The AFL needs to clarify its stance on recreational drug use

Federal MP Andrew Wilkie put the AFL’s drug policy in the spotlight this week when he claimed under parliamentary privilege that off-the-books drug tests are carried out by AFL clubs to protect players from detection on game days.

Players testing positive to drugs under the AFL’s drug policy are advised by club doctors to fake an injury to avoid punitive match-day testing, the Tasmanian independent MP alleged. By being unavailable for selection, players circumvent Sport Integrity Australia (SIA), which carries out the AFL’s strict anti-doping code that adheres to the World Anti-Doping Agency code on game days only.

AFL CEO Andrew Dillon arrives to speak to media during a press conference in Melbourne.Credit: AAP

Meanwhile, coaches and club presidents are kept in the dark about the player’s drug test results and the true reason for a player sitting out a game.

AFL boss Andrews Dillon has since confirmed that doctors test players before games and is unapologetic about the practice, arguing physicians appropriately prevent players from training and playing if they have drugs in their system. He is reported to have told club bosses that reports of some 100 players caught with drugs and being sat down were “wildly exaggerated” and these instances were extremely rare, affecting a handful of players a season at most.

Nonetheless, this all amounts to less than stellar news for the AFL, which is mired in a stream of high-profile drug scandals, even if its leadership team fervently argues the league has no drug problem.

Dillon has clearly made some convincing arguments this week; namely, that the AFL’s drug policy should target player wellbeing and the league must protect doctor-client confidentiality.

“There is a difference between what the public is interested in and what’s in the public interest,” Dillon said.

We support the policy’s health-first ethos, which draws on the principles of harm minimisation by reducing drug-related harms through rehabilitation and education rather than taking a punitive approach. This is clearly commendable.

Even if the public expects our elite sporting heroes to act as model citizens, we cannot ignore that drugs are widely used in society – one in five Australians has used illicit drugs in the past year – and AFL players are equally susceptible to following social norms.

We also cannot deny that matters discussed between players and club doctors ought to be kept private, while the public interest value in public disclosures of every positive drug test is questionable.

The serious mental health impacts for players who have publicly battled substance abuse – Ben Cousins among them – should serve as a reminder of the dangers of public shaming. But glaringly absent from Dillon’s statement is any reference to the most shocking part of the week’s revelations: that players are tactically withdrawing from games under false pretences.

While the AFL Doctors Association disputes claims that “phantom injuries” are used to shield players from match-day drug testing, insiders have confirmed that personal injury or mental health are also deployed as a cover. That players appear to have a licence by way of the AFL’s drug policy to lie to coaches, club presidents and the public about their reasons for not being available for selection is a serious allegation that undermines the credibility of the league.

It is notable that players who test positive ahead of games get two strikes before being publicly named, but not a single player has been exposed by the AFL under this scheme. It means a player’s drug use comes to light on social media, in the courts or by the media, rather than via the AFL’s own transparent processes.

All of these factors combined will inevitably harm people’s faith in the integrity of the AFL’s drug testing process when so much of it occurs behind closed doors. How can we be certain that the AFL will follow through with publicly naming players who repeatedly flout the league’s drug rules?

The AFL is passionate about performance, but less so when it comes to transparency. But this cannot last forever, as fans expect more.

While we support the AFL policy’s noble aim of prioritising the players’ best interests, there is no denying that keeping drug test results hidden from public scrutiny also serves the interests of the AFL and its brand.

Unfortunately, this could indicate that reform will be slow, as the AFL and the AFL Players Association defend their respective interests while the policy undergoes a much-needed review. Over the course of this review, it is incumbent on the AFL to resolve the problem of having an anti-drug policy that actively undermines it’s very own anti-doping code.

This has allowed for the farcical situation where a player can be tested by club doctors and whisked away from scrutiny one day under the policy, but if tested later on a game day faces a multi-year ban under the code. These divergent consequences have allowed for deceptive practices to flourish.

That players appear to have a licence by way of the AFL’s drug policy to lie about their reasons for not being available for selection is a serious allegation that undermines the credibility of the league.Credit: AFL Photos

The AFL needs to clarify its stance on recreational drug use during the competition. World Anti-Doping Agency rules target recreational drugs like cannabis, heroin, ecstasy and cocaine not only because some may be deemed performance enhancing, but because they risk an athlete’s health and undermine the spirit of sport. If the AFL disagrees, it should say so and change its code.

When Dillon fronted the public on Wednesday, he could have made it clear that the AFL had a zero tolerance policy to recreational drugs. Instead, their “see no evil, hear no evil” approach will reassure any footy player using recreational drugs that they will continue to be protected by their clubs and the AFL’s rules.

Patrick Elligett sends an exclusive newsletter to subscribers each week. Sign up to receive his Note from the Editor.