job. It is far to common to blame his downfall on a medical condition.

If he was ill then surely the last thing he should be doing is getting on the gear.

 

[beamers]

Why should he be punished for anything? He was meeting training and performance requirements no?

 

[puckboy]

I think they can be used as an excuse far too easily by people who have been caught. It's an easy out when 80% of the time it is just bad decision's and lack of will power.

I agree with you there.

But I believe those who are legitimately having some mental/drug issues should be given the chance to get on top of their problems without the public/media knowing.

Like I said, the policy isn't perfect due to players being able to pull the 'mental illness/addiction card' when they receive strike 3 to gain sympathy and may in fact be of perfectly sound mind.

With the way the current 3 strike policy works, the player has to be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

[fivelinefury]

I think the 3 strike policy isn't perfect, but leans more towards HR than damage control for the AFL. Strike 1, the player and club doctor are informed so action (if required) can be taken if the player is suffering from a drug addiction and/or mental illness. And in theory the player can be helped and will not end up with another strike against his name. Strike 3 means the public and your club will know, which isn't necessarily a good thing IMO. Leave it up to the player themselves and the medical professionals.



Mate, as someone who suffers from a mental illness alongside drug problems, all I have to say to that comment is you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.



Why are 'mental issues' and his 'problems' in inverted commas? I hope not because you take mental illness lightly and think these people are just 'retards'?

Agreed. Just because AFL players are put in the spotlight all the time, people forget that they are human and can suffer from mental illness and drug problems like the rest of us.

 

[rm2x]

Me? I think they should be out on their arse after the first positive test.
These meatheads make an absolute packet for fuck all in my view, and they're meant to be positive role models for children.

 

[puckboy]

^
So public knowledge and humiliation for the player and these children seeing all this stuff about drugs on TV is a positive thing? Rather than the children never even knowing (or anyone) that some player tested positive to a recreational (not performance-enhancing) drug at all? I don't think it's any of our business personally. And that they should just be tested for performance enhancing drugs (steroids etc), IMO.

 

[rm2x]

^
So public knowledge and humiliation for the player and these children seeing all this stuff about drugs on TV is a positive thing? Rather than the children never even knowing (or anyone) that some player tested positive to a recreational (not performance-enhancing) drug at all? I don't think it's any of our business personally. And that they should just be tested for performance enhancing drugs (steroids etc), IMO.

it's our business when they sign a contract to be a public figure, not going to get into a debate over it, that's my stance and I am not changing it

 

[jayman_k]

Great forum.

It's interesting things to me are that people think coz players get paid a lot that they shouldn't do drugs. If anything that would just make it more likely if they were that way inclined.

I also find the testing of athletes for non-performance enhancing drugs very strange indeed.

And just because they're public figures... people will debate this, but what if they just want to play footy at the highest level... does that mean they should have less rights than the average person?

If your answer is yes, would you still feel the same way if you became a public figure? No, but REALLY?

Course it's all hypothetical unless you have been, isn't it?

 

[drug_mentor]

^ I don't think anyone is saying that just because someone earns a lot they shouldn;t use drugs. The issue is that these sports people enter into lucrative contracts fully aware that drug use is prohibited, they are extremely well compensated for their time and as a result it isn't exactly a farfetched request that they stick to the rules as they are written.

Obviously the higher income does give them greater means to abuse drugs, but it equally gives them much greater means to enjoy a plethora of recreational activities beyond the budgets of most.

 

[jayman_k]

I see what you're saying, it's part of that particular job.

The activities thing though... does drug taking have anything to do with whether or not you have access to expensive leisure activities? C'mon, if someone's an addict, or even a borderline addict, not saying anyone in particular is... but what do they want to spend their money on more? Going bowling or their favourite drugs?

I'm gonna say this: having more money does not make anyone in the world less likely to use drugs, that is just crazy. Wanting to not use makes you less likely to use. Fear of getting caught may make you less likely to use also.

Also interested in people's thoughts on this: why does the AFL test players for illicit drug use out of competition?

And if there's an objective in doing so: is that objective furthered or hampered by the existence of such testing?