Drugs in the AFL

[lil angel15]

Govt wants policy change
May 25, 2007 12:00

THE federal government today called on the AFL to make significant amendments to its illicit drugs policy.

Expanding out-of competition testing and holding a public moratorium were some of the changes proposed during a meeting in Melbourne today.

The meeting was held between AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou and other league officials and sports minister George Brandis and the minister responsible for illicit drugs, alcohol and tobacco, Christopher Pyne.

The ministers said the AFL's illicit drugs policy - for out of competition testing - undermined the government's zero tolerance approach to drugs.

It did so because it gave guilty players two chances before they were punished under the controversial three strikes system.

The ministers called for the following amendments to the policy:


Expanding out-of-competition testing to everyday of the year except days deemed in-competition;


Extending the in-competition period beyond match days;


Formulating and publicly disclosing a hierarchial table of sanctions for players who tested positive to drugs which include fines, suspensions and contractual penalties;


Implementing a player moratorium to allow players with drug issues to come forward and seek rehabilitation; and


Ensuring players who test positive get compulsory education and rehabilitation.

Senator Pyne said the AFL would consider the government's proposals and meet again with the government next month.

He said although the AFL deserved credit for introducing an out-of-competition drugs policy, that policy gave the wrong message and undermined the government's stance on the issue.

"For the AFL to have what we would call a lenient policy sends exactly the wrong message,'' he said. "For that reason we are very concerned for it to stand as it does.''

Senator Brandis said if sporting bodies were to have illicit drugs policies then they should ensure they were the right ones. The AFL's current policy was inferior to the government's zero tolerance standards, senator Brandis said.

Both ministers declined to outline what sort of penalties - if any - the AFL could incur if it did not amend its drug code. They also would not be drawn on whether the government would demand competition testing on other Australian sporting bodies.

The AFL and the NRL are the only sporting bodies which test athletes for illicit drugs out of competition. Senator Brandis said it was logical for the government to start with the AFL's drugs code because it was topical.

However he hinted the government might also require amended codes from sports such as cricket and rugby.

Daily Telegraph

 

[lil angel15]

Senator Brandis said if sporting bodies were to have illicit drugs policies then they should ensure they were the right ones. The AFL's current policy was inferior to the government's zero tolerance standards, senator Brandis said.

Both ministers declined to outline what sort of penalties - if any - the AFL could incur if it did not amend its drug code. They also would not be drawn on whether the government would demand competition testing on other Australian sporting bodies.

Now everyone repeat after me - totalitarianism 8( 8(

 

[Chronik Fatigue]

This made me laugh...

 

[ilikeacid]

What is with the coalition targeting the AFL over their drugs policy? Since when has recreational drug use in sport, specifically AFL, become a national issue?

I know its an election year and all, and of course the coalition is going to want to point out its 'zero tolerance' 'tough on drugs' stance as a reminder to scared voters that they will be secure voting for them, but seriously where the fuck do they get off advising the AFL on a internal issue such as drug use??!!

Your right lil angel, everyone shout totalitarianism!!!

 

[lil angel15]

Don't allow drug players to escape
LAURA ANDERSON, CANBERRA
May 30, 2007 02:15am

TWO South Australian Federal Government MPs have called on their party to take tougher action in relation to illicit drug use in the AFL.

Kingston MP and AFL-accredited player manager Kym Richardson yesterday told the Coalition partyroom that players found using drugs should be immediately suspended for two to four games.

His comments followed a suggestion by Grey MP Barry Wakelin in the partyroom that the Government should have taken tougher recommendations to the AFL.

Sports Minister George Brandis and the minister responsible for illicit drug policy, Christopher Pyne, met AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou on Friday.

They recommended a zero-tolerance policy under which AFL players would be "named and shamed" and face suspension, fines and demerit points.

Players are not penalised or identified until their third positive test of an illicit drug in out-of-competition testing.

Mr Richardson said it was important the AFL was pro-active on the first occasion by suspending players.

He said the AFL policy was flawed.

"It (the new policy) would ensure early detection and intervention, with professional assistance for the player to ensure there is no repeat," he said.

"It sends a message to the player, and to other players within the club.

"If AFL is the leading sporting code in South Australia, it should take the leading role for other codes to follow." He said the parents of players should also be advised so they could assist.

Adelaide Now

 

[hoptis]

Ben's drugs, booze vow
Kim Hagdorn and Jackie Epstein
June 17, 2007 12:00am

TROUBLED Eagle Ben Cousins has set his sights on 1000 days without alcohol or drug use.

Sources close to the fallen idol say he has set that lofty target and is confident he can reach it.

It comes as Eagles president Dalton Gooding said yesterday the club was hopeful Cousins would return next month and his contract conditions would be determined by the club, not the AFL.

"It is at our club's discretion if Ben re-offends what will happen," Gooding told 3AW.

"We want strong powers for the West Coast Eagles inserted into Ben's contract moving forward. If he ever re-offends again then it is very much a club issue.

"It's the AFL's decision as to whether he plays again before we can lift the suspension for him to come back and play.

"We've got an agreement with the AFL Commission that he must be medically cleared and psychologically cleared by the AFL medical officers.

"I'm cautiously optimistic that he will. Certainly with the progress that he's made – with his rehabilitation – it has been quite outstanding. We are confident he will agree to our terms and conditions.

"We had a very good meeting last week, so at this stage (unless) anything unforeseen happens we can't see why he can't return to playing and training, probably sometime towards the end of July."

Coach John Worsfold said yesterday he was ready for Cousins to return, despite delays on negotiations with the star and the AFL.

"The match committee believes Ben has taken the steps that we required him to take," Worsfold said.

"We were the ones that suspended him and the reasons we suspended Ben, we now believe he can fulfil all of his professional commitments.

"We feel he is ready to live the way we want him to live in terms of being part of our team."

Cousins was criticised this week for staying out until about 3am on Sunday at the Motel nightclub in South Melbourne.

Cousins, who was not drinking alcohol, was accompanied by teammates Chad Fletcher, Tyson Stenglein and Beau Waters as well as a security guard, who was keeping a cautious eye on the Eagle.

Cousins met with the West Coast players at Subiaco on Friday and later that night attended Raffles, a Perth riverside hotel, with a group of Eagles players.

"Everyone who came in saw them. Quite a few people went up to Ben to say hello or shake his and wishing him all the best. He was drinking a clear liquid – probably water or lemonade," one pubgoer said.

Gooding said he was not concerned Cousins was out late at a nightclub and inferred that it could help his recovery.

"He can't live the life of a hermit forever," Gooding said.

"He's got to get back into society. He has to place himself in positions where he may be susceptible to being got at again. I think that's all part of his rehab.

"He has to lead a normal life. You've got to put yourself in his place. This poor guy cannot lead a normal life anywhere in Australia. If Ben goes down the street and buys a pie it gets reported to us.

"He was conducting himself I understand in a very pleasant way so I was not upset at all."

Herald Sun

 

[Fry-d-]

Maybe you guys are missing it over in the east but theres a story about Ben Cousins and his progress or plans every day in the paper here in the west

I think today was his 17 point plan to be playing again.....

 

[hoptis]

Government's meddling in drug issue deserves zero tolerance
Greg Baum | June 22, 2007

THERE'S no doubt about the resolve of politicians. Last week, the Federal Government's position on illicit drugs in sport was zero tolerance. This week, it is approximately zero. It's core and non-core promises all over again.

Two weeks ago, the Government rejected the AFL's code. Yesterday, it endorsed the National Rugby League's code as a model for all. But neither code enforces zero tolerance.

The AFL punishes an offender after three positive tests, the NRL effectively after two, since it imposes a fine after the first positive test that is suspended until after the second.

Rhetoric is used like dry ice, to carefully cloud the issue. The AFL policy is referred to as "three strikes", the NRL's "one chance", implying a gulf. In fact, they are different by only one offence. Counting by strikes, it is NRL two, AFL three. Counting by chances, it is NRL one, AFL two. On neither scale is it zero.

The Government is splitting hairs, hoping to cover a bald argument. But it is dividing more than hairs. It is setting the AFL against the NRL, Olympic sport against non-Olympic, doctor against doctor. It is creating a divide among drug-free athletes. Some, because they have nothing to hide, have no objection to more stringent testing. Others have nothing to hide, but object because of the infringement of their civil liberties.

The AFL Players Association swallowed hard to accept such infringement, believing it to be pioneering. For its pains, it has been branded soft by the Government.

The ministers single out sportsfolk, but carefully exclude others with responsible positions in society, including themselves. They say sportsmen and women are role models, as to say they themselves are not. It's enormously convenient.

The role model argument necessarily is flawed anyway. Drug testing is discreet, unlike baring one's bum in a nightclub. The number and names of the AFL players who have tested positive remain undisclosed. All have a problem, but none is now a bad role model. Dealt with prudently, none ever need be.

The Government would have all offenders named and shamed immediately. It thinks this would make an example of them. In fact, it would advertise their problem. Worse, in some individual cases, it might worsen the problem instead of solving it.

It ought not to be forgotten how this whole bizarre debate began. Long before it occurred to the Government to get tough on drugs in sport, the AFL and Cricket Australia — for two — already had codes in place.

Two years ago, the Government suddenly came the heavy, saying those codes were not enough; only the World Anti-Doping Agency standard would do.

Reluctantly, the AFL introduced the WADA code on top of its own, making it more rigorous than any other. The players bravely — perhaps foolhardily — gave their assent. They would be within their rights now to say they will abide by WADA, but no more.

Two years ago, the WADA code was enough for the Government. But that was two years ago before an election was due, two years before disastrous polls.

Two weeks ago, the Government stepped up its crackdown on illicit drugs in sport. Last week, it mooted the worthiness of increasing corporal punishment in schools. If a cynic, one might imagine in this a whiff of law and order, a favourite election issue for conservatives.

We will give them the benefit of one doubt. But only one.

The Age

 

[lil angel15]

AFL drug scandal
DAMIAN BARRETT
August 24, 2007 08:30pm

THE AFL has been rocked by allegations of widespread drug use at a top Melbourne club.

Several players at the club have been linked to the scandal, the latest to strike the AFL's controversial illicit drugs policy.
It was reported by Channel 7 tonight that some players had twice been detected using illegal substances by the code's illicit drug-testing policy.

The club and its players, as well as the type of substances used, cannot be revealed.

The club in question was meeting tonight to decide how to handle these shock revelations.

A court injunction last night taken by a doctor named in the report prevented media outlets from further publication of the scandal.

Melbourne newspaper The Herald Sun, a sister publication of The Advertiser was seeking to have the suppression lifted.

The injunction issued to media read in part: "His Honour Hargraves orders as follows: Channel 7 is restrained from publishing any of the names or clubs or any detail relating to medical treatment of players or other information disclosed by them.

The AFL added: "Any media agency who intends to re-produce or re-publish any informaiton to which the orders apply run the risk of being in contempt of court in doing so."

Channel 7 said it paid for the document, which revealed the high levels of drug-taking at the club.

Medical records of the footballers were contained in the document, which was allegedly found outside a suburban rehabilitation clinic.

The AFL's illicit drugs policy was introduced for the 2005 season and controversially allows players three strikes before they are publicly named.

While the AFL defends the confidentiality and rehabilitation facets of the policy, critics, including the Federal Government, believe it to be too soft.

The Federal Government has demanded the AFL toughen the policy and recently endorsed the National Rugby League's illicit drugs code, which it says takes a zero tolerance approach to illegal drugs, as the blueprint for major Australian sports bodies.

A Government spokesman last night said that "while nobody should prejudge the guilt of any individual on the basis of a media report, the contents of the report are disturbing and underline the position taken by the Government that the AFL needs to take a good look at its policy in relation to illicit drugs".

The AFL has revealed 25 players tested positive to illicit drug use in the past two seasons.

Also, three players had twice tested positive.

Adelaide Now

 

[psilocybescrewbens]

fucking jocks and their egos

 

[hoptis]

AFL joins drugs shame cover-up
Article from: Sunday Herald Sun
Kelvin Healey and Jon Ralph
August 26, 2007 12:00am

THE AFL yesterday joined a concerted effort to keep from the public a drug scandal that has rocked a top Melbourne club.

And police began investigating whether damning medical records at the centre of the episode were stolen before being sold to Channel 7.

Lawyers representing the AFL attended a court hearing that ended with the extension of an injunction stopping Victorians reading details of drug use by a group of players at a club.

The club and the two high-profile players named in the documents cannot be publicly identified, under the court ban. But the Sunday Herald Sun can reveal the stars, both household names, are set to play in the finals series.

Yesterday the club's coach and president refused to speak about the crisis.

But several AFL figures, including Tom Hafey, Doug Hawkins and Neil Roberts, called for the players to be named and shamed.

Football sources disputed a claim that one of the club's players tested positive to drugs twice.

The player may have tested positive once to a test for illicit drugs, but also registered a test inside the legally allowable limit for drugs, a source close to the club revealed.

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou yesterday slammed the scandal being made public, branding the broadcast of details from medical records as "obscene".

He also tried to distance the turmoil from the AFL's drug policy, which has been under constant attack for being too lenient.

"This, for us, is not about the policy . . . this is more of a moral and ethical issue," Demetriou said.

Police have started a probe into whether the documents were stolen.

Sen-Constable Leigh Wadeson said: "Victoria Police are investigating the report of a theft of documents from an Ivanhoe rehabilitation clinic."

The scandal became public on Friday when medical records were sold to Seven by a woman who said she found them outside the clinic.

The doctor who treated the players was granted a Supreme Court injunction stopping the broadcast of details about 6pm on Friday, but it was too late to stop Seven airing the allegations on its news bulletin.

Yesterday the Sunday Herald Sun and Seven unsuccessfully sought to overturn the suppression. to allow the identification of the club involved. The injunction has been extended until a further hearing on Thursday.

Lawyers representing the doctor, the AFL and the club also appeared at the special Saturday court sitting.

Judge Kim Hargraves said the confidential medical records had been "accessed in highly unusual circumstances".

"Neither (the doctor) nor his patients consent to the disclosure of confidential information," he said.

Jim Peters SC, who represented the media outlets, said the name of the club should not be suppressed because about two million Australians would have heard it in Friday night television broadcasts.

"The court can't, in effect, put a suppression order on information already known by the public because the public would be disgusted," Mr Peters said.

The doctor's barrister, Graeme Clarke, SC, argued the doctor was obliged to maintain the confidentiality of his clients.

David Beach SC, who represented the club, and David Galbally QC, who represented the AFL, also argued against lifting the suppression.

Herald Sun

 

[Chronik Fatigue]

News 30/08/07- Keeping our goals in sight

[EDIT: Threads merged. hoptis]

Keeping our goals in sight

Andrew Demetriou
August 30, 2007

Helping young men beat drugs should not be turned into a publicity circus.

The AFL does not, never has and never will condone illicit drug use. I wanted to say that straight out because people who have watched, listened to or read some of the commentary over the past week could be excused for thinking the AFL doesn't take the issue of illicit drug use seriously.

We take it so seriously that the AFL established an illicit drug policy in 2005 and today we remain one of only two sports in the country that tests its players out of competition.

To put that in perspective, some 88 other sports don't have an out-of-competition illicit drug testing regime. The AFL does. Our message is very clear - the AFL abhors illicit drug use and we want to do what we can to tackle an issue that causes enormous grief right across the community.

Illicit drug use is a massive issue across society and AFL footballers are part of society and subject to the same temptations as other people their own age. But they are tested for illicit drugs on match days (in competition) by ASADA under the World Anti-Doping Authority regime and if found positive they receive a two-year ban.

No AFL player has ever tested positive for illicit drugs on match day. But we do know that some AFL footballers use such drugs at other times because we test them out of competition and then release the statistical results.

In February this year, after the testing regime had run for two years, we announced the results again and told the media and the public that we have recorded 28 positive tests over two years. Three players had tested positive twice.

One positive test is one too many, but if there is good news it is that every player that has tested positive has been referred to the appropriate counselling and treatment to help them actually deal with the issue and change their behaviour. We don't want them to hide their problem. We want them to deal with it and to receive the support they need.

It's important to remember that Justice Murray Kellam in the Supreme Court last year accepted the argument that a policy that provided treatment for players to overcome illicit drug use out of competition was more important than the need for the public to know the names of those players.

It's also important to remember that this policy, which has been attacked by so many commentators but praised by so many drug prevention experts, is one that the players volunteered to take part in. They wanted to ensure that their teammates received treatment if they had made the wrong choices. They supported the system because it educates and prevents illicit drug use but also - where such drug use occurs - it takes immediate action to ensure that those players are referred to counselling and treatment.

The AFL could have pretended there wasn't a problem and left it alone, but that's not leadership. We became aware some players were using illicit drugs out of competition and we have tackled it. The result is that there are a number of players who have had a significant intervention in their life that has resulted in them seeking and receiving treatment.

We know there are differing views on our system. It is a complex area with no simple solutions, but our policy was developed to tackle a real problem in the way that the experts in this field said was the most effective in changing behaviour.

Yesterday Victoria's Chief Commissioner of Police, Christine Nixon, supported the AFL system and its focus of seeking to refer players for treatment. As the Chief Commissioner pointed out, if police pick up someone who uses illicit drugs, the most likely outcome is that they are referred to treatment and counselling - just like AFL players.

Police, too, recognise that counselling and treatment is more effective in changing behaviour than the simplistic response of naming and shaming.

We do not and will not support a name-and-shame policy ahead of treatment and dealing with the problem.

The events of the past week show exactly why identifying players with problems doesn't work - there are some in the media who would put a story ahead of the welfare of patients, who are in treatment for a serious illness.

Today this issue will be back in court and the AFL will continue to support any action that keeps doctor-patient medical records private, as they should be.

The real issue over the past week was - and remains - the way that a patient's private medical records with a doctor were taken from a doctor's office, sold and then published.

Certainly the scramble to try and reveal details has shown little respect for the two players who are undergoing treatment and counselling.

We thank the Victoria Police for their work in charging two people with theft in relation to those documents.

The question for the AFL this week has been: Are you doing anything to combat illicit drugs? The answer is yes, and we will continue to do so.

AFL players recognise they are role models and I thank them for their support of their system and the way they continue to be held to high - sometimes impossibly high - standards that mean some people believe they can never make a mistake.

The question for some in the media is whether they think their actions over the past week would meet that same high standard.

Andrew Demetriou is chief executive officer of the AFL.

The Age

 

[Chronik Fatigue]

I don't care much for the AFL but it is nice to see high profile organisations promoting a more harm minimisation approach, even if it is only within the confines of their sport.

 

[hoptis]

There are have been far too many articles in the press this week to quote but it has been interesting. Looks like Channel 7 has definitely crossed the line and the players are more than entitled to demand an apology.

For the record can someone say which players and which club is involved? I've been told this is public information on AFL forums but I can't be bothered trawling through them to find it.

 

[Samadhi]

NEWS: news.com.au "Only one chance for AFL drug-takers

[EDIT: Threads merged & thread renamed. hoptis]

oops! sorry hoptis.

Only one chance for AFL drug-takers

By Lincoln Wright

September 23, 2007 04:40pm


AFL footballers would be given only one chance before being "named, shamed and banned" under a federal government crackdown on drugs in sport.

They will also face new out-of -competition tests when the Howard Government announces tough measures on the use of recreational drugs in the AFL and other elite sports following next weekend's AFL Grand Final.

The AFL will come under pressure to end its "three strikes and you're out" rule as well as secrecy surrounding players who test positive.

The new drug testing system will be modelled on the National Rugby League's two-strikes rule which gives a player one chance before they are compelled to appear publicly before a tribunal.

The AFL has resisted this approach and defended its three-strikes rule as a rehabilitative model rather than a punitive one.

The Ben Cousins affair and controversy over Channel 7's cache of documents detailing drug use at a Melbourne footy club, sparked the crackdown.

A senior source inside the Government has confirmed the plan as senior ministers are becoming increasingly unhappy with the AFL over what they regard as a secretive and slack penalty system for players who test positive to illicit drugs.

Federal Cabinet is expected to adopt most of the recommendations of a report by the nation's top drug testing agency, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency, next week.

Commissioned by Federal Sports Minister George Brandis, the agency report is expected to recommend new out-of-competition tests for illicit drugs in all major sports in Australia.

The policy is expected to be announced on the Saturday after the Grand Final by Senator Brandis and Assistant Health Minister Christopher Pyne.

Senator Brandis received the report on Friday after asking the agency in September for options on out-of-competition testing.

The Federal Government could threaten to withdraw Australian Sports Commission funding to the AFL if it refuses to adopt the new drugs regime.

Article

 

[hoptis]

Sports drugs ultimatum
Carmel Egan
October 7, 2007

THE Federal Government plans to shame the AFL into abandoning its controversial three-strikes-you're-out drugs policy, and has accused the league of undermining its tough anti-drugs campaign.

Federal Sports Minister George Brandis yesterday warned that community expectations and peer group pressure would see the AFL embrace the Government's new drugs policy and impose immediate sanctions on players caught using illegal drugs.

The Government's $21 million program will fund 6000 out-of-competition drug tests a year, impose suspended fines or bans on first-time offenders, and name-and-shame the guilty for a second breach.

Those found guilty for a third time of using illegal drugs face lifetime bans.

It would be untenable for any major Australian sporting organisation not to embrace the new policy, or to promote a weaker standard as acceptable, Senator Brandis said.

"There will be remorseless pressure on any national sporting organisation which stands apart from the consensus," he said.

Leading cycling, swimming, cricket, rugby and soccer organisations are all considering the new regime, but Cricket Australia yesterday ruled out life bans for players who produce three positive tests, despite endorsing the broad principles of the new policy.

With cricket to unveil its illicit drugs code in the next fortnight, chief executive James Sutherland said its priority was to balance rehabilitation and deterrence — but there would be no life bans.

Cricketers are expected to face counselling after one positive test, and punishment after a second.

But the main thrust of the Government move was against the AFL's "three strikes" code.

"Recent evidence of drug use by high-profile players is unequivocal evidence the current system is not working, and we need to reform it," Senator Brandis said.

"The community has a right to expect these young men and women will obey the law. Those who continue to break the law and abuse their position as role models are now on notice. Illicit drug use in sport — in or out of competition — will not be tolerated.

"If you want to be an elite athlete, you can't do drugs."

The federal minister responsible for illicit drugs, Christopher Pyne, used the launch to hammer the AFL's three-strikes policy for what he said was sending the wrong message to young Australians.

"Three strikes and you may be out is not good enough," he said. "In May, when there were a number of high-profile cases involving AFL players, the AFL described their policy as a 'zero tolerance'.

"We felt that undermined the Government's approach. I would be very surprised if the AFL, which has announced a review of its drug policy, doesn't recognise this as a substantially better model."

But AFL spokesman Colin McLeod said the league would not respond to the ministers' comments until it received a briefing on the new policy.

"We can only respond to those comments when we understand the information they have been provided with by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority," he said.

The recent death of former West Coast Eagle Chris Mainwaring and the tearful drug-cheat confession of triple-gold Sydney Olympian Marion Jones highlighted the need for tough action against drugs in sport, Mr Pyne said.

But West Coast Eagles president Dalton Gooding disputed the claim, saying he failed to see any connection between Mainwaring's death from a suspected drug overdose last week and the issue of drugs in sport.

"Even though Chris Mainwaring's death has been a tragedy, I fail to see how you can draw a parallel," Mr Gooding said.

Testing under the new regime is expected to begin in July next year, but an amnesty from penalties will apply until January 2009 for intervention programs offering counselling and education. Government funding will target sports with the highest impact on the community, and the highest-profile players.

with CHLOE SALTAU

The Age

 

[hoptis]

Agony of the ecstasy
By Jim Wilson
October 27, 2007

FORMER Carlton captain Anthony Koutoufides has spoken about the scourge of illicit drugs in the AFL and the impact it had on the Blues when two former teammates suffered from substance abuse.

And in his biography, Kouta, to be launched at Princes Park tomorrow, the retired Blues champion has questioned the AFL's stance on drug addict Ben Cousins.

While the AFL has offered Cousins rehabilitation, Koutoufides said the same treatment wasn't given to troubled teammates Laurence Angwin and Karl Norman.

"I can't say the AFL offered to assist Laurence and Karl, as it did more recently with West Coast's Ben Cousins," Koutoufides wrote.

"For Cousins to receive assistance and not Laurence and Karl is a double standard."

Koutoufides also details the drug binge that Norman and Angwin embarked on in 2004. The pair showed obvious signs of substance abuse on arrival at a club recovery session.

The Blues captain was fuming with the pair and says he and the rest of the playing group felt betrayed.

"It was a Monday afternoon in April 2004 and all players were required to attend a recovery session at Port Melbourne beach and after the swim I made my way back to the Carlton footy club and decided to take a shower," Koutoufides said.

"As I filed past a few of the boys on the way in, they looked at me rather oddly. I couldn't work out why. I walked into the shower to find Karl Norman there. He was in poor shape. His eyes were rolling and he was staggering about.

" 'Mate, are you all right?' I asked.

"Karl replied: 'I haven't slept.'

"Even when you don't sleep, you still shouldn't look like this.

"What did I know? I'd never seen anyone under the influence of drugs before. When I emerged from the shower a couple of players asked whether I'd seen Karl.

" 'Yeah, what's wrong with him?' I asked.

" 'We think he's taken something,' they said.

" 'You're kidding.'

"I then went upstairs and caught a glimpse of Laurence Angwin, wearing a jumper and tracksuit pants on a very hot day, riding an exercise bike at 100 miles an hour."

It was at this point that Koutoufides decided to consult with his leadership group - Lance Whitnall, Nick Stevens, Matthew Lappin, and Barnaby French.

They agreed to tell coach Denis Pagan about the condition of Angwin and Norman.

"All of us then confronted Karl and Laurence. Karl, to his credit, admitted taking recreational drugs, but Laurence denied the charge which forced the club's hand in testing him and confirming a positive result," Koutoufides said.

While Angwin was on his last chance and sacked for the drug binge, Koutoufides wanted the Blues board to give Norman another chance.

He reveals in his book details of a conversation with Norman, who admitted to drug use from his teen years.

"I felt sorry for Karl and he was a kind-hearted guy who was influenced by the wrong people," Koutoufides wrote.

"In a quiet moment later on, in what was the President's Room in the Heatley Stand, Karl told me that he had taken drugs when he was growing up and this had left him in a bad state making it difficult to get off the stuff.

"The club had no choice but to cut Laurence. He'd come to Carlton with a poor reputation, he'd been given enough chances and wasn't the sort of bloke needed around the young guys.

"Laurence was a bad influence and had to go."

Koutoufides presented to the Carlton board a case to retain Norman and they supported the captain's wish.

Norman departed soon after over another indiscretion.

According to Koutoufides, a drug culture does exist at AFL clubs.

"I was confident that it stopped in my final years at Carlton, but in the wake of recent media revelations, I could never give a guarantee," he said.

Herald Sun

 

[hoptis]

NEWS: The Age - 26/06/08 'AFL trials tough new drugs test'

AFL trials tough new drugs test
Caroline Wilson | June 26, 2008

AFL PLAYERS have agreed to a revolutionary drug-testing regime as part of the AFL's push to toughen its battle against illicit drug use.

Footballers will allow drug-testers to take hair samples in a bid to gauge drug use during their 2008 end-of-season break.

The hair-testing procedure, which will be trialled in October and November following talks between the AFL, the Federal Government and the AFL Players Association.

The new regime has been pushed by the AFL in a bid to learn the depth of the illicit drug problem during the players' holidays. Hair will be tested because the AFL's medical advice is that it retains evidence of cocaine and other dangerous drug use for two months.

First mooted by AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick in The Age in February, the procedure was initially rejected by the players because it was considered unreliable and has not been adopted by any other Australian football code or the Beijing Olympic drug testers.

But AFLPA boss Brendan Gale has had a change of heart following an assurance from the AFL that the trial will not result in the players receiving a strike against their name under the league's three-strikes policy in the first year of trial testing.

The move to test players after their holidays follows West Coast player Chad Fletcher's dramatic and still unexplained hospitalisation in Las Vegas 19 months ago.

Fletcher, who has refused to provide West Coast with the medical report from his near-death experience, was not drug-tested on his return from Las Vegas and was under no obligation to be tested.

Hair testing is considered less invasive because players will not be interrupted during their holidays, but will remain accountable, with random tests on their return.

The customary urine and blood-testing for illegal drugs will resume at the start of preseason training.

Should the hair testing reveal high numbers of positive results, the AFL will push to continue holiday testing.

The league is expected to unveil its toughened drug-testing regime early next month, along with the results of its dramatically increased 2007 test results.

The Age believes that more players tested positive last year to illicit drugs than ever before as a result of the increased number of tests, which almost tripled last season and were carried out in more high-risk periods, such as Monday morning training.

While the number of positive tests increased, the percentage of players testing positive was down on the previous year. No footballer is believed to have three strikes against his name and therefore the AFL will fight to keep the identity of the positive tests secret.

Chief executive Andrew Demetriou held talks earlier this year with Gale to negotiate the policy change, which last season put the league at odds with the then Howard government over the policy's three-strikes stand.

Despite reports that the AFL was to change to a two-strikes policy, the players have not been asked to consider this. The AFL has continued to stand by the three strikes, although it has asked the players union to look at a less stringent secrecy code in which club officials could be informed if a player tests positive twice.

The three-strikes issue remains sensitive between the AFL and the Federal Government, given the game's growing reliance on public funding for facilities and the Government's push for national sports to adopt uniform drug policies.

The Age

 

[peaked]

In other news, the number of AFL players with shaved heads skyrocketed

 

[marklar_the_23rd]

why do they care what a player does on his time off?