Ok I'm aware that you are a mod on the bigfooty forum, but also have an interest in Rugby League. The point is Mel that the AFL drug policy is a joke, and if you was honest you would admit it. I myself am against drugs at all levels of society. I believe that all sportsman who return 2 positive drug tests in their careers should recieve at least a 5 year ban from all sports at all levels, then and only then will sportsman start to think about giving up drugs.
The AFL 3 strike rule in my opinion is a joke and does not send out a serious message.
Mate - firstly - this Essendon issue is around Sports Science staff providing/injecting supplements to players. The issue here is not around community illegal substances - it's around banned substances or banned quantities of substances under the WADA protocols.
For example - a VFL (2nd tier player, not AFL listed, not professional) got an 18 month ban for importing (buying from the US) some 'fat burner'. He wasn't testing positive, but the product - legal otherwise - contained an illegal ingredient under WADA rules.
The AFL 3 strike rule is about illicit drugs and NOT PEDs (performance enhancing drugs). The AFL being WADA compliant is a 1 strike match day environment as are all the other codes signed up.
The 3 strike illicit drugs policy is in line with community standards and fully supported by Vic and Fed Police (they use a 3 strike protocol of diversion/rehab programs on first 2 strikes then more serious charges on the third - which is why you'll often see say 300 people arrested for drugs possession at the Big Day Out but only 120 charged - the others will have been diverted).
The AFL policy is targeting player health and welfare - it recognises that many people either A. make a silly error of judgement and with a slap on the wrist won't do it again, or B. that many people actually are battling undiagnosed mental 'conditions' whether depression/bi-polar or others - some of which need only to be treated effectively by a health professional.
In these 2 cases - the AFL policy seemingly works and hopefully has helped guys avoid in essence 'self medicating' by whatever means legal or otherwise.
Case C are the dimwit arrogant types who thumb their noses at the rule makers and deserve what they get come the third strike should that occur - - these are also likely to be the types who will seek to exploit the 'self reporting loophole'.
