AFL’s revamped illicit drugs policy to arrive a year behind schedule, what’s expected to change?
The AFL’s revamped illicit drugs policy is set to arrive an entire year behind schedule. But what is expected to change? JON RALPH has the details.
The AFL’s revamped illicit drugs policy will arrive a full year behind schedule and closely resemble the current model hailed by the league and criticised by club chiefs.
The league and player union have been negotiating on a deal that is not expected to feature a new range of punitive measures that would see players banned or fined for initial drug strikes.
The AFLPA’s GM of legal Brendan Schwab and AFL’s general counsel Stephen Meade are close to brokering a new agreement which would then need approval from the AFL Commission and AFLPA board.
The AFLPA board is led by Collingwood captain Darcy Moore and is made up of a range of AFL and AFLW players.
While in-season hair testing of players is one proposal gaining traction, the AFLPA has pushed back hard on initial fines for first strikes and a wider array of club officials not being told about drug strikes.
A recent example where Essendon’s bosses shared aspects of de-identified data about drug testing of Bombers players with most of its list before a mid-season bye is yet more evidence why the AFLPA will hold the line on club CEOs or football bosses being told of official drug strikes.
Clubs are told about that data - which does not include player names - so they can identify trends at their clubs but it is to be used so clubs can boost education programs about drugs if needed.
It is not distributed by the AFL so clubs can penalise players, with the AFLPA often counselling clubs about how they can talk to their leadership groups or captains to drive change if they believe there is a worrying drugs trend with their playing list.
Last year Melbourne’s football boss Alan Richardson and Essendon chief executive Craig Vozzo both suggested if clubs knew more about their issues they could help players.
The AFL and player union committed to a review of the policy when they agreed on the latest collective bargaining agreement in September 2023.
The September 2023 CBA stated: ”The Parties will review and agree on a revised Illicit Drugs Policy within 12 months of execution of this Agreement.”
The AFL had initially proposed fines for players after a first strike instead of the current policy which includes a $5000 suspended fine for a first strike plus counselling and target testing.
A second strike requires a player’s name to be made public as they serve a four-match suspension, with a third strike requiring a 12-match suspension.
But in the five seasons since the most recent policy came into place no player has received a second strike, with many players instead diverted into a medical model where they are protected from strikes as they work through behavioural or mental health issues.
Then-AFLPA boss Paul Marsh told the Herald Sun in March the policy was never about punishment.
“We think the policy provides (punishment) as an option but that’s not the intent here. It’s not to sanction players. The intent is to identify, help and then change behaviours.”
Marsh, who stepped down earlier this year to be replaced by Roos executive James Gallagher, told this masthead in March the AFLPA was steadfast that only the club doctor should know about a drug strike.
“I don’t say this in a judgmental way, but we have sat in with club visits and talk to the senior coaches and footy managers and asked them this question directly – “If you knew this information about a player, would you use it against them?”
“And they’ve openly said, Yeah, it would be hard not to. So we are agreeing to this voluntary policy under certain limitations and that’s one of them.”
Player can tell their clubs if they have a positive drugs strike and can access greater levels of counselling and support.
But many choose not to and also believe that it would affect their careers if club executives who often decide their futures were aware of their official drug history.
Concerns raised by Essendon players over illicit drugs meeting
- Callum Dick
A group of senior Essendon players approached the AFL Players’ Association with concerns after the club hosted a meeting with the playing group regarding the AFL’s Illicit Drugs Policy in June this year.
Essendon chief executive Craig Vozzo led the meeting, with senior coach Brad Scott and general manager of football, Daniel McPherson, in attendance.
Some players were concerned about the tone of the meeting, which occurred prior to the club’s bye week in Round 16, and whether confidential information had been shared with club officials.
After being informed of the meeting by the group of Essendon players, the AFLPA contacted the club to reiterate how the Illicit Drugs Policy worked, how information could and could not be shared, and the best way to frame such discussions in the future.
Essendon’s position in relation to the meeting was one of awareness, education and care for its playing group.
The club hosts similar meetings throughout the season about various AFL policies.
In discussion with the AFLPA, Essendon acknowledged it could have handled that particular meeting differently.
Both the club and players’ union felt the matter had been dealt with and there were no ongoing conversations.
Essendon and the AFLPA declined to comment when asked about the meeting.
Originally published as AFL’s revamped illicit drugs policy to arrive a year behind schedule, what’s expected to change?
Shrewd deals, built-from-scratch simulator behind AFL Draft heist
