Sorry, still too many loopholes
Jacquelin Magnay | September 1, 2007
Australia's two biggest football codes have been rocked by dramatic confessions of their two best players, Andrew Johns and Ben Cousins, that they are drug users.
Not just an occasional dabble, but long-term, serious consumers of illicit drugs. And for years the two have never recorded a positive drug test. How can this be?
Drug testing is a numbers game and Johns admitted he was often playing Russian roulette, fearing that he would return a positive test.
The National Rugby League chief executive David Gallop said Johns, who retired in April, would not be able to get away with such drug abuse now because of the league's new illicit substances club testing policy. That policy started on August 1 after a year of consultation and clubs are expected to do about 25 random tests before the end of the season.
But the NRL illicit substances club testing policy has as many loopholes as its southern cousin, the AFL's illicit drugs code. There is no transparency, no public scrutiny, no independence. Why would an NRL club, or an AFL administration, want to publicly expose its key players, and its game, to damaging headlines?
Why is it that there has been a proliferation of AFL players testing positive to illicit substances on two occasions, but none three times? Where is the accountability to determine if these players have indeed been tested? Who is checking there is no switching of urine, or manipulation of the selection of coded numbers?
The NRL's policy relies on three club officials signing a statutory declaration that the coded numbers randomly selected reflected the correct players' names, and that the urine of those players was indeed tested. The NRL spokesman John Brady says the NRL will conduct regular audits on clubs to determine they are following correct practice. If any players are found to have tested positive twice but are playing, the club will face the loss of competition points as well as fines.
Johns said he was tested, mainly on game day, through the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority. But after the game he could consume drugs freely, knowing he wouldn't be tested by his club until the next training session, and by then the drugs would be out of his system.
If ASADA took a drug test on any day other than match day, his urine would not have been tested for illicit drugs. The drugs may well have been in his urine as evidence, but the laboratory would not have recorded it because on non-match days they only test for performance-enhancing drugs like steroids and growth hormones.
ASADA chairman Richard Ings said he encouraged sports to address their illicit drugs programs as ASADA concentrated on enforcing the World Anti-Doping Agency code.
"The WADA code does look at illicit drugs in competition, and we do uncover athletes taking drugs," he said.
he said.
"Look at Wendell Sailor."
