Illicit drugs in sport is a hot issue in the AFL. Despite no player yet testing positive during competition, the AFL has recently taken a moral stand and introduced out of competition testing for stimulants such as cocaine and amphetamines. These drugs are considered performance enhancing during competition by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency and the full penalty for a positive test on game day is a two-year ban from the sport – as rugby player Wendell Sailor discovered in May 2006 when he tested positive for cocaine. However recreational drugs are not prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Code when taken out of competition and the extension of rules exceeds Australian antidoping guidelines.
While the ‘voice on the street’ seems to support drug testing of AFL players (curiously not rugby, soccer or cricket players), it seems there has been no consideration of any infringement on the rights of players. In fact, criticism of the three-strikes policy has come from all directions and suggested that players should be suspended when they first test positive. Yet I can’t imagine many other groups in society, such as bank or tax office employees, submitting to drug testing that has no purpose other than to refl ect a ‘clean’ image of the sport. Mine workers are another group who are routinely tested for drugs. This is to prevent people under the infl uence of drugs from operating machinery that could cause injury or death. However, on days off there is no such testing for miners.
I am not trying to support the use of recreational drugs in any way. The example of Ben Cousins shows that no one is immune from potentially devastating effects of substance abuse. However, AFL players are already public property. If they make rude gestures to the crowd they are fined. If they make a ten dollar bet on a game, they have their face plastered on news papers across the country. If they have a dispute with family members it becomes coffee break gossip.
It seems that AFL players are held to a standard above normal people, and then crucified if they fall short of that standard. Reports show up to 53% of people aged 14 to 26 have used illicit drugs. It is reasonable to assume that AFL players would be similar. Perhaps the AFL would do better to recognise its players as excellent footballers and not necessarily promote them as role models in other areas of life. Or at least stop testing them beyond the standard required, because all this has done is draw attention to the drug use, while failing to pick up multiple positive tests in players with known drug use in the past.
Liz Bainbridge
