AFL illicit drug policy thrust into the spotlight

By Judd Boaz

The AFL has two drug policies at play. It says because the policies have different aims, the penalties for breaching them also differ.

The AFL, its clubs and its players are under a media spotlight this week regarding the drug policy in Australia's richest sports league.

Headlines around the country have aired allegations made in Parliament of off-the-book drug tests and players faking injuries to cover up positive results.

The league is no stranger to controversies surrounding its players using and abusing illicit drugs.

But while players may get caught possessing or using the same drugs, the penalties can often differ wildly, creating confusion among football fans as to the actual rules.

What is the AFL's policy on illicit drugs?

The AFL has two drug policies at play, working-side by-side.

The first is the Australian Football Anti-Doping Code, which is enforced by Sports Integrity Australia (formerly ASADA), the national anti-doping organisation.

This code restricts players from using prohibited substances set out by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

Some of these substances, such as anabolic steroids, growth hormones and diuretics (which may be used to mask other performance-enhancing drugs), are banned at all times.

Others substances, such as cocaine and cannabis, are banned only "in-competition".

That means players will only violate the code if they test positive for the banned substance between the end of a game and 11:59pm the night before.

However, Sports Integrity Australia has no authority to test players outside of competitions.

As a result, the AFL also employs an Illicit Drug Policy (IDP), which it says "specifically deals with the use of illicit substances out of competition and is focused on player health and well-being".

In a statement on Wednesday, the AFL said it specifically uses the IDP to prevent players running afoul of the Australian Football Anti-Doping Code.

"If the test shows a substance is still in the player's system, a doctor will take steps to prevent a player from taking part in either training and/or an AFL match both for their own health and welfare and because having illicit substances in your system on match day may be deemed performance enhancing and a breach of the Australian Football Anti-Doping Code," the statement said.

Due to doctor-patient confidentiality, a player does not necessarily have to inform the club of a positive test.

What are the differences in penalties?

The AFL states the two policies have different aims - one to protect player well-being and one to protect the integrity of the game - and thus the penalties for breaching them also differ.

Under the AFL Anti-Doping Code, if a player intentionally takes a prohibited substance to gain an advantage, they are subject to a maximum ban of four years.

However, if the violation can be proven to be unintentional, the maximum penalty is instead two years and can be reduced further if the athlete can prove the ingestion was unrelated to sports performance.

When Port Adelaide's Willie Rioli was caught with traces of cannabis in his urine on a game-day test while playing for West Coast, he was subjected to a two-year ban - exacerbated by his attempt to evade testing.

Former Gold Coast ruckman Brayden Crossley received a one-year suspension after testing positive to cocaine after a NEAFL match, while former St Kilda player Sam Gilbert was given a two-year ban for also testing positive to cocaine on a match day in the VFL.

These are examples of the penalties handed down by the AFL when they believe the Anti-Doping Code has been breached.

But breaches of the IDP are punished less severely.

St Kilda's Brad Crouch and Geelong's Tyson Stengle, both playing for Adelaide at the time, were given two- and four-match bans respectively after being found in possession of an illicit substance by South Australia Police in 2020.

Meanwhile, Hawthorn's Jack Ginnivan, who was playing for Collingwood, missed the first two games of the 2023 season after being caught using illicit drugs in the off-season.

Under current AFL rules, players caught breaching the IDP are subject to a three-strike system.

On the first detection, a player will receive a $5,000 fine while also undergoing counselling and target testing.

Following the second strike, a player's name is made public and they serve a four-match suspension.

A third strike incurs a 12-match suspension.

What do the experts say about the policy?

Former chief executive and chair of ASADA Richard Ings said he is supportive of the AFL's policies, noting it is one of the few Australian sports that has an out-of-competition illicit drug policy at all.

"I've always thought that it's a very strong policy," Ings said.

"It's absolutely correct that where the AFL and the clubs are aware (a) player has used illicit drugs out of competition, that they stop them from breaking WADA rules and stop them from walking onto the field of play and cheating in competition."

However, Ings said an issue might arise when players were forced to mislead the public about their health status when they are otherwise expected to play.

"This is a real vexed question for the AFL, and it can only be resolved by the AFL deciding: do we have confidentiality? Or do we not have confidentiality and publicly announce every illicit drug positive?" he said.

The AFL Doctors Association has voiced its full support for the IDP and the confidentiality that it allowed for.

AFLDA president Barry Rigby said the IDP was based on providing a supportive structure of care for players.

"It specifically is not meant to be punitive and over the years has been based on trust and confidentiality between the player and club doctor," Dr Rigby said.

"We maintain transparent communication with the AFL, ensuring that any substance use concerns are managed with discretion and in accordance with medical ethics, the AFL's guidelines, and WADA's code."

What is the future of the illicit drug policy?

The current version Australian Football Anti-Doping Code has been in place since January 2021, with WADA updating its list of prohibited substances each year.

The IDP is being reviewed this year, in cooperation with the AFL Players' Association (AFLPA).

The AFLPA said it supports the AFL's position on the drug policy, and reiterated that the Illicit Drug Policy is entered into voluntarily by the players.

"The AFLPA remains committed to reviewing the IDP in 2024 with the AFL and we are working with experts to ensure it remains best practice," an AFLPA spokesperson said.

The review is also expected to soon subject AFLW players to the same Illicit Drug Policy framework that men's players are subject to.

After Sydney players Alexia Hamilton and Paige Sheppard were charged by New South Wales Police for possessing an illicit substance in December last year, they were banned by the AFL's Integrity Unit for "conduct unbecoming" as opposed to a breach of the IDP.

- This story was first published by ABC