AFLPA hits out at reports of revised drugs testing system which it says would name and shame

The AFLPA has opposed a reported change to the AFL’s drugs testing system which it says would “name, shame and punish” players and reduce their anonymity.

The AFL Players Association strongly opposes an AFL plan to introduce a revised anti-doping policy which could see first-strike players hit with an immediate fine and reported to a new panel set up by the league, risking their anonymity.

Under a new proposal put to the AFLPA, the league wants to introduce hair-testing throughout the year, introduce immediate $5000 fines for first offences (currently a suspended $5000 fine) and increase in the number of AFL and club officials who would be made aware of the player’s identity after a strike.

The AFL and the AFLPA will meet in the coming weeks to further discuss a revision of the illicit drugs code, with any resolution still potentially months away.

AFL chief executive Andrew Dillon remains hopeful a deal can be reached, as the league looks to combat perceptions in the community that it is not as strong as it could be on the illicit drugs issue.

AFLPA boss Paul Marsh.

AFL chief executive Andrew Dillon.

But AFLPA chief executive Paul Marsh said while the players were open to a revised policy, they would not accept a system “designed to name, shame and punish players.”

“The AFLPA supports the current policy’s principles and its objective to help change players’ behaviour,” AFLPA chief executive Paul Marsh said.

“We have reviewed and updated the policy before and will continue to do so if we believe it can be strengthened. But we won’t be agreeing to a revised policy if its aims are to identify, sanction and humiliate the players. That’s not what experts in this field recommend.

“The Illicit Drugs Policy is a medical and welfare model entered into voluntarily by the players.

“It has been designed by medical experts to educate, identify and support players who are taking illicit substances. It is not designed to name, shame and punish players.”

He stressed that the AFLPA would continue to work with the league and industry leaders “to implement a revised policy that maintains the health and welfare of our members.”

It comes as Sydney’s Caiden Cleary was banned for two games and given a suspended fine after being caught by New South Wales police with an illicit substance.

Dillon conceded that the issue of illicit drugs was “a challenge for every community, every sport and every workplace.”

“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,” Dillon said.

“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.

“Education and player wellbeing are critical pillars of our approach.”

Under the AFL proposal, players in the men’s program would be fined $5000 on a first strike, while it would be $900 for an AFLW player.

A second strike could see a player named and suspended.

Players can currently avoid a strike by self-reporting once in their careers, but this loophole could be closed under the AFL’s planned shake-up of the code.

Originally published as AFLPA hits out at reports of revised drugs testing system which it says would name and shame