Club chiefs slam AFL’s illicit drugs policy amid claims players are exploiting mental health to avoid strikes

Club chiefs slam AFL’s illicit drugs policy amid claims players are exploiting mental health to avoid strikes

Club chiefs have taken aim at footy’s contentious illicit drugs policy amid claims players are exploiting mental health to avoid strikes.

Hawks president Jeff Kennett declared the AFL’s drug code had long been “a sham” because it was “open to abuse”.

Western Bulldogs counterpart Peter Gordon said clubs deserved to know if players were “repetitively breaking the law by using illicit substances” or “grooming” younger teammates.

“If there was a player on any club’s list that was doing that, then I would want the right to sack them,” Gordon said.

3AW host Ross Stevenson claimed he had been told 16 players from one AFL club had been made exempt from drug testing because of a mental health diagnosis.

“I had confirmed to me by someone that should know that there is indeed one AFL club that has 16 players on its list who have registered as having mental health issues, which means that they cannot be randomly drug tested for illicit drugs,” Stevenson said.

An AFL spokesman said: “All players are bound by AFL rules and are subject to testing.”

Ex-St Kilda coach Grant Thomas fuelled the storm by saying he was told drug use was “rife” within his playing group more than a decade ago.

AFL Players’ Association chief Paul Marsh hit back, telling Triple M: “I’d suggest those numbers are just made up. It’s not the case, what he’s put forward.”

Thomas on Wednesday night said: “I was conveying what I was told by a very senior player of the time and what I have asked several players since.”

Kennett, a former chairman of mental health support group beyondblue, said: “If people are using mental health as an excuse, that is an absolute abuse of the illness and the good work that is being done by so many to genuinely assist those with mental health issues.”

On the success of the drugs policy, Kennett said: “As president, I am still not informed about those who have had strikes — and I find that to be totally hypocritical and self-defeating.

“If the AFL has a policy on drugs it should be enforceable and anyone who voluntarily puts their hand up to be a league player … should be prepared for the consequences.”

Gordon said clubs had been left in the dark about the extent of drug use in the AFL.

“It’s wrong for anyone to focus on the number of players that any particular club may be suspected or alleged to have had in relation to this issue, because the clubs have no say, no power and no control over this policy,” Gordon said.

“This current illicit drugs policy is a deal cut between the AFL, as the regulator of the competition, and the AFLPA, as the players’ union … and the results of it are there for everyone to see.

“I have complained, both publicly and privately to the AFL commission, that it puts the clubs, as employers, in an invidious position.

“We have a duty of care to protect the interests of our players — and not just those who may be using — but those who may be coming to the club for the first time and may be put in harm’s way by being groomed or facilitated into social contact with other players who are users.

“We are vested with all the responsibility that the law imputes to employers, but none of the knowledge and none of the power.

“There are a whole series of unsatisfactory elements to it.

“If there are players who are repetitively breaking the law by using illicit substances, and it becomes known to the AFL that not only are they using them, but new players who have come to a club have commenced using in circumstances which raises suspicion that one player introduced the younger player to it, then I would like to know.

“If there was a player on any club’s list that was doing that, then I would want the right to sack them.

“And if there are a particular cohort or group on my club’s list, which makes it different in an adverse way to everyone else’s, then I would want my board to know about it because we bear the ultimate responsibility for the standards and the governance of the club.”

Collingwood president Eddie McGuire said the policing of illicit drug use was “a vexed situation”.

“The policy is helping more people than would be the situation if there wasn’t voluntary testing by the players … but if we can get to a position where we are able to look after this inside the club, that would be the best of all positions, but I think that would be an evolutionary position,” McGuire said.

Former North Melbourne and Sydney player and mental health advocate Wayne Schwass said the current illicit drugs policy has too many gaps, which players are able to exploit and use mental health as an excuse.

“I think we’d be naive to think there wouldn’t be a percentage of players across the competition that have made those decisions. They’ve taken illegal substances and as a way of minimising any risk or recourse is to use mental health as an issue,” he said.

“I think the intention of the current illicit drug policy is to help those individuals who do have legitimate drug issues and drug problems, addiction issues and also legitimate mental health conditions.

“But I think the system and the way the program is currently being implemented and executed does leave gaps in the system for players to be able to exploit this.

“I’m not the person to be advising the AFL on what they should be doing but I will say it frustrates me greatly that there are players using this as an out clause because that puts every other player who’s got legitimate mental health conditions in the same boat. And they’re not in the same boat. These are really complex issues.”

When asked whether he knew of any AFL player using mental health as an excuse to avoid punishment for illicit drug use, Schwass told SEN: “I’m not aware of any players. No one has spoken to me about it.

“But I think we need to be realistic enough to think that we’d be naive to think there aren’t players who have made those decisions and that’s disappointing.

“I think the AFL has a responsibility to review it. Maybe they’re reviewing it consistently, I don’t really know, but if you’ve got Peter Gordon, Jeff Kennett and Eddie McGuire saying that this is an issue, we have to listen to what they’re saying.”

Schwass believes AFL clubs should be given more responsibility to help players.

“I know the Players’ Association want to be the organisation with the services to help players with mental health conditions, I don’t believe they’re the right organisation for that,” he said.

“I think the clubs who have the intimate relationships with players are best placed, with appropriate professionals, to manage and support players going through significant mental health conditions.”

This could be a huge issue, I imagine AFL House will do everything in their power to make it go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mofra

This could be a huge issue, I imagine AFL House will do everything in their power to make it go away.

---

Well they have the integrity team on it so I'm sure they will find no problems at all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Topdog

Well they have the integrity team on it so I'm sure they will find no problems at all

---

Victoria Police has investigated Victoria police and found that Victoria Police has no case to answer.

You'd assume that any club with sixteen players with 'mental health issues', genuine or not, has some kind of problem.

Why can't there be 16 players at one club with mental health problems? What's stopping it happening?

It just doesn't sound like a very supportive workplace.

My Dad is watching the 'Rake' series. This reminds me of the court scene where people who get caught suddenly develop ' depression' and 'mental illness'.