Drugs policy blathering is a nasty habit
Len Johnson
June 21, 2007
TESTING for illicit or recreational drugs in sport is being presented as a motherhood issue. Are you for it or against it? Of course, politicians like debates to be simple. Part of the game is to reduce the complex to the readily understandable.
Federal government ministers Brandis and Pyne made this an art form in talks with the AFL last month, scribbling their five demands on the back of a boarding pass on the flight from Canberra, getting them typed up on a sheet of blank paper for distribution to the media afterwards, and answering all questions with the phrase "zero tolerance". On message? Maybe, but also off planet.
All sports are now coming under the same sort of pressure as the AFL. Again and again, the question is boiled down to "illicit drugs — for or against?"
Naturally, the response is "against". This week, Shane Watson became the first cricketer to say he was happy to be tested anywhere, anytime. No disrespect to Watson, nor slight on his character, but disgraced sprinter Tim Montgomery was happy to say that about performance-enhancing drugs until a whistle-blower sent a sample of a designer steroid he was using to a drug-testing laboratory.
It is somehow assumed that sports do not test for illicit drug use now. They do, but mostly in competition only because many illicits have a short-term performance-enhancing effect. Test positive on game day in any sport under the WADA code (ie any Australian sport, including AFL, Test cricket and NRL) and you face a two-year ban.
Only the AFL and NRL test for illicit drugs outside competition. There, they apply three- and two-strike approaches to detect users, certainly out of line with zero tolerance, but in line with harm minimisation and diversion programs endorsed by experts, practitioners in the field and, in its broader national drug strategy, by the Federal government.
At the moment, we are not even asking the right questions, much less getting useful answers. What if the questions asked included these:
■Does sport have a problem with illicit drugs? If yes: all sports? Some sports? One or two sports?
■If testing for illicit drugs is increased, who pays? Most sports can't, so the answer to that will be you and me, the taxpayers.
■If there are no increased resources, do we test for illicits at the expense of performance-enhancing drugs, which are a demonstrated concern in most sports?
■If increased testing for illicit drugs comes out of current resources, which other government-funded programs suffer? Those targeting obesity in children? Indigenous programs? Sports leadership grants for women? National talent ID?
Then ask the government these questions:
■If footballers and Olympians are required to be role models, why not teachers, politicians, artists and musicians, the judiciary and police?
■If the government is serious about substance abuse, why aren't alcohol and tobacco mentioned?
■If the government is serious, why does the Prime Minister have no idea about AFL policy when asked on radio, or the Treasurer blur the distinction between Wendell Sailor being picked up in an in-competition test with the AFL's out-of-competition testing?
■Why hasn't the government called in experts before shooting from the hip? It took four years to get widespread international agreement on the WADA code. Now the government seems hell-bent on striking out on its own again.
In a "for-or-against" world, asking such questions may lead to accusations of being soft on drugs. Better that than being soft in the head, which the current approach is.
