Drug policy and the pub test

EVERY Saturday The Chronicle team talks about the big issues in sport locally, nationally and on the world stage.

This week Glen, Jason and Sean are turning their attention to the Australian Football League.

A lot of the talk over the past week has been about illicit drug use among players and more specifically the AFL’s policy about “positive results”.

As it currently stands players retain anonymity when they return their first positive test – even their club is not made aware of the infraction.

Under the policy, a player will receive a $5000 fine for a first strike while also undergoing counselling and target testing. On the second strike a player’s name is made public and he serves a four-match suspension. A third strike incurs a 12-match suspension.

We answer the question is the policy too soft?

Jason Gibbs: I find it ridiculous that clubs are not made aware of the fact one of their players has offended the first time round.

Yes the AFL is doing the right thing by fining said player and making them commit to counselling and target testing but that’s not enough.

What all that amounts to is basically a smack on the wrists.

The fine is small change compared to what most of them are on and who knows what the counselling amounts to.

And let’s be honest it’s probably only the first time the player has been caught.

In my book the ‘third strike’ should be the first and the punishments/match suspensions more severe there after. Glen McCullough: Who these days would want to be a sport administrator of either a club or governing body? Once upon a time it was considered a dream job.

You just fronted up each day with a smile on your face, smug in the knowledge that any dramas or potential scandals were safely swept up under the rug.

And you have to admit, they did a pretty good job back then of keeping their dirty linen inhouse.

An almighty kick up the backside from management or team-mates must have carried plenty of weight in the old days.

But how the world has changed.

Now overseeing players and their welfare comes with a poison chalice.

Social media, 24-hour news saturation and the accompanying calls for either blood or compassion and public shaming have seen to that.

It’s hard to win either way. You are either too harsh in some eyes (Smith, Warner) or too soft in others (Smith, Warner).

I think people will cop either approach as long as it’s consistent and passes the pub test.

I don’t know all the strategy and workings of the AFL drug policy but I don’t think it passes the public sniff test.

What’s wrong with one strike and you’re out?

If the same rule is applied clearly in each player’s contract who could argue the harshness of it. End of story.

You either want to play elite sport and cop all the benefits that come with it, or you don’t.

Sean Teuma: In comparison to other codes, first time offenders are basically given a slap on the wrist, and it leaves the question of whether it actually teaches said offender a lesson.

Something that caught my eye when looking up the topic on the AFL’s official website was the line: “First or second strikes do not constitute misconduct under AFL rules.”

Isn’t that contradictory in itself that players are fined on the first occasion, and subsequently suspended the next time they are found to violate the rules?

The NRL’s shortcomings in response to player behaviour have been well documented in recent times, and it seems that is something they are keen to change (even though Robert Lui’s horrendous misconduct slipped through the cracks all those years ago).

However it seems the AFL could be on the way to taking over as the light-handed authority if it is so intent on protecting those that have broken laws.

And if it were to ever come out that players were abusing the serious nature of mental health issues to avoid having to be tested for drugs in certain circumstances, I would hope the league comes down twice as hard on them.