Drugs in the AFL

[lil angel15]

Cousins flies home to calls for 12-week ban
Dan Koch and Chip Le Grand
May 01, 2007

LEIGH MATTHEWS, the elder statesman of AFL coaches and a legend of the AFL Hall of Fame, has criticised the league commission over its handling of Sunday's meeting with the West Coast Eagles and called for recovering ice addict Ben Cousins to serve a 12-week suspension - the prescribed penalty for a "third strike" offence under the illicit drugs policy - before he plays again.

In unusually blunt criticism of the game's governing body by a serving coach, Matthews dismissed the commission's confrontation with the Eagles hierarchy over Cousins and other player behaviour problems as a public relations exercise.

He cited his own deregistration in 1985 for conduct unbecoming as a precedent to impose a meaningful penalty against Cousins for his regular use of methamphetamine, an illegal drug blamed for more than 70,000 addictions in Australia.

As Cousins returned to Perth from his stay at an exclusive, US-based rehab clinic looking tanned and relaxed and sounding open to the idea of continuing his AFL career, Matthews was contemptuous of the league's response to the litany of behavioural issues that has sullied the reputation of the Eagles and AFL football in general.

"I'm not quite sure what it was all about except a PR gesture," Matthews said of Sunday's extraordinary commission meeting called by the AFL.

"I think that it was really window dressing.

"What they have said to the public is we aren't really happy about this so we'll call them in and tell them we aren't happy. We could send them an email or a letter, but we will actually call them in because that will get good coverage and hopefully say to the world out there we aren't happy with you and now everyone else knows we aren't happy with you."

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou, a member of the commission, described Matthews' criticisms as "naive".

"I was at the meeting the commission conducted with the Eagles yesterday," Demetriou said. "With respect to Leigh, he wasn't here and wasn't aware of what was discussed.

"I would suggest it is a naive comment. The commission is certainly not in the habit of organising its matters around PR events."

Cousins' return has increased pressure on the AFL and Eagles to ensure that he serves some penalty for flouting the league's stance against illicit drugs.

Methamphetamine, a potent form of amphetamine bought in crystal form, is an increasingly popular social drug and a banned stimulant under the World Anti-Doping Authority code.

Despite the league's reluctance to impose penalties on Cousins in the absence of a positive drugs test, Matthews' call for a three-month ban gained support yesterday.

Justin Charles, the only AFL player to be suspended for using performance-enhancing drugs, called in to a Melbourne radio station to declare that not only was Cousins deserving of a penalty, he would be expecting one.

Charles, a regular public speaker and retired footballer occasionally used by the AFL to lecture its younger players on the risks of taking drugs, said there was "no argument" Cousins should be suspended for a substance banned both as an illicit and performance-enhancing drug.

"Ben would be expecting some sort of penalty, make no mistake," Charles told Radio SEN. "I am sure he would happily do some kind of suspension or penalty. I just hope that the general public get behind Ben rather than make him an outcast and condemn him."

Charles was suspended for 16 weeks in 1997 for using boldenone, an anabolic steroid commonly used by vets, to aid his recovery from serious injury. Matthews said a 12-week suspension for Cousins, or deregistration for the same period, would be "fair and reasonable" given the extent of the 2005 Brownlow medallist's drug use and the broad powers available to the commission under the conduct-unbecoming rule.

Matthews was deregistered for four weeks in 1985 by the then Victorian Football League after admitting to king-hitting Geelong's Neville Bruns in an off-the-ball incident at Princes Park. Bruns was left with a shattered jaw. Matthews later pleaded guilty to assault in criminal proceedings.

"When you have got that conduct-unbecoming rule, you can do what you like when you like," Matthews said. "Seemingly, the AFL has chosen not to invoke that or do anything in terms of sanctions, but they have the right to do it if they choose.

"I would have thought not playing for the 12 weeks would be fair and reasonable by my standards. The third-strike drug penalty is 12 weeks and I guess a lot of people are saying, 'well, I know he didn't do it through the AFL system, but if you are going into rehab there is a fair chance you've actually tried it a few times'.

"Maybe not playing for 12 weeks would be a reasonable kind of punishment or consequence."

Irrespective of whether the AFL imposes a sanction on Cousins, it is unclear when he will play football again.

The AFL and Eagles management have agreed on a series of conditions to Cousins' return. These include a public apology and admission of his problem and regular drug tests, with the commission reserving the final say on any return date.

The Australian

 

[lil angel15]

Cousins a test target
Rebecca Williams
May 01, 2007 12:00am

AFL chief Andrew Demetriou says Ben Cousins can expect to be a target for drug testers now that he is back in Australia.

The fallen West Coast star arrived home yesterday after spending four weeks in a Californian rehabilitation centre for his drug addiction.

However Demetriou said he did not expect drug testers to wait until Cousins returned to playing football.

"I would imagine he will be target-tested from the minute he set foot back in Australia," Demetriou told On the Couch. "And that's an absolute guarantee."

Demetriou defended the league's drug-testing procedures, refuting suggestions the system was flawed because Cousins had not tested positive.

Cousins has been tested 14 times, including four times in the second half of last season.

"You don't catch every drink-driver. To do that you've got to have a drink booze bus on every corner," Demetriou said.

"We didn't target Ben Cousins before this addiction became public because we weren't aware of it. But Ben Cousins was tested 14 times and he tested negative.

"We don't test players post the Grand Final for that nine weeks and for all we know he may have been involved in this addiction during that period of time.

"There are opportunities where you don't test positive. In the times that Ben Cousins tested, and he fronted up for tests, he tested negative."

Demetriou defended the league's decision not to sanction Cousins, saying he had been penalised through his indefinite ban by the Eagles. But he did not expect Cousins back on the field in a hurry.

"I don't know when Ben Cousins is going to play, but he won't be seen on a football field in my view for several weeks," he said.

Herald Sun

 

[lil angel15]

Ben won't reveal specifics
By Damien Barrett
May 02, 2007 06:00am

BEN Cousins' public apology for his drug-induced suspension from football may come as early as today, but don't expect specifics.

Cousins' father, Bryan, this week indicated to West Coast that his son would front cameras today, although last night there was no confirmation.

Cousins, who arrived back in Perth on Monday after a month at a California drug clinic, is averse to explain and admit to the extent of his problems for two reasons.

One, the likelihood that the AFL will view an admission of drug taking as a "strike" under its illicit-drugs policy.

Two, the strong possibility that Perth police will subsequently ask questions and seek to know the identities of those who supplied the drugs.

Both scenarios are known to be playing heavily on Cousins, who has been suspended indefinitely by West Coast.

The AFL initially was supportive of Cousins' plight, but now it wants to make him pay dearly for his situation, which has seriously damaged the commodity all senior executives love protecting: image.

It has chosen not to officially enact any of its own laws on the 2005 Brownlow medallist.

This is largely because the AFL knows if it was to act on Cousins for illicit-drug use, it would have to be compelled to also act on the 24 players its drug code has actually caught, yet protected from being publicly named.

Cousins was not detected under the same testing procedures, despite having a drug addiction and having 14 official tests conducted on him. As such, officially, he has not done anything wrong.

The AFL's view on the Cousins issue has changed dramatically since the Eagles suspended him on March 20.

On that day, AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said: "I'd say to Ben Cousins, 'You've been given a message and the message is to go away, get your life in order, get back on the field and do what you do best'.

"For any other player who thinks he can buck the system, (he) should learn a big lesson from the Ben Cousins incident."

Two days later, in his official season launch speech, Demetriou said the football community would help Cousins.

The public has made it clear to the AFL in recent weeks it is growing angrier with Cousins and for that reason, it is unlikely the AFL will allow him to resume this year.

While it has not hit the Eagle with its own charge, the AFL has guaranteed itself the right to the final say on his return.

Admission of and an apology for his addiction was the first requirement for Cousins to play again.

However, if, as expected, Cousins offers only a vague apology, then the AFL may be presented with what it most wants: a reason to keep Cousins out of the game this year and thus be seen to be responding to a baying public.

Better still for it, it would have achieved its aim without being forced to apply its own largely self-serving laws on illicit-drug use.

Perth Now

 

[lil angel15]

Number of drug tests set to triple
Greg Denham
May 03, 2007

THE AFL's crackdown on drugs has begun, with testing of players set to almost triple.

Clubs have not yet been informed of the number of drug tests players can expect, but an AFL source yesterday estimated the number to be between 1400 and 1500 a year.

It is believed the AFL executive signed off on the increase in testing about a fortnight ago.

At the latest meeting between the league's executive and club chief executives, AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou hinted that testing could at least double and that target-testing would triple.

In previous years, about 490 tests were carried out annually by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority.

They were full-screen tests with about one-third conducted on match days. ASADA tested for illicit substances as well as for performance-enhancing drugs, such as steroids.

Under the AFL's latest crackdown - fast-tracked because of the revelation of Ben Cousins' addiction to ice and subsequent overseas treatment - the league will significantly boost its illicit drug testing to a ratio of about 10 non-match tests to one on match days. It is understood ASADA will perform about 460 tests a year, with 160 of those on match days, under World Anti-Doping Agency compliance, which carries much stricter penalties than the AFL's illicit drug code.

Figures released last month by the AFL revealed that over the past two seasons, up to February this year, 25 players tested positive to illicit drugs on 28 occasions.

In 2005, 19 positive tests to illicit drugs reduced last year to nine, from about 990 tests over the two-year period.

The trend, however, is that players tested positive more often to hard drugs such as amphetamines, cocaine and ecstasy, rather than cannabis, which was by far the most popular drug used by players in the previous two years.

Of the 19 positives in 2005, which included three players twice testing positive, six of those results were for marijuana.

Of the nine positive results last year, only one was for cannabis.

In the first 18 months since the introduction of the three-strike policy of the illicit drug code from February 2005, AFL players registered 24 positive tests.

Over the next six months, only four tests were confirmed as positive.

Between the start of October 2002 and the end of September 2004, when testing was used by the AFL and its medical commissioners for statistical data, 915 tests produced 26 positive results to cannabis, and five other positive tests for illicit drugs out of competition.

The AFL said that of the 490 tests carried out last year, a total of 83 players were tested more than once.

AFL general manager of football operations Adrian Anderson said that no player last year tested positive twice.

"We're encouraged by the figures, but no more," Anderson said last month.Despite the decrease in positive tests, Anderson said the AFL would increase the number of tests as well as the number of players to be specifically targeted.

"We're looking at ways in which we can increase and develop our testing to make sure that our chances of catching anyone who uses them, are greater," he said. "Ben Cousins' situation provided a graphic picture for all players of the dangers of illicit drugs.

"I'd like to think that, if there was a young Ben Cousins entering the competition, now that we've got an illicit drugs policy that's been going for two years, that it might have made a difference."

From this year, out-of-competition testing is performed in Victoria by Dorevitch Pathology and all state testers are directed by the AFL medical commissioners, doctors Peter Harcourt and Harry Unglik.

AFL players' association general manager of operations Matt Finnis said last month the medical commissioners often acted on information received to direct certain tests.

"They're entitled to use information that comes across their desk," Finnis said. "We expect that's what they do."

Under the collective bargaining agreement, there is no limit on the number of out-of-competition tests directed by the AFL, other than an amnesty during the annual seven-week holiday.

The Australian

 

[hoptis]

On-field leaders to talk drugs with AFL
15 May 2007 Herald-Sun
Scott Gullan and Damian Barrett

AFL boss Andrew Demetriou has requested face-to-face meetings with on-field leaders from all clubs to discuss drugs in football.

Demetriou wrote to the clubs late last week asking to meet with the leadership groups as part of the league's crackdown on player behaviour.

He has asked that club officials not attend the informal briefings.

These meetings come on the back of the substance-abuse problems associated with Ben Cousins' indefinite suspension from the game.

Demetriou met Cousins and his father Bryan in Perth yesterday to formally outline the player's path back to football.

"We didn't go there for that only, we wanted an update on the rehabilitation and the program based on the best medical advice going forward," Demetriou said last night.

The idea to meet the players came about after the recent chief executives conference recognised the growing importance and influence of leadership groups.

The league has ticked off the meetings with the AFL Players Association.

"Having listened to discussions, it is clear that the role of the leadership group has developed significantly in recent years and becoming far more influential across the competition," Demetriou said in the letter.

"The AFLPA executive supported our view that it would be beneficial for us to meet player leadership groups at each club with input on the following: drugs, club culture, leadership."

AFL general manager of football operations Adrian Anderson and general manager of industry relations and corporate development Jim Watts will also attend the briefings.

After the player meetings, the league heavyweights are then planning to meet with each club's CEO, football manager and senior coach.

Last night Demetriou confirmed several issues would be discussed with the players.

"It will be the presentation we did to the AFLPA executives and we will be happy to take questions," he said.

"We spoke to the AFLPA executive about issues relating to player behaviour and community expectations.

"Following that it was agreed between all of us that we would go and see the leadership groups and do the same presentation."

Anderson and AFL medical commissioner Peter Harcourt joined Demetriou in yesterday's meeting with Cousins.

The AFL boss said the league had the final say on when the Eagles superstar returned to the game.

"The AFL has the final say on when he plays again," Demetriou said.

"I just don't know when that will be. Ben is a long way off from playing football again, though.

"He understands his first priority is to get his health in order.

"I am not a medico, but he looked fit. You know he is not well, given he is an outpatient and undergoing rehabilitation."

Demetriou also dismissed criticism of the AFL's illicit drugs policy by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Paul Coghlan QC. "We have offered to go and see him and I have no doubt he will have a better understanding of our policy if he takes up that invitation," Demetriou said.

Herald Sun

 

[xcidium]

Haha, after Ben Cousins returning from Rehab, I had a few freinds tell me they saw him out and about on Fri/Sat Night.

Classic.

 

[hoptis]

Costello takes aim at 'soft on drugs' AFL
By Glenn Milne
May 20, 2007 01:00am

TREASURER Peter Costello has launched a broadside at AFL boss Andrew Demetriou, accusing the game's administrators of being soft on drugs.

Mr Costello, Essendon's No 1 ticket holder, called for the immediate scrapping of the "three strikes" policy under which players receive two chances before they are suspended for illicit drug use.

He called for the implementation of a zero tolerance approach and warned that offenders posed a threat to young people who looked up to them as role models.

"I think the AFL has mishandled the issue of drugs," Mr Costello said.

"They have a policy of three strikes and you're suspended.

"That's a soft attitude. And the players know it. It is being exploited by players."

Mr Costello said the whole AFL Commission, from Mr Demetriou down, "was responsible for its drugs policy".

"They are highly-paid professional players," he said.

"They should not be taking recreational drugs. They are role models for young people in our society."

The AFL hit back at Mr Costello, saying the league already had zero tolerance.

A spokesman said the AFL shared Mr Costello's zero-tolerance view, which was why it was one of only two out of 90 competitive sports in Australia that had developed a policy to actively fight illicit drug use.

Herald Sun

 

[hoptis]

Libs hit AFL on drugs
May 21, 2007 12:00am

THE Federal Government is putting pressure on the AFL to change its three-strike drug policy, following recent scandals with some of the game's names.

Under the policy, players get two chances before being suspended for using illicit drugs.

Liberal MP Christopher Pyne told ABC's Offsiders yesterday the league's policy undermined the Commonwealth's anti-drug message.

"The AFL has a responsibility to reinforce that message, not to undermine it," Mr Pyne said.

"By undermining it with their three-strike policy, it wastes taxpayers' money."

Mr Pyne and federal Sports Minister George Brandis will put the heat on AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou on Friday.

The attack comes after Treasurer Peter Costello said AFL administrators had a "soft attitude" and called for the three-strike policy to be abolished.

Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett questioned whether Mr Demetriou's private meeting with West Coast's Ben Cousins was necessary.

"That to me isn't the function of the AFL. That is the function of the club," Mr Kennett said.

Herald Sun

 

[lil angel15]

AFL defends drug code despite criticism
May 21, 2007 - 10:44AM

Two federal ministers will meet with the AFL to demand tougher policies for dealing with players who test positive to illicit drug use.

Ageing Minister Christopher Pyne on Monday accused the AFL of being soft on drugs and said he and Sport Minister George Brandis would meet with AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou on Friday to discuss the issue.

Federal Treasurer Peter Costello also weighed into the debate, saying the league was not being tough enough.

The criticism prompted another defence from the AFL of its drug code.

The league said although it shared the government's zero tolerance approach it was one of the few Australian sporting bodies prepared to tackle the issue of drug use in society.

Mr Pyne criticised the AFL's policy of waiting for a third offence before taking disciplinary action against players who test positive to illicit drug use while out of competition.

"It's far from zero tolerance, it's probably a soft-on-drugs approach," he said.

"The government spends tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on educating - particularly young people - about the dangers of drugs in total over the years.

"And yet the AFL is cutting across that message, undermining our message, and particularly young people it will have a serious impact."

Mr Costello agreed: "Our policy is zero tolerance. That is the message we are giving to young people. Don't meddle with drugs, don't think you can handle drugs, just don't touch them," he told Adelaide radio station 5AA.

"And the AFL policy which is three strikes and you are out gives you two chances to be caught before there is any penalty at all. And I don't think that is tough enough."

Mr Costello said under the AFL code of conduct, a footballer who tested positive to cocaine would not be reported to the police in the first or second instances.

Only on the third positive test would they face suspension.

"Now that is not zero tolerance. That is accepting and permitting use of illicit drugs," he said.

"I think if a test comes up positive and you are using an illegal drug then I think right from the outset action ought to be taken."

West Coast star Ben Cousins, currently serving a club-imposed suspension, has been tested for illicit drugs 14 times but never tested positive despite his admission he has a substance abuse problem.

Mr Pyne hoped to convince AFL officials that disciplinary action should be taken against any player found to have been using illegal drugs.

The renewed criticism prompted the AFL to defend its code through a statement on its website.

"The AFL shares a zero tolerance view of illicit drugs," the statement said.

"This is why the league is one of only two out of 90 competitive sports in Australia that have developed an illicit drug policy to actively fight illicit drug use.

"Most sports don't have a policy to fight illicit drug use outside of competition.

"We have both the WADA (World Anti Doping Authority) match day testing regime and also a secondary system which is based on the model for the federal government's own National Drug Diversion Initiative - a part of the government's highly effective Tough on Drugs strategy."

The AFL said it had been told by the Victoria Police Drug and Alcohol Strategy Unit that its approach was the same used by police who had diverted more than 20,000 Victorian illicit drug users into counselling, rehabilitation and treatment programs rather than the legal system over the past five years.

The AFL said it devised an illicit drug code because it felt it "important to tackle the issue", and looked forward to meeting with the ministers.

"Our message is clear. We have zero tolerance to illicit drugs and we are doing what the police and drug prevention experts say is the most effective manner of breaking the cycle and stopping illicit drug use," the league said.

"We have so far worked with 25 players who have been detected. Only three have tested positive twice despite being target-tested."

The AFL stressed any players who tested positive to illicit drugs on match day faced bans of two years under the WADA regime.

The Age

 

[lil angel15]

Labor tells Libs to lay off AFL
May 22, 2007 02:15am

CANBERRA: The government's grandstanding over drug use among AFL players does not help encourage sporting codes to properly tackle the issue, Labor says.

Ageing Minister Christopher Pyne yesterday accused the AFL of being soft on drugs and said he and Sport Minister George Brandis would meet AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou on Friday to discuss the issue.

Mr Pyne criticised the AFL's policy of not taking disciplinary action against players who test positive to illicit drug use until the third offence.

He said the code was undermining the government's tough on drugs message.

"It's far from zero tolerance, it's probably a soft on drugs approach," he said.

Later, federal Treasurer Peter Costello said he did not believe the code and its policy of "three strikes and you are out" was being tough enough on drug abuse.

"(It) gives you two chances to be caught before there is any penalty at all," he said.

But Labor's sport, recreation and health promotion spokeswoman Kate Lundy defended the AFL.

She said the AFL still had more to do to improve the culture in its clubs, produce good role models and step up its efforts to stamp out drug use.

Senator Lundy said the code was being singled out despite, until recently, being the only sport with a policy on out-of-competition illicit drug use, which it had worked hard to implement in the absence of federal leadership.

"Instead of showing leadership to improve consistency across all professional sports, Ministers Pyne and Brandis have chosen to attack the AFL for their policy on illicit drugs, without even meeting the AFL on this issue, in an effort to cloak themselves in `tough on drugs' rhetoric," Senator Lundy said.

"This grandstanding and hypocrisy of Minister Pyne and the Howard government does nothing to encourage professional sports to adopt stronger policies.

"The government's claim to be tough on drugs is exposed as being shallow and hypocritical."

AdelaideNow

 

[hoptis]

AFL's illicit drugs policy slammed
Damian Barrett and Jim Wilson
May 22, 2007 12:00am

THE Howard Government has slammed the AFL, accusing it of permitting players to use drugs.

Two Federal Government ministers will meet AFL boss Andrew Demetriou on Friday to demand tougher action over its three-strikes drug policy.

Treasurer Peter Costello said the AFL drugs code, under which offenders are not named or sanctioned until their third offence, was not tough enough.

"Their code actually allows people to be caught using drugs like cocaine or other illicit drugs without any consequences," Mr Costello said.

"Now that is not zero tolerance. That is accepting and permitting use of illicit drugs."
Sports Minister George Brandis and junior minister Christopher Pyne will meet Mr Demetriou on Friday to demand significant toughening of the AFL's drug code.

It is believed several million dollars in funding, relating to developmental and indigenous programs, could be at stake.

The AFL has said 25 players returned 28 positive tests in the two years since implementation of the three-strikes policy. In the two years before, 31 players returned positive tests.

Senator Brandis said Mr Demetriou could not claim football was tough on drug users. "You can't say a three-strike policy is getting tough, and the message from the Government has got through to the AFL we don't think they are going far enough. The AFL simply won't lift their game and conform to what's expected by the community."

Mr Costello, Essendon's No.1 ticket-holder, said players should be named after their first offence.

"I think the club ought to know, and I think they should look at suspension," he said.

"And . . . you also have to bear in mind that this is quite illegal and if they find any evidence of criminality they have got to think what they do with the police."

The pressure comes after months of turmoil sparked by alleged drug scandals implicating several West Coast players, and follows revelations by the Herald Sun of a flaw in AFL drug-testing procedures.

A Hawthorn player was randomly selected for a test for illicit drugs by Dorevitch Pathology but it was not conducted.

Herald Sun

 

[hoptis]

Political mark on AFL drugs
Chip Le Grand
May 22, 2007

THE AFL is bracing for an election-year battering as the Howard Government and federal Opposition square off over the league's "three strikes" policy for illicit drug use, against the backdrop of former West Coast captain Ben Cousins's battle with ice addiction.

In an escalation of hostilities over the AFL policy, three Coalition ministers yesterday took aim at the league's "tolerance" of drug use. Treasurer Peter Costello led the offensive, followed by the minister responsible for illicit drugs Christopher Pyne and Sports Minister George Brandis.

As AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou prepares to defend his policy at a meeting with senators Brandis and Pyne on Friday, Labor's spokeswoman on sport, Kate Lundy, accused the Government of "grandstanding and hypocrisy" on the issue.

Mr Costello built on his previous criticism of the three-strikes policy, accusing the AFL on Adelaide radio of "accepting and permitting use of illicit drugs". And at a Senate estimates committee hearing dominated by discussion of the AFL drugs policy, Senator Brandis said the three-strikes approach was failing community standards.

"I don't know what it will take to convince Mr Demetriou, but I will say his public position is at variance with community standards and is not respected by the Government," Senator Brandis told The Australian.

"I think the instances, of which Ben Cousins is the most recent example, of illicit drug use by AFL players have tarnished the game, and the AFL's stubborn refusal to tighten its policy is damaging the AFL. By maintaining that tolerant policy, it risks bringing its reputation into disrepute."

Senator Brandis said the timing of the renewed political pressure was not motivated by election considerations. He said it was consistent with the statements of his predecessor Rod Kemp more than a year ago and John Howard at the height of the Cousins scandal.

"This has been a continuing point of contention between the Government and the AFL," he said. "The reason it has come to notoriety lately is because of events happening within the AFL, to which the Government, reflecting community standards, has an obligation to respond."

Senator Lundy said the Government was selectively targeting the AFL, the first major sports competition to develop a code on illicit drugs in addition to testing for performance-enhancing substances.

"This grandstanding and hypocrisy ... does nothing to encourage professional sports to adopt stronger policies," she said.

"The AFL have invested in and promoted their out-of-competition illicit drug testing policy in addition to the mandatory testing required under the World Anti-Doping Agency.

"They have worked hard to implement the policy amid criticism and misunderstanding, and in the absence of federal leadership on the issue."

Mr Demetriou reserved his comments for Friday's meeting.

The Australian

 

[hoptis]

OPINION
Zero-tolerance drug policies too easily abandon the user
May 23, 2007

Governments should follow the approach taken by the AFL, writes Christopher Scanlon.

YOU know it's an election year when senior government ministers start beating the drums on law and order. With an election in sight, and fears that the electorate has stopped listening, federal Treasurer Peter Costello has gone on the warpath against the AFL's drug policy.

The AFL has a three strikes policy under which clubs are told only if a player has failed a test for illicit drugs for a third time. That means a player can fail a test for illicit drugs and still take to the ground.

The AFL's policy seeks to work with players who have used recreational and other drugs before taking steps that would adversely affect their careers, while also protecting players' privacy.

Costello has criticised the AFL's policy since, in his view, it undermines the Federal Government's zero-tolerance approach to illicit drugs. According to the Treasurer, players found to be using illicit drugs should face immediate suspension and the matter be referred to the police.

According to Costello, the AFL's policy also sends the wrong message to young people who look up to footballers as role models. If footballers can take illicit drugs with apparent impunity, so the thinking goes, young people will think it's OK to do the same. In this, the Government argues that the AFL has created a double standard.

The Government is perfectly correct: there is a double standard and immediate steps should be taken to end it — by following the AFL's lead and bringing the Government's drug strategy in line with the AFL's.

This would be to treat illicit drug use as a medical matter that puts the wellbeing of the illicit drug user first, rather than seeing users as criminals. Imagine if Costello's approach to illicit drug use had been followed in the case of Ben Cousins. No doubt Cousins would have been banned from playing, possibly dragged through courts and fined.

While such an outcome might allow a government minister to beat his chest at election time and talk tough on crime, how it benefits Cousins or the community is anyone's guess. The likely outcome would have been a continuing spiral downwards with Cousins becoming a greater threat to himself and the community.

The AFL's approach, on the other hand, has allowed Cousins to get the help he needs, while leaving open the possibility of him resuming his career. Contrary to what the Treasurer thinks, the message that has been sent out to children is that drugs can jeopardise your health and end a promising and lucrative career. The pity of this approach is that similar high-quality rehabilitation services that have helped Cousins aren't available to every drug user who needs help.

Critics such as Costello claim that this approach to illicit drugs is a soft touch. Why this should be so is puzzling. Anyone who's ever worked in drug rehabilitation will tell you that working with users is never a soft option. It's difficult, personally exhausting work, and the outcomes aren't guaranteed and are often disappointing.

The zero-tolerance, law-and-order approach is the real soft touch, since it takes the easy option of giving up on the user. It's a convenient quick fix that allows policymakers to prance around like peacocks pretending they're doing something.

The reality is that we know that law and order approaches don't work. A sample survey of Victorian prisoners serving sentences of less than 12 months conducted in January 2000, for example, found that 75 per cent had a drug or alcohol problem. This increased to 84 per cent for those who had been imprisoned before.

Further, 38 per cent reported that they had committed their offences to support a drug habit. The figure for those who had been imprisoned before rose to 40 per cent. Research also shows that prisons are excellent places to get drugs and develop a habit. These figures show that the law-and-order approaches to the drugs problem championed by the Treasurer are worse than useless.

No one thinks for a moment that the drug problem will simply go away if we decriminalise drugs and treat drug problems as a medical rather than a criminal matter.

The health risks will remain as will their potential to end promising careers. The enormous economic costs of illicit drugs will also remain.

In short, we will have a problem of a similar magnitude to that which we have now. The key difference, though, is that we will have a manageable problem and a more productive approach to the treatment of those who have problems with illicit drugs.

There is a double standard when it comes to the treatment of illicit drug users in Australia. There's one rule for footballers and one rule for the rest of us. It's time to end this situation and extend the same levels of treatment and care to ordinary users of illicit drugs that is open only to football superstars.

Christopher Scanlon is a Melbourne writer.

The Age

 

[hoptis]

Drugs drama runs deep
MICHELANGELO RUCCI
May 22, 2007 11:30pm

WARNING: Do not read on if you are easily offended or take issue at being labelled a hypocrite.

It seems every football fan - and perhaps, given their letter to the AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou, some members of the Adelaide Football Club board - is unhappy that the AFL has not taken action against fallen West Coast captain Ben Cousins.

The facts, as known today, are that:

COUSINS has been suspended indefinitely by the Eagles after missing training sessions.

COUSINS has not failed an AFL drug test.

COUSINS is in recovery after admitting to "substance use" but has not confessed to using drugs.

Brisbane coach Leigh Matthews notes a prima facie case could be made against Cousins by his admission to a rehabilitation clinic at Malibu in the U.S. last month.

Now, hands up all those who want Cousins shamed and banned by the AFL?

You are hypocrites, one and all.

In the past two years 26 AFL players have failed 29 drug tests. Some have returned positive tests for such hard drugs as cocaine and heroin.

So where was the outcry from the football fans when the media sought to have the names of all 26 players who failed drug tests made public after a leak from Canberra in March last year?

Where is the demand that all these players be named, shamed and banned - as is being urged today of the AFL on Cousins?

With 26 players failing illicit drug tests in the past two years it is fair to assume there has been one offender at each of the 16 AFL clubs.

Yet, it is just West Coast that is having its on-field performances last season brought into question with the suggestion these might have been fuelled by drugs.

The issue is clear cut. If football fans are upset with the AFL not taking action on Cousins, they should concentrate on the league's drug code - not the Brownlow Medallist.

If no tolerance of drugs means you think Cousins should be banned, demand the players who failed drug tests at your clubs also be suspended. Or does self-interest in losing a loved star at your club suddenly have you not so hot on drugs in football?

Take issue with the AFL drug code that allows a player to fail three drug tests before they are disciplined. Be angry that cocaine and heroin have been returned in these tests.

But do not be a hypocrite with Cousins when there are 26 players who have done something the Eagles premiership player has not - that is, failed a drug test.

Finally, a message to the Crows fans who suggest The Roast is repeatedly referring to Adelaide club champion Simon Goodwin's gambling saga from the pre-season as if it is a crusade against him.

It is not about Goodwin, it is about gambling - and its threat to the purity of AFL games. Goodwin has been most noble throughout this issue. He has declared fault and admirably admitted he knew his bets were against the AFL rules.

He has a sound appreciation of how gambling has ruined the integrity of sports elsewhere.

He has, without complaint, dealt with counselling. On the basis of the letter sent to the AFL, Goodwin should have taken some Crows officials to the same counselling sessions.

But then, as the Cousins saga proves, self-interest inevitably fuels hypocrisy.

And there is much of it in the AFL circus today.

The Advertiser

 

[hoptis]

Drug test Costello: Kennett
Chip Le Grand
May 24, 2007

ON the eve of the AFL's meeting with two Howard Government ministers to defend its illicit drugs policy, battle lines are still being drawn, with the Victorian premier Steve Bracks yesterday backing the league's three-strikes approach and Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett inviting his federal Liberal Party colleagues to submit to drug testing themselves.

Sports minister George Brandis, a leading critic of the AFL policy along with treasurer Peter Costello and Christopher Pyne, the minister with responsibility for illicit drugs, has kept open the possibility of the AFL being stripped of its $486,000 government funding if it fails to adopt a "zero tolerance" approach to illicit drugs.

But as Brandis and Pyne prepare to meet tomorrow with AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou, Kennett said Brandis, Costello and Pyne would not have credibility on the issue until they agreed to the same drug testing accepted by today's AFL players.

"We are going into an election environment and drugs is something that particularly parents are always aware of and concerned about, so it is a political issue," Kennett said. "But I don't think you win Brownie points as a politician by imposing rules on others that you won't impose on your own workplace.

"I would simply say to all three of them, put yourself and your colleagues to the test, introduce the policy they have got in the AFL. If you want to go beyond that, do it, but do it for everyone who works in Parliament House, everyone who works in parliament and all politicians. Set the standard, don't follow."

Costello on Saturday attacked the AFL policy as "soft", continuing a concerted government campaign against the three-strikes policy.

Brandis led the assault in federal Parliament on Monday, telling a Senate estimates committee hearing that he and Pyne would seek assurances that the AFL would bring its drug policy in line with "community expectations of zero tolerance". Asked whether he would strip the AFL of funding if it failed to harden its policy, the senator replied: "You may be reassured that Mr Pyne and I will be delivering the message very strongly to Mr Demetriou that the three-strikes policy is inadequate."

Labor senator Kate Lundy, the Opposition spokeswoman on sport, said last night the AFL was being deliberately targeted by the Howard Government as part of its re-election strategy.

"With an election year, the government will use issues like drugs to create division rather than work with the AFL to try to improve their policy and make it work," Lundy said.

"They are clearly wanting to make this an election issue to cloak themselves in a tough-on-drugs stance."

Brandis denied his attacks on the AFL are poll-driven, describing the claims as nonsense.

In this politically charged climate, Bracks became the first political leader to openly endorse the policy, crediting the AFL with taking a "leadership position" in testing for drugs other than those banned as performance-enhancers under the World Anti-Doping Agency code.

He said the details of the policy, in which players face sanctions for illicit drug use only after a third positive test, were built on advice from the government's own Premier's Drug Prevention Council.

"What they have done has been a leadership position around the country based on the best advice possible," Bracks said. "If there are non-performance-enhancing drugs that are being used, we have a system of ensuring there is proper and appropriate counselling and action-taking, if that is required.

"My point on this with the federal Government is are they treating every other code and every other sporting organisation the same?

"Do they have the same approach to every other sporting organisation?

"If that is the case they should insist on testing for performance-enhancing and non-performance-enhancing drugs for netball, for cycling, for everything else."

The NRL this year established a two-strikes policy for illicit drugs.

Before that, the AFL was the only major sports competition in Australia that ran out-of-competition tests for drugs such as cocaine, marijuana and amphetamines including ice.

Brandis said the NRL policy fell short of zero tolerance but was an improvement on the AFL's.

Kennett has previously criticised aspects of the AFL policy, most notably the provision that club officials are not notified about a positive test until a third offence. However, he said the AFL had been a market leader in tackling the issue of illicit drugs.

"The AFL is head and shoulders above just about every other workplace in Australia," Kennett said. "The AFL has led the way in terms of its workplace and its employees.

"There is still some tightening up or some finessing to do. But does this policy exist for the workplace in federal parliament? Does it exist among the federal politicians? Of course not.

"I just think you lose credibility by asking or demanding of others something you are not prepared to subscribe to yourself.

"I am not saying these guys aren't genuinely concerned but this isn't their primary responsibility in life."

The Australian

 

[hoptis]

Hard line on 'soft' jibes
ZAC MILBANK
May 24, 2007 02:15am

ADELAIDE and Port Adelaide have backed the AFL's drug code despite the Howard Government's claim it is too "soft".

With federal ministers George Brandis and Christopher Pyne to meet AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou tomorrow, Crows CEO Steven Trigg reiterated his club's support.

"We fully back, absolutely fully back, the AFL's drug code," Trigg said firmly.

"There's a lot of misunderstanding about the AFL's drug code and it's getting bloody annoying because it is a responsible, strong code that does more than most sporting bodies do around the world."

Port chief executive John James said: "We're very comfortable with the AFL managing the issue and we're very supportive of them and the code."

Trigg and James hoped the meeting between Demetriou and the two ministers would clear up any confusion about the code. A common misconception has been the three-strikes policy applying to in-competition testing of AFL players, when it is only out-of-competition.

"It has led to some confusion," Trigg said.

"We just keep underlining that fact that in competition - like any other sport - if you get caught with cocaine or a performance enhancer then you're gone for two years. That underlines it is a very strong code and that the AFL are going further (than other sports).

"I don't know what their (ministers') motivation is to come out publicly (and criticise). But what I do know is that it would be good for them to sit down and hear from Andrew about what the AFL is doing and how both drug codes work side by side."

But when it comes to the three-strikes policy, Adelaide is in favour of club officials being alerted after the first positive test, not the third.

"While the medical officers know on the first strike, the club's CEO, football manager and coach should also know on the first strike to help manage it and support a player," Trigg said.

"That said, if it remains as it is or that we don't know potentially now until the second strike, then it's important we do everything we can to develop a culture where players feel comfortable to tell us anyway.

"We're backing it (AFL code) in as a club, we'd just like that little adjustment on the advice."

The Advertiser

 

[hoptis]

Just going to post a small selection of today's articles about this topic.

Feds: Kick anti-drug policy
Carly Crawford
May 25, 2007 12:00am

AFL players should be named and shamed the first time they are caught using drugs, the Howard Government says.

Two federal ministers will spell out their one-strike plan to league boss Andrew Demetriou at a showdown at AFL headquarters today.

The Government has not ruled out winding back funding if the AFL refuses to act.

Sports Minister George Brandis and Minister for Ageing Christopher Pyne, who is responsible for illegal drugs policy, will ask the AFL to scrap its three-strikes approach.

The Herald Sun has learned that under the proposed scheme, a player who tests positive to illegal drugs would be publicly named and face a range of penalties.
Poll: When should drug-users be named?

These could include fines, suspension, demerit points linked to the AFL Tribunal, and contract re-negotiation.

The scheme proposes more tests and information gathering, and calls for compulsory rehabilitation.

Under the current system, players are not penalised or identified until their third positive test.

The AFL Players' Association said yesterday it was unfair to single out AFL players.

Essendon star James Hird, Richmond's Joel Bowden and the Western Bulldogs' Luke Darcy were among those who spoke out.

"Would government ministers prefer we withdrew support for the AFL policy and simply agreed to no tests out of competition -- the same arrangement which applies to cyclists, cricketers, swimmers and soccer players?" they said.

"From our point of view, we are going over and above the requirements."

AFLPA chief executive Brendon Gale was "bemused" by the timing of the attack.

"Is there an election coming up? I think there is. I'm not sure," he said.

Treasurer Peter Costello has said the AFL's policy condoned illicit drug use.

The AFL was the first to introduce out-of-competition testing for drugs and says it remains the only major sports competition in Australia to do so.

Premier Steve Bracks has backed the AFL, describing it as a national leader on drugs testing.

The NRL has a two-strikes policy.

Twenty-eight AFL players have tested positive to illegal drugs in the past two years.

PLAYERS' QUESTIONS TO GOVERNMENT MINISTERS:

1 As AFL players we are the only group of Australian sportsmen who have volunteered to subject ourselves to out-of-competition testing for illicit drugs: Why do the Government ministers criticise us for expanding their fight against illicit drugs?

2 Would the ministers prefer that we withdrew support for the AFL policy and simply agreed to no testing out of competition -- the same arrangement that applies to the cyclists, cricketers, swimmers, athletes and soccer players?

3 Will the ministers be requiring all politicians and senior public servants to submit themselves to random illicit drug testing with people being subject to termination testing positive at any time?

4 Will the ministers provide objective evidence and expert opinion that supports the position they have taken in criticising the AFL policy?

5 Are the ministers suggesting that rehabilitation does not work and that the public funds spent in this area are a waste of taxpayer money?

6 Given the AFL policy is consistent with principles enshrined in government and justice system approaches to drug use, how is the AFL "out of step" with public expectations?

7 If the AFL is "soft on drugs" how do the ministers characterise the approach taken by cricket, cycling, soccer, athletics, netball, rugby union, basketball, hockey and rowing (among others) who do not test athletes for use of drugs except on competition days?

8 Will the ministers be calling upon all sports to adopt rules that require their athletes to be tested and punished for illicit drug use all year round?

Herald Sun

 

[hoptis]

Pollies could face drug tests
Karen Collier
May 25, 2007 11:15am

POLITICIANS suspected of drug abuse could be tested like footy players, according to Prime Minister John Howard.

Mr Howard said MPs should face compulsory screening if evidence of problems emerged.

"If there's a case for it to be introduced, if there was evidence ... I would be in favour of it," Mr Howard said.

The federal government stoush with the AFL escalated today as Mr Howard joined critics claiming the league was too soft on players using illegal drugs.

The Government wants players to be named and shamed the first time they are caught using illegal substances.

AFL boss Andrew Demetriou angrily defended the policy ahead of talks this afternoon with Sports Minister George Brandis and Minister for Ageing Christopher Pyne, who is responsible for illegal drugs policy.

The World Anti-Doping Agency has also attacked the AFL over a policy that keeps the names of players who test positive secret until a third offence.

Mr Demetriou denied drug users were let off the hook and was confident government funding would not be withdrawn because of the dispute.

The AFL intervened and organised rehabilitation as soon as a player tested positive, he said.

AFL players faced tests outside competition unlike other sports.

"We are not soft on drugs ... of course we find drugs abhorrent," Mr Demetriou said on Southern Cross radio.

Mr Howard seemed unaware AFL players were tested in their private lives.
"Our policy as you know is something that's been agreed to by the players," Mr Demetrious said.

"They've volunteered, they're the only citizens that we know of in this country that have volunteered for this program to be tested in their private lives."

Herald Sun

 

[hoptis]

Canberra's AFL drugs ultimatum
Rhianna King and Len Johnson | May 25, 2007

THE Federal Government will today demand an unprecedented zero-tolerance strategy on illicit drugs in the AFL, setting the scene for a major confrontation with the league and its players.

A day after some of the game's biggest stars made a public stand against the push for a tougher policy, the Government is expected to tell the AFL that any players testing positive for drugs a first time must be named and suspended immediately. Sources said the Government was considering sanctions — including the withdrawal of millions of dollars in funding to the AFL and access to Australian Institute of Sport programs — if its demands were not met.

The plan will be put to AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou today by the minister responsible for drugs policy, Christopher Pyne, and Sports Minister George Brandis.

The meeting comes after Treasurer Peter Costello attacked the league's existing "three strikes" policy, under which players are named and suspended only after a third positive test, as soft. "I think if a test comes up positive and you are using an illegal drug then I think right from the outset action ought to be taken," he said. He also said that positive tests should be referred to the police.

But the Government faces a battle, with Demetriou expected to stick by the existing policy, and players furious that they are being singled out from other sporting codes.

Essendon star James Hird yesterday led a stand by leading AFL players, who suggested that if the Government was serious about its move, politicians and senior public servants should undergo the same recreational drug tests that applied to footballers. The players accused the Government of unfairly targeting them for criticism because the AFL had an illicit-drugs policy that the vast majority of Australian sports didn't have.

"As AFL players, we are the only group that has volunteered to provide out-of-competition tests," Hird said. "Why do Government ministers criticise us for expanding their fight against illicit drugs?

"Would Government ministers prefer we withdrew support for the AFL policy and simply agreed to no tests out-of-competition — the same arrangement which applies to cyclists, cricketers, swimmers and soccer players?

They said if the AFL was soft on drugs, how did the Government characterise all other Australian sports which did not test their athletes at all for illicit drugs on non-competition days? Only the National Rugby League conducts similar non-match-day testing for illicit drugs, but it employs a two strikes policy.

As well as Hird, the players involved in yesterday's stand against the Government were Sydney's Adam Goodes, Players Association head and Richmond veteran Joel Bowden, Adelaide's Brett Burton, Brisbane's Jonathan Brown and the Western Bulldogs' Luke Darcy. Among a list of eight questions they put to the Government were:

■Will it require all politicians and senior public servants to submit themselves to random illicit-drug testing with people being subjected to termination if they test positive at any time?

■Is the Government suggesting drug rehabilitation does not work and public funding spent in the area is a waste of money?

■Would all sports be called upon to adopt rules requiring athletes to be tested and punished for illicit drug use all year round?

■Would the Government provide objective evidence and expert opinion supporting their anti-three strikes policy position at the meeting today?

Hawthorn president for former Liberal premier Jeff Kennett has backed the players' argument, saying Senator Brandis, Mr Costello and Mr Pyne would not have credibility on the issue until they agreed to the same drug testing.

"I don't think you win Brownie points as a politician by imposing rules on others that you won't impose on your own workplace," Mr Kennett was quoted saying.

"I would simply say to all three of them, put yourself and your colleagues to the test, introduce the policy they have got in the AFL. If you want to go beyond that, do it, but do it for everyone who works in Parliament House … Set the standard, don't follow."

Hird diplomatically tiptoed around suggestions of a split between himself and Mr Costello, Essendon's number one ticket holder, over the drug issue. "I know Peter very well," Hird said. "As a person he's been very good to me. You can have a difference of opinion. This is not an issue between personalities, it's a difference of opinion."

Hird referred to five of Australia's most popular athletes. "Ricky Ponting, Grant Hackett, Harry Kewell, Lauren Jackson and George Gregan — not one of them is subject to testing for illicit drugs on non-competition days. AFL players are," he said.

While Demetriou is expected to reject the Government's push, he remained circumspect last night, saying: "We look forward to meeting the Minister for Sport and the Minister for Ageing and we welcome their recent interest in our illicit-drugs policy."

The Age

 

[hoptis]

AFL 'soft' on drugs: PM
May 25, 2007 - 11:12AM

Prime Minister John Howard has continued to criticise the AFL's drugs policy, ahead of a meeting between federal ministers and the league.

Federal Sports Minister George Brandis and Treasurer Peter Costello are to meet AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou at 2.30pm today to ask the league to scrap its current drug policy.

Under the current system AFL players are not penalised or identified until their third positive test of an illicit drug in out-of-competition testing.

Mr Howard said the league was too soft on drug use by players.

"I think that they (AFL) should be tougher and I hope that there can be a constructive discussion in Melbourne today," he told told Southern Cross Broadcasting.

"We just want them to have a tougher policy.

"I don't think the attitude being taken by the AFL is as rigorous as it could be."

Twenty-eight AFL players have tested positive to illegal drugs in the past two years - both in and out of competition.

According to News Limited reports, the government has proposed a scheme that would see any player who tested positive to illegal drugs publicly named and face a range of penalties.

The penalties could include fines, suspension, demerit points linked to the AFL tribunal, and contract re-negotiation.

The scheme proposes more drug tests and calls for compulsory rehabilitation.

But Mr Demetriou today denied the league was too soft on drugs.

"We are not soft on drugs. We are the only sport in Australia to have a policy that tests for illicit drugs out of competition," Mr Demetriou said.

"We certainly are of a zero-tolerance nature when it comes to these issues," he said.

"We're committed to our policy, we sought the advice of the best experts in this area.

"We've always said that this policy is something that has evolved, it's a complex issue and I know people have their views."

Mr Demetriou said he was not concerned about reports that the government would wind back funding if the AFL refused to act.

"We get about $450,000-plus in funding ... I'm not sure if those reports are true," he said.

"I can't imagine that they would be talking about pulling funding."

AAP

The Age