The AFL has proposed a strict new anti-drug regime in a bid to catch players abusing its illicit drugs code, which includes a full-scale and year-round hair testing program, immediate fines and the removal of a controversial loophole.
Under the tougher campaign against illicit drugs, which has put the league in conflict with its players, the competition’s governing body would expand the number of AFL officials immediately notified of the drug offender’s identity. Club officials would also be informed earlier.
Proposed changes to the AFL’s illicit drugs policy.Credit: Artwork: Michael Howard
AFL players would be fined $5000 for a first offence. AFLW players would be subjected to the new rules but would only be fined $900 for a first offence. In both the men’s and women’s leagues, a second strike would result in the offending player being publicly named and suspended.
These punishments would also apply to players who refused or failed to report for treatment.
Under the existing illicit drug policy, there is a suspended $5000 fine for a first offence, and players can avoid a strike by self-reporting drug use once in their career. This loophole would be closed under the AFL’s proposal.
AFL Players Association chief executive Paul Marsh told this masthead the union would refuse to accept a new regime of immediate fines. Nor, said Marsh, would the players testing positive place their anonymity at risk.
While the AFL has framed the first-offence fines as a “co-contribution” to a medical program that every drug offender would be forced to undertake, Marsh disagreed.
“This is a fine dressed up as a co-contribution, and we won’t be accepting that. If we are purely talking about a wellbeing model then why are AFL players being fined $5000 and AFLW players $900?” he said.
The AFLPA is expected to put a position to the men’s and women’s playing bodies at their AGM next month.
Under the current illicit drugs rules, only the club doctor and an AFL doctor are made aware of a first positive test. Under the proposed new model, which is backed by the AFL Commission, the player’s identity would be reported to a newly established AFL panel.
“Our industry is not always great at keeping confidentialities,” said Marsh. “And we are not prepared to go down that road. Our concern is that these issues could be used against players in their contract negotiations.”
The details of the league’s bid to toughen the drug rules were put to the AFLPA at the end of the 2024 finals series after 12 months of increased scrutiny on the AFL’s culture. This spiralled after the revelation that former Melbourne player Joel Smith had tested positive on match day to cocaine in the final home-and-away round of 2023.
On Friday, the AFL announced Sydney Swans player Caiden Cleary has been banned for two matches and handed a suspended fine after he was caught by NSW police with an illicit substance. Cleary was found guilty of the AFL charge of conduct unbecoming.
With the AFL facing increasing pressure over a perception it is soft on drugs, league chief executive Andrew Dillon said he was hopeful of a resolution with the players.
AFLPA chief executive Paul Marsh.Credit: Jason South
He did not back away from sensitivities within the game to outside pressure to act on illicit drug use among players.
“The issue of illicit drugs is a challenge for every community, every sport, every workplace. We are not immune to this and remain committed to ensuring our policy is as strong and effective as possible – one that educates to deter use, holds players to account, and, most importantly, provides the necessary welfare and support for those who need help,” Dillon said in a statement to this masthead.
“Education and player wellbeing are critical pillars of our approach. We are working closely with the AFLPA to refine and strengthen our policy so it reflects the expectations of both the game and the broader community.”
The players’ association took some months to respond to the AFL proposals and the two parties are due to meet again next week. Smith was banned last November for four years and three months, after Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) also found that he had committed four further trafficking, attempted trafficking and possession violations under anti-doping rules.
Federal MP Andrew Wilkie in March sparked a four-month SIA investigation after he spoke in parliament of so-called “off the books” drug tests and alleged that players were faking injuries to prevent them from risking positive tests on match days.
Earlier this month further scrutiny was placed on the AFL’s past illicit drug culture following the death of former West Coast player Adam Hunter in Bunbury.
The AFL’s view is that fewer players would test positive under the new regime partly because hair testing – which can detect drugs in a player’s system weeks and even months after ingesting – would prove a greater deterrent.
But the players are concerned about the competition’s ability to handle what they believe would lead to more positive tests due to hair testing.
Currently, hair testing is only carried out in the off-season and midway through the season for monitoring purposes.
Under the current code, players are urine-tested in-season for illicit drugs.
“We have no issue with hair testing under the right framework nor with penalties being escalated if a player is not buying into the fundamentals of the policy,” said Marsh. “But with the program being administered by the club doctors we have real concerns looking at the pressure they are already under with soft cap cuts and the increased risk of concussion.
“It doesn’t make sense logistically. We’ve got real questions over the ability of the industry to administer what the AFL is proposing.”
Marsh said if the AFL was truly committed to helping players using illicit drugs for deeper health reasons it would not be forcing them to pay for their own treatment. He added that more resources should be put towards that treatment.
“Does the policy need changing or does the application need changing?” said Marsh.
The competition has been slow to reach a resolution on the illicit drugs issue and has not discussed it in-depth with the clubs since last April.
The AFL and the AFLPA in 2023 conducted a joint review of the code by consultants 360 Edge but remain at odds over some of the findings.
Lifeline 13 11 14. Beyond Blue 1300 22 4636.
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.