AFL drug code: League and AFLPA at loggerheads over reported data leak

The AFLPA wants the AFL to urgently explain whether it provided illicit drug data to authorities, with negotiations over the new drug code at a standstill.

A deal over footy’s new illicit drugs code has hit a major stumbling block as the AFLPA tries to urgently clarify whether the AFL provided confidential illicit drug data of 51 players to authorities to target test them for performance-enhancing drugs.

The league and AFLPA are locked in talks that have already seen the AFL back down on proposed $5000 fines for first strikes under the illicit drug code.

The player union is also unwilling to sign up to a new drug code that sees anyone other than the club and AFL doctors become aware if a player has tested positive for illicit drugs.

AFLPA chief executive Paul Marsh told the Herald Sun in an exclusive interview the union was open to year-round hair testing of players if it was used to help players and counsel them.

But the AFLPA is still waiting for clarification from the AFL after the Herald Sun reported last week that the league had provided a “target list of athletes” to Sports Integrity Australia during the 2024 season.

The players are desperate to find out whether confidential data from illicit drugs code tests was used by the league in what would be a major breach of confidentiality.

Talks have hit a standstill until the league can guarantee the IPD protocols will not be used against players.

The AFL Players' Association CEO Paul Marsh.

“There is this issue around the 51 players that have been reported to SIA, and we have asked the AFL to explain that to us,” Marsh told this masthead.

“We are waiting on a response at the moment and that may or may not be material in the context of this whole (negotiation) but we are trying to get our heads around that. It will be important before we can lock down on a final policy,” Marsh said.

One other possible alternative is that the league used information from its integrity department investigations to hand on the information about 51 players, 50 of whom were tested by Sports Integrity Australia.

Asked if he feared that confidential data from the drug code had been passed on by the AFL, Marsh replied: “I think that is the (thrust of the) article so we are now trying to understand if that’s factual or not. We are certainly concerned about the reports but I don’t want to jump to anything until we get an explanation from the AFL. Once we get an explanation we will work out what we do next.”

The major report by the Auditor-General into SIA’s management of the National Anti-Doping Scheme refers to “sophisticated blood and erythropoietin (also known as EPO) doping in Australian sport and cocaine culture among athlete cohorts”.

AFL CEO Andrew Dillon speaks during the 2025 Season Launch. Picture: Getty Images.

The AFLPA will hold its annual general meeting next week and while it will not yet have a final position to vote on there has been progress.

“It’s a negotiation and it’s not done until it’s done but the AFL have walked back their position on fining as a first offence. This policy has never been about taking punitive measures for players. It’s about identifying players who have problems and supporting them.

“And if the policy were to effectively go to one strike and zero tolerance from our perspective it’s not something we could ever agree to.”

Marsh admitted that punishment was never the main priority of the current policy which provides a suspended fine for a first strike, four match ban for a second strike and 12-match suspension for a third strike.

“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.”

He said there was a clause in the current policy which allowed a club doctor to escalate the approach to a player if he was one of the small group who were abusing the system.

But the AFLPA will not agree to more club staff being made aware if a player has triggered a positive 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.”

Originally published as AFL drug code: League and AFLPA at loggerheads over reported data leak