injuryupdate
04-04-2004, 07:57 PM
Just when the Canterbury Bulldogs thought it might be safe to open a newspaper, the club is in turmoil again because of the leaking of a private drug test for social drugs that led to a player fine late last year. This opens the debate about whether clubs should do these tests and whether the league should do these tests themselves. There is virtually no dissention from the notion that performance-enhancing drugs should be tested for by the ruling body and heavy suspensions applied for positive tests (unless you are a tennis player who has taken 'supplements' given to you by a trainer during a match, in which case you are supposedly not responsible for what you test positive for!). Stimulant drugs such as cocaine and amphetamines are performance-enhancing on match day are should be tested for, as are anabolic steroids in the off-season. Players who take party stimulant drugs in the off-season are breaking the law but not giving themselves an unfair advantage. The ruling bodies rarely test for these drugs ('party' stimulants) in these circumstances ('off season') but the NRL does occasionally do so and has imposed a 12 week suspension beforehand. Because players know that testing is rare in the off-season, that players are virtually never approached at home, and that party drugs leave the body, in most cases, within 24 hours, some choose to take social drugs at parties in the off-season. Clubs want their players to obey the law and train at full capacity, so they often encourage additional testing as a deterrent. These tests are much cheaper than NRL tests but wouldn't stand up in court (no 'B' sample, no chaperone, no sealed bottle). They are a sensible way for clubs to deter party drug use amongst their players in the off-season and highlight problem users. The problem is that the tests are too fallible for fines to be handed out. In retrospect, the Bulldogs should have probably handed out a severe warning (not a $25,000 fine) on the basis that the test used was fallible and not conclusive proof, in which case they could be more open about the process used and why they acted in the way they did.