Oct 26th 2009
Not yet rated
Loading ...Illicit drugs policy in sport: The AFL model and its critics
In 2003, the AFL adopted the world’s best practice drugs policy informed by medical advice and based on harm minimisation, rehabilitation and player privacy. But the Federal Government and international sport agencies thought it was too soft on drugs Dr Daryl Adair reports.
Testing for performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) has been part of elite-level sport for many years, but systematic testing for illicit drugs has been a more recent development.
The regulation of illicit drug use in sport was initially driven by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), also the driver of PED regulations. Although WADA did not classify illicit drugs as performance enhancing, it argued for their prohibition for three reasons:
- illicit drug use was against the spirit of sport
- their use adversely affected health, and
- athletes – being role models – should be seen to be ‘clean’ of illegal substances when they compete.
The 2003 WADA anti-doping code (WADC), which covered both PEDs and illicit drug use in sport, was embraced by the Australian Government, which pushed for zero tolerance and punitive measures. In terms of PEDs, all national sporting bodies followed suit, but the Australian Football League (AFL) adopted an independent illicit drug use policy that embraced a medical model of harm minimisation, rehabilitation and player privacy, and included provision for sanctions as a last resort.
The League’s so-called ‘three strikes’ approach principally tackled the use of illicit drugs as a public health problem, and was informed by medical specialists working in the area of drug dependency. Players showing a positive test were required to undergo rehabilitation under the supervision of health experts.
A lynchpin of the system was privacy, whereby players’ medical records would be handled solely by AFL-appointed physicians. Neither the player’s club nor the AFL were to be informed of first or second breaches of the illicit drugs policy. However, a third ‘strike’ would result in the player’s drug problem being made known to both their club and the AFL, and a maximum twelve week suspension imposed.
The AFL had emerged as a world leader by implementing testing for illicit drugs both in and out of competition. This went well beyond the remit of WADA, which had no interest in drug use outside of sport. In fact, WADA only tested for illicit drugs during competition, even though it was unlikely that sportspeople would take illicit drugs at such times, given their use would typically affect athletic performance.
But the AFL’s expanded illicit drugs policy caused considerable controversy on the grounds that it ‘protected’ players from public scrutiny, was not sufficiently punitive, and didn’t comply with the Howard government’s zero-tolerance position. The critics’ primary concern boiled down to the fact that AFL policy focused foremost on counselling and medical treatment rather than mandatory punishment.
Matters came to a head in 2005, when the AFL and AFLPA (the AFL Players’ Association) resisted making their illicit drug policy compliant with the WADC. Both football bodies were uncomfortable about mandatory sanctions for players who, for example, might be found with fine traces of cannabis in their bodies on match day. From their point of view, the possibility of a two-year ban for such a minor offence seemed excessive.
They were also concerned about the WADA emphasis on ‘naming and shaming’ transgressors, with its focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation. In contrast, WADA even argued that a life ban was appropriate for athletes shown to have ingested cannabinoids on three occasions during an in-competition period.
The League was placed under considerable pressure to sign the WADC, with the Federal Government stating that it would withdraw $1m of annual funding should the AFL remain non-compliant. In a tense meeting between Andrew Demetriou, the CEO of the AFL, and David Kemp, the Minister for Sport, the AFL finally relented – even though it maintained that its policy and approach were superior to a rather ‘simplistic’ and ‘punitive’ WADA model.
Under the AFL’s revised illicit drugs policy – now made WADA compliant – players faced mandatory sanctions and the prospect of a two year ban if they tested positive to illicit substances on match days, irrespective of whether they enhanced performance. The AFL remains uncomfortable with this penalty, which is equivalent to that handed out for PEDs such as steroids.
Meanwhile, WADA remains uninterested in the question of illicit drug use among athletes except during competition, and has made no commitment to help sportspeople come to terms with the possibility of illicit drug dependency. And an illicit drug policy informed by medical advice and current best practice in the area of drug dependency has been tempered in favour of a zero-tolerance approach.
This research is being conducted in collaboration with Bob Stewart (Victoria Univ), Jason Mazanov (UNSW) and Aaron Smith (RMIT). The authors have recently submitted a paper based on this study to an international journal.
Comments