Common sense strikes out in drug rort

Brian Roe never had faith in the AFL's drug policy. Picture: Lindsay Moller. Source: News Limited

"A PLAYER has more chance of getting money out of a Nigerian email scam than he has of being caught under this policy."

As inflammatory remarks on the AFL's illicit drugs policy go, it is hard to eclipse the 2007 quote of Brian Roe.
Respected athletics official Roe said there were so many loopholes and escape clauses that it beggared belief a player would receive one strike, let alone three.

Six years on, the AFL's illicit-drug tests have increased from 1152 to 1489 a year, with just six players testing positive in the most recent season of testing.

The AFL argues its target-testing policy catches serial drug users. But Roe's comment came before yet more loopholes were exposed.

No player has been suspended after testing positive three times - the sole three-strikes offender Travis Tuck recorded his third strike when found unconscious by Berwick police in his car.

Why are so few players on strikes when the anecdotal evidence of drugs is so rife?

WHEN a player self-reports three times in a year, you know something is wrong with the system.
When a group of players is so determined to take drugs and escape capture that they scrutinise the little-known clause, then pass it on to rival clubs, it is a loophole that needs closing.
In essence, if a player is desperate not to get three strikes, he needs only to self-report every time the testers turn up.
He will be target-tested from then on, but at least he will dodge that pesky strike.

THE Herald Sun in 2010 exposed this loophole, which helps players who test positive again after a second strike have that test disregarded as a third strike.
The clause is reserved for players requesting treatment for drug addiction and mental health issues.
But during that period of up to several months - in which the player cannot play in the AFL - they are immune from positive strikes.
Drug experts say this period of immunity is critical for drug addicts who will relapse.
But when a large part of the policy is about the disincentive of three strikes, it becomes difficult to receive those positive tests.

AFL players are inherent risk-takers.
As one club chief executive said yesterday, they aren't worried about one positive - and confidential - strike.
So some play the percentages until they are caught, aware that some AFL clubs conduct recovery immediately after games and have periods of up to 48 hours away from the club.
That means there is a go-zone to take drugs such as cocaine, which flush out of the system in less than 24 hours. "It is like a game of Russian roulette," the official said. "Players literally look at the calendar and say, 'This is a Friday night game, I have two days off. The drug will only stay in my system for so long'."
Experts say regular use leaves remnants of the drug that is easily detected.

LAST year there were 844 players in the AFL who were tested 1489 times, which means players are tested less than twice a year on average.
Some players in recent months have been frank about playing the percentages - when testers turn up every three or four weeks, only a maximum of six players on a 42-person list are tested.

A LITTLE-known aspect of the illicit drug-testing regime is that a positive strike drops off a player's record after four seasons. It is a dramatic example, but a player in the system for 12 years could record six positive strikes spread over that period yet never be suspended.
It is believed some players have amassed three total strikes over the history of the illicit drugs policy, yet because they were spread over five or more years they faced no penalty.

IF Ben Cousins, confessed drug addict, never recorded a positive strike, how can the public retain faith in it?
The AFL told the Herald Sun in 2010 that it interviewed Cousins at length about avoiding drug tests.
He said he missed training sessions where testers were present and in his autobiography was frank about his large slice of luck.
"I settled down again (when the code was introduced in 2005) because it became a three-strikes thing. But even if I got caught, I'd have a couple of strikes up my sleeve," he said.
"I thought I'd address it when I got two strikes. And I never needed to."

Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang

Common sense strikes out in drug rort

Dengan url

http://ganangandollar.blogspot.com/2013/01/common-sense-strikes-out-in-drug-rort.html

Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya

Common sense strikes out in drug rort

namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link

Common sense strikes out in drug rort

sebagai sumbernya