NRL's new 2 Strikes Drug Policy Still Too Soft

[ManlyFan07]

I don't understand why the NRL's new "2 Strikes" drug policy doesn't result in LIFE BAN as the penalty for the 2nd Strike??

The whole policy is still too soft. The "1st Strike" is effectively covered up by the authorities (no public naming, no suspension) while the "2nd Strike" is only a 12 match suspension. Not sure what happens on a "3rd strike" ????


My "2 Strikes" Policy would be as follows:-
1st Strike - 8 match ban and fine, player named, player undergoes rehabilitation program.
2nd Strike - Worldwide LIFE BAN from Rugby League at all levels (except anti drugs education programs)


The NRL should contract ASADA to conduct all tests (no private Club testing permitted - they will just protect their stars). If a Club wants more tests, they can pay the NRL to get ASADA to do them.

The Government should also be funding a lot more test per year (200 per club, not 70) because all these sports stars doing drugs is just seriously undermining all the money the government is spending on anti drugs ads and programs. The Government would get better bang for their buck by paying for the tests and keeping the sports stars clean.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

(no private Club testing permitted - they will just protect their stars).

just like the bulldogs did

 

[salivor]

The 2 strikes policy only relates to recreational drugs. A life ban for a player getting caught a second time for recreational drug taking would just be ridiculous. IMO we shouldn't be testing for recreational drugs at all, lets put our focus on those actually trying to gain an advantage through other substances.

The only thing I can agree on with that post is that clubs shouldn't be conducting the tests themselves especially under no obligation to inform the NRL of the results. The current situation is farcical.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

people need to realise that sometimes after a few too many somebody will pop up with something and with your judgement clouded (usually not caring) you might take something illegal on a one off. is that really grounds for banning somebody worldwide for life? if they were caught under the influence by the cops they would probably end up being taken in for a few years and that's it yet we want to rip away their lives and career over it

 

[LESStar58]

I have no problem with the zero tolerance approach a la the Cowboys and Mitchell Sargeant last year.... I think it would be zero tolerance down here at Storm if we had our way. Waldron came out last year and said any Storm player who misbehaved would be named, shamed, sacked and possibly sued if they played up and hurt the image the team is trying to build down here...

But if the NRL wants a uniform approach then I guess 2 strikes and your finished is pretty fair. Under the NRL system, after offense one is the player named publically right?

 

[herbert henry1908]

zero tollerance is RUBBISH!

these guys make mistakes , everyone deserves a second chance.

Especially when we are only talking about illicit drugs here.

 

[stuke]

i think everyone deserves a chance, but not any more than that.

take it out of the hands of the clubs, name the players and get them to do community service.

the NRL and clubs need to be transparent with their attitude to drugs in the game, no matter what the drug is and who the player is.

 

[wittyfan]

The NRL just needs to test far more regularly.

 

[herbert henry1908]

I don't understand why the NRL's new "2 Strikes" drug policy doesn't result in LIFE BAN as the penalty for the 2nd Strike??

Because the policy is aimed at rehabiltating people. We are not talking about performance enhancing drugs here.

The whole policy is still too soft. The "1st Strike" is effectively covered up by the authorities (no public naming, no suspension) while the "2nd Strike" is only a 12 match suspension. Not sure what happens on a "3rd strike" ????

you are forgetting the most important thing here , the players Health. Publicly naming a player does nothing to help him with any drug problem he might have. Naming and shaming people wont help them and this is what the policy is all about.

the 12 week suspension gives them time to seek counselling for the problem. This is not about saving the face of the NRL here its about helping the players overcome their problems.

My "2 Strikes" Policy would be as follows:-
1st Strike - 8 match ban and fine, player named, player undergoes rehabilitation program.
2nd Strike - Worldwide LIFE BAN from Rugby League at all levels (except anti drugs education programs)

that is just way over the top.

Naming a player will not help him with his problems , if anyhting it may actually make it worse. The most important aspect here is the players welfare , by taking illicit drugs he is only harming himself ( and possibly his team through lack of form) It doesnt hurt any other teams in the comp.

secondly in most sports you dont even get a life ban for perfomance enhancing drugs , by giving out life bans for illicit drugs you are lessening the importance of performace enhancing drugs.


T

he NRL should contract ASADA to conduct all tests (no private Club testing permitted - they will just protect their stars). If a Club wants more tests, they can pay the NRL to get ASADA to do them.

The NRL do use ASADA for their drug testing , if the clubs want to test over and above this whats wrong with that?

The Government should also be funding a lot more test per year (200 per club, not 70) because all these sports stars doing drugs is just seriously undermining all the money the government is spending on anti drugs ads and programs. The Government would get better bang for their buck by paying for the tests and keeping the sports stars clean.

The federal government recently praised the NRL's drug policy and used it as an example to the AFL as what they should be doing. I hardly think they think the NRL are 'undermining' there anti drug ads.

 

[B-Tron 3000]

The NRL should contract ASADA to conduct all tests (no private Club testing permitted - they will just protect their stars).

Go for it.

You do realise that ASADA only test for recreational drugs on game days, right?

They don't see it as performance enhancing, except that it may alter the player's physical or mental state while they are on the drug.

So, thoughts?

 

[salivor]

For those who believe that zero tolerance is the way to go, do any of your believe those that have tested positive took the drugs for performance enhancing purposes?

 

[herbert henry1908]

i think everyone deserves a chance, but not any more than that.

take it out of the hands of the clubs, name the players and get them to do community service.

the NRL and clubs need to be transparent with their attitude to drugs in the game, no matter what the drug is and who the player is.

how does community service help a player with a drug problem? shouldnt the most important thing here be a players welfare and not the image of the code?

 

[green eyed mike]

I think 2 strikes is fair enough for recreational drugs, I mean seriously who doesn't take drugs?

 

[ManlyFan07]

Because the policy is aimed at rehabiltating people. We are not talking about performance enhancing drugs here.

you are forgetting the most important thing here , the players Health. Publicly naming a player does nothing to help him with any drug problem he might have. Naming and shaming people wont help them and this is what the policy is all about.

the 12 week suspension gives them time to seek counselling for the problem. This is not about saving the face of the NRL here its about helping the players overcome their problems.

I guess that is my biggest problem with the policy....... it is too much about the player who has been caught and not enough about keeping our sport clean and deterring people in the first place.

My view is that the primary goal of the policy should be to support the Government (and Society generally) in the message against drugs by taking a very strong stand against drugs in our sport. Supporting and rehabilitating those players caught by the policy should be a secondary aspect of the policy.

Whether naming and shaming the player will reduce the prospect of rehabilitation is not the issue for me. The question is whether naming and shaming players will do more for the anti-drugs message in the wider community. I believe it will and any detriment that it may have on the rehabilitation of a player caught is a small price to pay for the greater good of the stronger anti-drugs message.


As for performance enhancing drugs, my 2 strike policy would be:
Strike 1 - 2 year ban (currently in place)
Strike 2 - life ban.

The federal government recently praised the NRL's drug policy and used it as an example to the AFL as what they should be doing. I hardly think they think the NRL are 'undermining' there anti drug ads.

I disagree.

Right now, there are two messages on TV:-

1. "9 year soccer player" who does drugs and ends up in a body bag

2. Andrew Johns who, despite doing drugs, was able to lead an extremely successful life and perform at the pinnacle of his profession.

Which one do you think is the more influential ?

 

[ManlyFan07]

Go for it.

You do realise that ASADA only test for recreational drugs on game days, right?

They don't see it as performance enhancing, except that it may alter the player's physical or mental state while they are on the drug.

So, thoughts?

My point about using ASADA was that the tests need to be done by an independent body who has no motive to cover up the results and protect their "stars".

I assume ASADA would have no problem if the NRL asked them to test for illicit drugs on non-match days.

 

[B-Tron 3000]

My view is that the primary goal of the policy should be to support the Government (and Society generally) in the message against drugs by taking a very strong stand against drugs in our sport. Supporting and rehabilitating those players caught by the policy should be a secondary aspect of the policy.

#1 - The government and society in general? Who are you talking about mate - there are plenty of people who think that social drugs are fine. The government has no problem with the social drug alcohol, or the tobacco industry. So let's all just blindly support a government who we all know keep certain industries going for the $$$, shall we?

#2 - Why should sports people be scrutinised any more than anyone else? I don't see you needing to give your urine to a stranger on a regular basis.

#3 - Rehabilitation a secondary concern?!?! Yeah, people aren't important :roll: .
If you make rehabilitation a secondary concern all you do is push the problem further underground. Education is a better solution than isolation.

 

[salivor]

My point about using ASADA was that the tests need to be done by an independent body who has no motive to cover up the results and protect their "stars".

I assume ASADA would have no problem if the NRL asked them to test for illicit drugs on non-match days.

Why would we want to test them on non-match days for recreational drugs? The whole purpose of drug testing is to weed out those trying to enhance their performances through taking drugs.

 

[salivor]

My view is that the primary goal of the policy should be to support the Government (and Society generally) in the message against drugs by taking a very strong stand against drugs in our sport. Supporting and rehabilitating those players caught by the policy should be a secondary aspect of the policy.

What a joke, so the reason we're testing them now is not because they could enhance performance but because the government says they're bad m'kay? If that's the case, then why not just hand results over to the police and let them handle it?

Love your bit on rehabilitation. I guess it hasn't occured to you that the majority of players are in their early 20's, the prime age when most people will experiment with drugs. Rather than help these players to make better choices you seem more concerned with starting a witch hunt, the end result wrecking the lives and careers of young men, most of whom have been shunted into the big league at the expense of their education. I guess you don't give a stuff what they fall back on.

 

[chunk]

I don't understand why the NRL's new "2 Strikes" drug policy doesn't result in LIFE BAN as the penalty for the 2nd Strike??

The whole policy is still too soft. The "1st Strike" is effectively covered up by the authorities (no public naming, no suspension) while the "2nd Strike" is only a 12 match suspension. Not sure what happens on a "3rd strike" ????


My "2 Strikes" Policy would be as follows:-
1st Strike - 8 match ban and fine, player named, player undergoes rehabilitation program.
2nd Strike - Worldwide LIFE BAN from Rugby League at all levels (except anti drugs education programs)


The NRL should contract ASADA to conduct all tests (no private Club testing permitted - they will just protect their stars). If a Club wants more tests, they can pay the NRL to get ASADA to do them.


The Government should also be funding a lot more test per year (200 per club, not 70) because all these sports stars doing drugs is just seriously undermining all the money the government is spending on anti drugs ads and programs. The Government would get better bang for their buck by paying for the tests and keeping the sports stars clean.

Ridiculous.

Some of these blokes have drug problems and they need support.

To ban them for life after one mistake is stupid.

I suppose we all can't be as perfect as you.

Have you ever had a drug problem?

I haven't so I can't judge.

 

[bobbis]

If a player actually has a serious drug problem and they get banned for life from their career, i get the feeling it would only make them embrace drugs more.

Or what if a player does drugs once or twice then gets caught, making him undergoe a rehabilitation program is just excessive.

Footballers shouldnt be treated any differently than the rest of society, by all mean apply harsh penalties and stringent testing for performance enhacing drugs but not recreational ones.