Jeff Kennett calls for an overhaul of the AFL illicit drugs code, reveals scary episode for ex-Hawk

Former Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett has revealed a scary episode for an ex-Hawk that he says could have been avoided with a different illicit drugs code.

Former Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett has called for an immediate overhaul of the AFL’s contentious illicit drugs code, saying a lack of transparency effectively cost former Hawk Travis Tuck his league career and nearly cost him his life almost 15 years ago.

Kennett told this masthead that he still feels sick that he was unaware of Tuck’s troubles before receiving a call in August 2010 to inform him the 22-year-old son of Hawks’ legend Michael had been found by police unconscious in his car in Berwick.

Tuck, who played 20 games for Hawthorn and was one of three emergencies for the 2008 grand final, was the first AFL player to receive a third positive drug strike.

Just days after being found by police, Tuck received a 12-game ban for the offence, with the AFL taking into account that he was suffering from depression at the time.

Kennett is adamant if he had known about Tuck’s first strike, that he or others within the club might have averted a near tragedy.

Jeff Kennett. Picture: Ian Currie

“I have known Michael (Tuck) for many years and he remains a good friend,” Kennett said.

“I had no idea (about the strikes) until I got a phone call that he (Travis) had been found (unconscious) … and I was worried we were going to lose him.”

“I was furious that I, as president, and the club could not provide him with more assistance. So the (drugs) code to that end was – and is – totally out of step with what leaders in (20)24 are expected to provide for their employees.”

Asked if the incident could have cost Tuck his career, given he trained-on for a spot as a rookie for the Hawks in the next pre-season but was overlooked, Kennett said: “It wasn’t just the end of his career … it could have been the end of his life.”

“We keep hearing people say the code has saved a lot of lives, but we don’t know that,” he said.

“That is the AFL defending its position. We don’t know how many (players) they have saved and we don’t know how many are still able to use drugs because there isn’t a simple system that involves consequences.”

AFL chief executive Andrew Dillon told the 18 clubs on Thursday that a restructured drugs code for 2025 will not include a punitive model.

While maintaining the current system needs to change after almost 20 years, he strongly defended the medical model that it follows.

Travis Tuck.

But Kennett, a long-time critic of the code, said key club staff needed to be included in the information chain after a positive drugs strike for the sake of the individuals and the playing group as a whole.

“It should be a case that when a player or an employee is found to have been taking illicit or performance enhancing drugs, the president, the doctor and the football manager should be informed,” he said.

“I say that because ultimately those people have a responsibility for the welfare of the staff member. I argued at an AFL board meeting at which Eddie (McGuire) was present years ago, that I wanted to know so that I could look at … their cohort of friends to make sure their situation was a one-off and wasn’t being shared with other colleagues.

“I think the code at the moment is totally out of step with a sense of a leader’s responsibility in terms of the wellbeing of the staff.

“You either have a drugs’ policy or you don’t, and if you do have it – and I think you do have to because it comes down to the wellbeing of your employees – there has to be a simple situation that puts in place consequences that are metered out when people cross the line.

“No one has to play football. They (the players) are very well rewarded. If they don’t want to sign up to whatever the code it is, then best they don’t sign. If they make mistakes, there should be severe consequences.”

Tuck did not play another AFL match, but went on to play with Werribee in the VFL and with West Adelaide in the SANFL.