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/opinions/bailey-smith-drugs-banned/news-story/e1d4db0ae12c70277be0e0fddc19b5cd

[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?

[jeemak]

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.

What evidence do you have that suggests a bigger punishment based disincentive would work?

EDIT - sorry, just saw your example around drink driving. I think it's completely different and a conflation separate two separate issues.

[bornadog]

A good example of penalties not working is the Philippines. President Duterte vowed to clean up the Country

From an article on abc news


From the moment he was sworn into power in 2016, Mr Duterte declared that Filipinos had one common enemy: the drug trade. Claiming that there were 3 million addicts in need of "slaughter", he said he would offer bounties to police for killing suspected users and dealers.
A bloodbath ensued.
Estimates vary, but the Philippines government says more than 6,000 people have been killed in police anti-drug operations over the past six years, and there have been more than 300,000 arrests.

Even the threat of death, has not stopped people taking drugs, he never got to the root of the issues facing his people.

Of course AFL players are educated about the perils of drug taking, but like a large percentage of young people in our society, who love to party, they will still partake. They don't see anything wrong with taking drugs, even if it is illegal.

I don't know the solution.

[hujsh]

A good example of penalties not working is the Philippines. President Duterte vowed to clean up the Country

From an article on abc news



Even the threat of death, has not stopped people taking drugs, he never got to the root of the issues facing his people.

Of course AFL players are educated about the perils of drug taking, but like a large percentage of young people in our society, who love to party, they will still partake. They don't see anything wrong with taking drugs, even if it is illegal.

I don't know the solution.


Lots of dealers and users killed by that man, not to mention all the innocent bystanders.

But at least the country is in good hands with his successor... the son of the former dictator who fled the country with the world record for most money ever stolen from a state.

[FrediKanoute]

A good example of penalties not working is the Philippines. President Duterte vowed to clean up the Country

From an article on abc news



Even the threat of death, has not stopped people taking drugs, he never got to the root of the issues facing his people.

Of course AFL players are educated about the perils of drug taking, but like a large percentage of young people in our society, who love to party, they will still partake. They don't see anything wrong with taking drugs, even if it is illegal.

I don't know the solution.

Legalisation? Surely that is the first step towards solving the drugs problem. If you take the position that drug addiction is a health problem and not a criminal justice issue then you go some way towards dealing with the issue. Sure criminalise the trafficking (just as you would criminalise the illegal sale of alcohal).

[EasternWest]

Legalisation? Surely that is the first step towards solving the drugs problem. If you take the position that drug addiction is a health problem and not a criminal justice issue then you go some way towards dealing with the issue. Sure criminalise the trafficking (just as you would criminalise the illegal sale of alcohal).

Nah, couldn't be that simple could it? (This question is dripping with sarcasm.)

[jeemak]

Legalisation? Surely that is the first step towards solving the drugs problem. If you take the position that drug addiction is a health problem and not a criminal justice issue then you go some way towards dealing with the issue. Sure criminalise the trafficking (just as you would criminalise the illegal sale of alcohal).

What about just plain old drug use? We need to get our heads around the fact it can be fun, and nothing more than that.

[GVGjr]

Of course AFL players are educated about the perils of drug taking, but like a large percentage of young people in our society, who love to party, they will still partake. They don't see anything wrong with taking drugs, even if it is illegal.

I don't know the solution.

That's one of the reasons why education alone isn't going to be the answer.
If players are ignoring the education they receive is a 2 week penalty really going to be enough of a deterrent?
There must be some other options.

[GVGjr]

Legalisation? Surely that is the first step towards solving the drugs problem. If you take the position that drug addiction is a health problem and not a criminal justice issue then you go some way towards dealing with the issue. Sure criminalise the trafficking (just as you would criminalise the illegal sale of alcohal).

To me that's a little like lowering the age requirements of drinking alcohol to address challenges of underage drinking.
Isn't the aim to be trying to address or stop the options of players getting to and addictive state?

[Grantysghost]

Norway tried to do it however the bill wasn't passed.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-politics-drugs-idUSKBN2AJ1FM

Looks like the Netherlands, Portugal and Germany focus on treatment for addicts rather than criminalisation.

As said above treat the addiction as an illness and hit the dealers.

Edit : Canada trialling it in British Columbia.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/31/canada-decriminalize-drugs-british-columbia-overdoses

[bornadog]

That's one of the reasons why education alone isn't going to be the answer.
If players are ignoring the education they receive is a 2 week penalty really going to be enough of a deterrent?
There must be some other options.

You do realise the 2 weeks was not for the drug use directly. It was for bringing the AFL into disrepute.

The penalties for drug use are different in season - ie the three strikes rule

[jeemak]

To me that's a little like lowering the age requirements of drinking alcohol to address challenges of underage drinking.
Isn't the aim to be trying to address or stop the options of players getting to and addictive state?

And keeping them in the system and not over-penalising them is stopping them from getting into an addictive state. Exclusion is more likely to make them turn to drugs and actually become addicts. That's the entire point of it.

The fifty year war on drugs, and criminalising drug use has only led to privatisation of a prison system that makes money from people who should be in health facilities instead of being in high cost prison facilities where a higher chance of recidivism exists.

Why would the dynamics be any different when it comes to professional sport? The system creates the pressure, people release via drugs to counter that pressure, even without being addicted to drugs, and the system then spits them out and leaves them with what?

It fails the logic test on every level.

[hujsh]

To me that's a little like lowering the age requirements of drinking alcohol to address challenges of underage drinking.
Isn't the aim to be trying to address or stop the options of players getting to and addictive state?

Personally I think the AFL shouldn't bother looking for drug use any more than your or my employer does for us (basically as long as they aren't high in the workplace).

It's pretty clear the only real issue anyone has is players being seen with drugs, not the actual use. I think that's reflected in the way the AFL has handled things this past decade or so.

[Twodogs]

To me that's a little like lowering the age requirements of drinking alcohol to address challenges of underage drinking.
Isn't the aim to be trying to address or stop the options of players getting to and addictive state?


No. The AFL drug policy is a public relations exercise and it always has been.

[FrediKanoute]

To me that's a little like lowering the age requirements of drinking alcohol to address challenges of underage drinking.
Isn't the aim to be trying to address or stop the options of players getting to and addictive state?

Maybe, but making it a criminal justice issue just sends people to jail for what is often something they really can't do anything about. I'm not pro-drugs, but equally criminalising them just drives behaviour underground and that is when things go bad. For starters getting drugs means dealing with people who are not very nice; you have issues of purity and what the product has been cut with; and it leaves celebrities open to what we have just witnessed with Bailey Smith.

Not all people who do drugs get addicted. Not all people who do drugs are unable to function. For some people illegal drugs (be it weed, coke, E's) allow them to function and cope.....how is that different to anti-depressants? I completely agree though that people getting hooked on drugs is bad, but if you think about the most addictive drugs tend to be opiates. Aren't we better managing how people take these drugs than letting them randomly experiment?

[FrediKanoute]

Norway tried to do it however the bill wasn't passed.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-politics-drugs-idUSKBN2AJ1FM

Looks like the Netherlands, Portugal and Germany focus on treatment for addicts rather than criminalisation.

As said above treat the addiction as an illness and hit the dealers.

Edit : Canada trialling it in British Columbia.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/31/canada-decriminalize-drugs-british-columbia-overdoses

The bill wasn't passed becasue we ahve been brought up on a diet of "Drugs are bad....ok!" so conservative people who have never tried or experimented will believe that every drug addict just wants to burgle their house or rob them or worse. The reality is that those behaviours people fear are as a result of the criminalisation of drugs. Drugs which have been legalised.....tobacco, alcohal, caffiene have different issues - but we accept them because we do not associate them with criminal activities.

We woudl have been far better to say to Bailey, "mate, I get doing coke gives you a great feeling, but what are the longer term effects of it? Do you want your football legacy to be that of a coked out almost player?".

[FrediKanoute]

And keeping them in the system and not over-penalising them is stopping them from getting into an addictive state. Exclusion is more likely to make them turn to drugs and actually become addicts. That's the entire point of it.

The fifty year war on drugs, and criminalising drug use has only led to privatisation of a prison system that makes money from people who should be in health facilities instead of being in high cost prison facilities where a higher chance of recidivism exists.

Why would the dynamics be any different when it comes to professional sport? The system creates the pressure, people release via drugs to counter that pressure, even without being addicted to drugs, and the system then spits them out and leaves them with what?

It fails the logic test on every level.

Completely and utterly agree. The system isn't working.....time to change it!

[jeemak]

The bill wasn't passed becasue we ahve been brought up on a diet of "Drugs are bad....ok!" so conservative people who have never tried or experimented will believe that every drug addict just wants to burgle their house or rob them or worse. The reality is that those behaviours people fear are as a result of the criminalisation of drugs. Drugs which have been legalised.....tobacco, alcohal, caffiene have different issues - but we accept them because we do not associate them with criminal activities.

We woudl have been far better to say to Bailey, "mate, I get doing coke gives you a great feeling, but what are the longer term effects of it? Do you want your football legacy to be that of a coked out almost player?".

I know you get it, but alcohol is the worst. It's an absolute killer and people just accept that it's fine.

It ruins Christmases, it ruins birthdays, it ruins work functions, it ruins every day lives and sees women bashed by partners day in and day out. Its addictive traits kills health and burdens the health system, it gets passed down from generation to generation as an illness.

The concept of what is illegal or illicit is completely ridiculous. I mean really, would our society be worse if people replaced alcohol with weed and mushies? Sure, Tuesdays and Wednesdays would be a bit challenging for society if everyone decided to get off the piss and have pingers on the weekend, but again, things wouldn't be worse than they are now with the horrendous things alcohol drives in behaviour.

[Grantysghost]

Substance abuse is the issue and the whys and hows around that.
Totally agree re grog; I've also seen a close friend lose his mind and ruin his life abusing THC.

I'm amazed booze is so readily available / normalised (the blood of christ?).

Maybe if we had some decent mdma t-shirt shooters...

[Twodogs]

Substance abuse is the issue and the whys and hows around that.
Totally agree re grog; I've also seen a close friend lose his mind and ruin his life abusing THC.

I'm amazed booze is so readily available / normalised (the blood of christ?).

Maybe if we had some decent mdma t-shirt shooters...

I've had all sorts of problems with lots of different drugs, I've had a couple of stints in detox getting clean from heroin and cannabis, done a twelve step program for amphetamine and done heaps of therapy to get to the bottom of my problems. I've been clean for a few years now.

Anyway the reason I say all that is so I can point out that I'm bloody glad I never had a problem with alcohol. I can't and never could stand the stuff but if I did I genuinely can't see how anyone who did have a problem with it could give it up with the culture we have here in Australia. At least with illicit drugs I can choose to avoid them and steer clear of certain people so I don't get tempted. But with alcohol and the constant advertising and availability of it everywhere it must take an iron will to keep dry. Same with gambling I reckon.

[azabob]

I'm amazed booze is so readily available / normalised (the blood of christ?).

..


But with alcohol and the constant advertising and availability of it everywhere it must take an iron will to keep dry. Same with gambling I reckon.

Both are legalised and money spinners... unfortunately that is what it comes down to.

Cash is king.

[Bulldog4life]

I know you get it, but alcohol is the worst. It's an absolute killer and people just accept that it's fine.

It ruins Christmases, it ruins birthdays, it ruins work functions, it ruins every day lives and sees women bashed by partners day in and day out. Its addictive traits kills health and burdens the health system, it gets passed down from generation to generation as an illness.

The concept of what is illegal or illicit is completely ridiculous. I mean really, would our society be worse if people replaced alcohol with weed and mushies? Sure, Tuesdays and Wednesdays would be a bit challenging for society if everyone decided to get off the piss and have pingers on the weekend, but again, things wouldn't be worse than they are now with the horrendous things alcohol drives in behaviour.

Extremely well put Jee. Agree with it 100%.