TonyK
CibbuanoIs the AFL soft on drugs: Have your say
September 1st 2006 03:26
AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou this week hailed the decision by the Victorian Supreme Court to preserve the privacy of three players who have tested positive for illicit drugs as a significant victory in the ongoing fight against substance abuse.
But is it really a victory, or just a case of clever spin doctoring to hide a flawed and soft drugs code.
Under AFL rules should players offend they are offered couselling and rehabilitation, not once but twice with the door shown on the third strike.
Surely players are aware that drugs in sport are not tolerated, whether they be performance enchancing or of purely recreational nature.
I can understand that players make mistakes, these are men in their late teens to early 20's with exorbitant amounts of money that many of them would be unaccustomed to and way too much free time on their hands.
However, if they haven't learnt from their mistakes by now they never will.
Leopards don't change their spots.
In the NRL North Queensland prop Mitchell Sargent was shown the door after testing positive to cocaine last month.
Hiis name wasn't hidden from the public and nor was he kept in the system.
Are football players a protected species? It would seem so.
The public at large isn't afforded the same leniences that AFL players receive and should the average Joe on the street be found with drugs he is appropriately punished.
Admittedly you or I don't undergo random drug tests every year but that isn't the point.
Whether they like it or not, AFL players are role-models for thousands of young children and as such need to conduct themselves in a manner which is in line with community standards.
But is it really a victory, or just a case of clever spin doctoring to hide a flawed and soft drugs code.
Under AFL rules should players offend they are offered couselling and rehabilitation, not once but twice with the door shown on the third strike.
Surely players are aware that drugs in sport are not tolerated, whether they be performance enchancing or of purely recreational nature.
I can understand that players make mistakes, these are men in their late teens to early 20's with exorbitant amounts of money that many of them would be unaccustomed to and way too much free time on their hands.
However, if they haven't learnt from their mistakes by now they never will.
Leopards don't change their spots.
In the NRL North Queensland prop Mitchell Sargent was shown the door after testing positive to cocaine last month.
Hiis name wasn't hidden from the public and nor was he kept in the system.
Are football players a protected species? It would seem so.
The public at large isn't afforded the same leniences that AFL players receive and should the average Joe on the street be found with drugs he is appropriately punished.
Admittedly you or I don't undergo random drug tests every year but that isn't the point.
Whether they like it or not, AFL players are role-models for thousands of young children and as such need to conduct themselves in a manner which is in line with community standards.
| 54 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Glen Atwell
What we need to remember is the drugs the players are testing positive for are ILLEGAL. You or I would be arrested, the AFL players are 'rehabilitated' and not openly named.
The AFL is risking its integirty by standing by this ridiculous policy and the harm it will do is send the wrong message out to kids coming through the system.