By Marc McGowan
Former Greater Western Sydney head of development Robbie Chancellor’s life and budding AFL coaching career took a drastic turn in December.
Undercover police officers busted Chancellor buying cocaine and arrested him outside his home, leading to the Giants sacking him weeks later from the job new head coach Adam Kingsley handpicked him for three months earlier.
Robbie Chancellor’s tenure at the GWS Giants was short-lived.Credit: Getty Images
In an AFL world built on perceptions, Greater Western Sydney officials could not reconcile with still employing someone caught with drugs who was responsible for their impressionable first-to-fourth-year players.
But had Chancellor’s cocaine bust happened 12 months later, and in the ACT instead of NSW, he would not have fronted court. He has since pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a prohibited drug and will be sentenced this month.
A landmark ACT government decision will decriminalise such actions from October this year.
Chancellor’s fate is at odds with how the AFL and its clubs deal with players caught using illicit drugs, either through positive tests under the league’s illicit drugs policy (IDP), or being “outed” when photos or videos reach the public.
Collingwood’s Jack Ginnivan is presently on the sidelines because of his indiscretion. Credit: Getty Images
The three-strikes AFL policy, which is under independent review, prioritises rehabilitation, with a suspension kicking in after the second strike. In the second scenario, AFL stars Bailey Smith and Jack Ginnivan each received two-game bans for conduct unbecoming; essentially, they were punished for being caught. More on that later.
The ACT ruling applies to people in possession of small amounts of certain illicit drugs – including heroin, cocaine and speed – that are considered to be for personal use. In that jurisdiction, those types of drug users will be cautioned, fined or referred to a diversion program, meaning there will be no more prison sentences.
It is part of the societal shift at government and community level that promises to one day change how workplaces and sporting organisations deal with drugs.
Change is also afoot in Queensland, where Annastacia Palaszczuk’s government gave the green light in February for pill testing to reduce the risks associated with illicit drug use. Almost three in five Australians approved pill testing at designated sites in the most recent National Drug Strategy Household Survey from 2019.
The survey – which has a new instalment underway – showed backing for the legalisation of drugs was low – but on the rise. Support for the legalisation of cocaine increased from 6.3 per cent in 2010 to 8.0 per cent in 2019, and ecstasy from 6.8 per cent to 9.5 per cent.
In the same survey, an estimated nine million people aged 14 or older in Australia had used an illicit drug at some point, including an estimated 3.4 million in the previous 12 months.
However, the changing attitudes do not guarantee the next staffer who transgresses as Chancellor did will be spared their position at an AFL club, or go unpunished, at least in the short term.
That owes to the potential reputational damage these scenarios can cause. But chief executive at alcohol and drug consultancy organisation 360Edge Dr Nicole Lee is a strong believer that education is the best approach.
“It’s my view that if people are using illicit drugs, or have a problem with illicit drugs; that’s an issue about their health and welfare, and it should be responded to with education and support rather than punishment,” Lee told The Age.
As one of Australia’s leading drug experts, Lee said more widespread decriminalising, and destigmatising, of illicit drugs may be some way off, but workplaces would eventually follow “where the community is heading”.
“Workplaces are usually a bit behind – but as the laws change; there will be less moral incentive to apply punishments,” she said.
The Chancellor case was not the Greater Western Sydney club’s first experience with illicit drugs.
A years-old video emerged in late 2018 of Shane Mumford snorting a white powder as he was set to come out of retirement.
Mumford played again for the Giants after his sanction – a two-game ban and $25,000 fine – and is now a ruck coach at the club.
Chancellor might also have retained his position if it wasn’t a player development role. But the key difference was that human resources departments make employment decisions on coaches and other staff members, whereas players come under the AFL’s illicit drugs policy.
Chancellor declined The Age’s interview request. The Giants also did not want to discuss their handling of the situation.
Leaked videos
Mumford is not the only AFL star who’s landed in hot water because of a leaked video. Smith, of the Western Bulldogs, and Collingwood’s Ginnivan were both caught in similar fashion.
Former Collingwood president Eddie McGuire warned after Ginnivan’s public outing this year that people might increasingly try to blackmail AFL footballers with vision of them using illicit drugs.
Ginnivan was secretly filmed snorting a white powder – alleged to be ketamine – in a toilet cubicle at the Torquay Hotel in January.
The Magpies’ public relations and communications team acted swiftly to suppress the impending media firestorm. They sent a “remorseful” Ginnivan for an exclusive interview with Channel Seven, where he admitted to illicit drug use and being “utterly disappointed” in himself.
Jack Ginnivan.Credit: The Age
Ginnivan will miss the first two rounds of the AFL season, and received a strike as part of the league policy, which is set for an update via negotiations with the AFL Players Association.
The policy is, in essence, a medical model predicated on counselling and rehabilitation that the players voluntarily agree to. The negotiations will coincide with talks for the next collective bargaining agreement.
Smith, too, received a strike and was slapped with a two-match ban. The Bulldogs released a statement, where Smith used similar language to Ginnivan. He apologised, vowed to “be better” and admitted to being “deeply ashamed”. He did an exclusive interview soon after as well.
“The state of my mental health over that period post-[2021] grand final dramatically deteriorated, and I spiralled out of control, leading to poor decision-making and actions at the time,” Smith said.
A media expert told The Age every AFL club would forthrightly address drug revelations in a bid to limit the damage and rumour-mongering, but Lee remains uncomfortable with such “public shaming”.
“We know that it’s much better to provide support, educate, and offer a whole range of prevention activities. All [the other approach] does is make people feel really bad about themselves,” she said.
“If you think about [retired West Coast and Richmond footballer] Ben Cousins many years ago, and the trial by media that he went through [that is a perfect example].
“If you have a problem with drugs or alcohol; it makes it very difficult to address it when people are hounding you, trying to take photos of you, trying to catch you out, and making commentary about you constantly. It hampers recovery.”
There is an inconsistency in the repercussions for a player whose drug-taking is revealed publicly compared to players who privately test positive.
If Smith or Ginnivan had simply tested positive, without a video in the public realm, they would not have been punished. Assuming it was their first indiscretion, only their club doctor and the AFL medical directors would have been informed.
Bailey Smith and Jack Ginnivan.Credit: The Age / archives
The AFL Players Association’s general manager of member programs and services, Ben Smith, hinted that this discrepancy would be debated in the latest round of discussions.
“We think that’s something we can continue to work with the industry on; about understanding the best approach here for players, to support them if they have an issue in this space,” Smith told The Age.
“We probably don’t believe sanctions are the right way forward for this, and rather there’s that medicalised wellbeing support system for it. But players need to accept their responsibilities under that code of behaviour, as to what they need to be doing in the public domain as well.”
The AFL’s executive general manager of football, Andrew Dillon, said there was “appropriate accountability” if a player “puts themselves in a position where their conduct doesn’t uphold what is expected of a professional footballer”.
Lee thinks the league’s policy should cover these situations and club responses, and would prefer there was no public commentary.
Almost 90 per cent of AFL players listed mental health as a key societal issue in a 2021 AFLPA survey, with media scrutiny (45 per cent), illicit drugs (26 per cent) and alcohol (11 per cent) among their other concerns.
A good portion of footballers who test positive for illicit drugs are either one-time offenders or do not have a drug problem.
Former Essendon footballer and dual Geelong premiership coach Mark Thompson previously found himself in drugs-related strife.
Chris Yarran also revealed the extent of his drug dependence in the months after his premature retirement from Richmond at the end of 2016.
The AFLPA has various in- and post-career support mechanisms for footballers, including a hardship fund and counselling services.
Illicit drugs policy
Ex-Hawthorn player Travis Tuck is the sole AFL footballer to receive three strikes under the league’s illicit drugs policy. He received the minimum 12-match ban in 2010 after confessing to using illegal substance GHB.
Tuck was being treated for clinical depression at the time, and back then club doctors were not informed until after a player’s second strike, whereas that now happens after the first strike now.
But the Hawks, including then-CEO Stuart Fox, were furious they were in the dark, telling The Age after Tuck’s suspension that they believed they could have avoided his third indiscretion if more people had been made aware of his struggles.
Travis Tuck at Hawthorn in 2010.Credit: Wayne Taylor
“We are very concerned. We haven’t been able to supply any guidance or counselling to Travis as he’s been going through all of this,” Fox said.
“The hierarchy of the club was not advised earlier; no one in our administration knew about this. We support the framework of the three-strikes policy, but we think it could be altered to get a better outcome for our player. We believe we should have known before now.”
Under the current policy, the offending player’s name becomes public after a second strike, also triggering a four-game ban. A third strike incurs a 12-match suspension.
Strikes must be given within four years of each other to be considered second or third strikes. No player has been suspended or named publicly after recording a second strike since the AFL revised the policy in 2015.
Dillon told The Age the IDP was designed to “prevent the uptake of illicit drug use and reduce any drug-related harm to players” and would continue to be guided by medical advice.
“[The policy must] find the right balance between players’ responsibility to the game, responding to medical and mental health concerns, and influencing behavioural change,” Dillon said.
“The AFL wishes to reiterate that AFL players are well-educated when it comes to the harms associated with the use of illicit substances, and have a responsibility to themselves, their clubs, their families, and their professional careers to uphold community expectations.”
Club football bosses remain torn on the so-called “loophole” that enables footballers dealing with mental health challenges to dodge strikes while they receive medical treatment, even if they continue to abuse drugs.
In an Age survey last year of club football managers, seven said the mental health loophole should be closed, but just as many disagreed or did not accept it was a loophole.
Club figureheads also argue, as Fox did 13 years ago, that they need more information, and earlier, when one of their players records a positive test.
The topic is sure to again be among the points of contention when the AFL and the AFLPA thrash out the revised policy.
The AFLPA’s Smith strongly supports the confidential nature of the illicit drugs policy and the assurance of only “appropriately credentialed people being aware”, as does Lee, who is also a professor at the National Drug Research Institute.
“If you take a health and welfare approach to drugs, and you think about if someone has a drug problem, for example – that’s a health issue, not a legal one,” Lee said.
“Like any other health issue; that problem should be private. We don’t go around talking about people’s depression, or their stomach ulcers, or anything like that in public. It only seems to be OK for illicit drugs.”
The NRL’s illicit and hazardous drug-testing policy also has a three-strikes system, but with some distinctions to the AFL model.
A rugby league player’s first positive result is shared with the club’s chief executive and doctor, and they receive a suspended fine and are required to have counselling.
A second strike activates a 12-match ban and “the prospect of contract termination, a fine, and further treatment and monitoring”, while any player who records a third offence will face “more severe disciplinary action”.
The NRL’s Rugby League Players Association is pushing for the penalty for a second strike to align with the AFL’s four-game equivalent, while the league wants hair-follicle testing that detects illicit substances for up to three months, rather than just urine testing, which can only pick up drugs used in the previous three days.
The AFL’s policy will continue to be reviewed “as is appropriate”, according to the AFLPA’s Smith, who identifies several benefits the policy provides to players.
“We’ve seen a shift in the WADA and ASADA codes, in relation to some substances and the punitive sanctions that are now imposed on those,” Smith said.
“But our view of why we put the model in place right at the start was to mitigate harm and to support players and maximise their time and professional opportunities that come with the game.
“We’re really focused on the education for players and making decisions that are going to enhance their professional career while they’re playing, and obviously support them for their transition out of the game.”
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.