Drug use and footy players: What’s the real problem?

[azabob]

ANOTHER SEASON, ANOTHER DRUG SCANDAL. BUT WHAT'S MISSING FROM THE CONVERSATION ABOUT ATHLETES AND DRUGS?

Yesterday afternoon Western Bulldogs’ star midfielder Bailey Smith received a two match ban and a ‘notifiable adverse finding’ (more commonly known as a strike) under the AFL’s Illicit Drugs Policy. The verdict came after images of Smith holding a bag of white powder, and a video of him using an illicit substance at a party, surfaced online. Smith has apologised, claiming the incident took place after the Bulldogs’ grand final loss to Melbourne last year, when his mental health had “dramatically deteriorated”.

The ban follows on from Smith’s existing two-match suspension, which he was slapped with after head-butting Geelong's Zach Tuohy in the round 12 clash. This means he won’t take the field again until round 18.

Full Article below
https://www.gq.com.au/success/opinio...e0e0fddc19b5cd

[azabob]

A fairly wide ranging and quality article by former Swan Brandan Jack.

[Happy Days]

“Full transparency: I have played AFL, and I have taken drugs during my time as an AFL player. I have also taken drugs while not being an AFL player”

~ WOAH BIG FLEX ALERT ~





(He’s right though)

[azabob]

“Full transparency: I have played AFL, and I have taken drugs during my time as an AFL player. I have also taken drugs while not being an AFL player”

~ WOAH BIG FLEX ALERT ~





(He’s right though)

And he's right, how many ex players in the media are condemning these players yet have very likely done exactly the same and not got caught.

He asks solid questions and raises some fair points.

I particular like this part,

"If drugs in the AFL are a moral concern, which is a popular stance, it’s worth remembering that this takes place within an industry that gives commentary roles to players with domestic violence backgrounds, and one that hits viewers over the head with and profits from an excess of gambling promotion. If drugs are a bad look, is accepting cash from gambling agencies that profit off people losing money any more ethically sound?"

[Happy Days]

And he's right, how many ex players in the media are condemning these players yet have very likely done exactly the same and not got caught.

He asks solid questions and raises some fair points.

I particular like this part,

"If drugs in the AFL are a moral concern, which is a popular stance, it’s worth remembering that this takes place within an industry that gives commentary roles to players with domestic violence backgrounds, and one that hits viewers over the head with and profits from an excess of gambling promotion. If drugs are a bad look, is accepting cash from gambling agencies that profit off people losing money any more ethically sound?"

I can’t respond at length because my phone screen is Mitch Wallis’ leg in 2016 level busted and this demands eloquence, but he’s really nailed it.

[bornadog]

I think there is a big difference between taking drugs in Footy season, and outside footy season.

What the AFL didn't like about Smith, was the fact pictures/Video were made public. They know very well what happens outside footy. All they care about is the brand.

[Grantysghost]

I think there is a big difference between taking drugs in Footy season, and outside footy season.

What the AFL didn't like about Smith, was the fact pictures/Video were made public. They know very well what happens outside footy. All they care about is the brand.

Optics.

[GVGjr]

I think there is a big difference between taking drugs in Footy season, and outside footy season.

What the AFL didn't like about Smith, was the fact pictures/Video were made public. They know very well what happens outside footy. All they care about is the brand.

I don't think there should be any difference. The rules are the rules and we shouldn't be half in on it.
We are talking about illicit drugs and it's a bad look for the game and we need consistency within the rules not flexibility to be exploited.

[bornadog]

I don't think there should be any difference. The rules are the rules and we shouldn't be half in on it.
We are talking about illicit drugs and it's a bad look for the game and we need consistency within the rules not flexibility to be exploited.

I am not condoning illicit drugs, and have never taken them, but all I am saying is should the AFL mandate everything a player does when they are on holidays? Other employers never do.

Educate yes, but control no.

[GVGjr]

I am not condoning illicit drugs, and have never taken them, but all I am saying is should the AFL mandate everything a player does when they are on holidays? Other employers never do.

Educate yes, but control no.

Do you the think the education process is working like anyone would hope?
The players on the elite pathway start receiving education at something like 15 yo on alcohol, drugs and gambling etc.
And on drugs there are clubs talking to them, club doctors, the PA, their managers and of course most parents would provide guidance.
The message doesn't appear to be getting through and I think it's because the consequences are somewhat irrelevant.

As you say trying to control them will never work either but so far you would have to think the education consideration needs more support.

Stronger penalties need to be in place so that the education and training they receive might be listened to.
I'm not talking about Kennett style recommendations but I doubt if 2 weeks is a sufficient deterrent.

[jeemak]

Do you the think the education process is working like anyone would hope?
The players on the elite pathway start receiving education at something like 15 yo on alcohol, drugs and gambling etc.
And on drugs there are clubs talking to them, club doctors, the PA, their managers and of course most parents would provide guidance.
The message doesn't appear to be getting through and I think it's because the consequences are somewhat irrelevant.

As you say trying to control them will never work either but so far you would have to think the education consideration needs more support.

Stronger penalties need to be in place so that the education and training they receive might be listened to.
I'm not talking about Kennett style recommendations but I doubt if 2 weeks is a sufficient deterrent.

Would you change your mind if you were given access to expert/ academic opinion that suggested the current drugs policy (and its associated penalties) was better than what you are suggesting?

[bornadog]

Stronger penalties need to be in place so that the education and training they receive might be listened to.
I'm not talking about Kennett style recommendations but I doubt if 2 weeks is a sufficient deterrent.

Would you change your mind if you were given access to expert/ academic opinion that suggested the current drugs policy (and its associated penalties) was better than what you are suggesting?

Penalties don't work as a deterrent. Have to get to the root of the issue and resolve that.

[GVGjr]

Penalties don't work as a deterrent. Have to get to the root of the issue and resolve that.

Not so sure about that, when the penalties for drink driving got serious the numbers dropped significantly.

I can't see anyone getting to root of the issue and resolving that.

[GVGjr]

Would you change your mind if you were given access to expert/ academic opinion that suggested the current drugs policy (and its associated penalties) was better than what you are suggesting?

Maybe, but I'm responding to the notion that education is the answer. I think it's just part of the answer.
If the numbers of players taking illicit drugs being suggested in the media is close to the mark then education alone won't work unless it's supported by something stronger than a 2 week penalty.

[hujsh]

I don't think there should be any difference. The rules are the rules and we shouldn't be half in on it.
We are talking about illicit drugs and it's a bad look for the game and we need consistency within the rules not flexibility to be exploited.

Or maybe the rules are made up and we can (should) change them to be whatever?

Not so sure about that, when the penalties for drink driving got serious the numbers dropped significantly.

I can't see anyone getting to root of the issue and resolving that.

You don't see a difference between the two?