injuryupdate
18-04-2004, 09:03 PM
Carlton have inadvertently re-opened a debate about private drug tests for AFL teams, after sacking Lawrence Angwin and fining Karl Norman this week. This was allegedly for breaking a players' code of conduct, although several media outlets reported earlier in the week that the indiscretion was for use of party drugs discovered by an in-house drug test. Read official statement at AFL.com. This continues the debate about whether clubs should do these tests and whether the league should do these tests themselves, with the issue raised a few weeks ago when it was discovered that a Canterbury Bulldogs player had been fined for failing one of these tests last year. 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. 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. The AFL does not test for party drugs in the off-season and Roy Masters says they are risking government funding because of this. 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 major problem is that the tests are too fallible for heavy penalties to be handed out. Angwin could almost certainly appeal against his sacking, if it was only for a club in-house test for party drugs, and it the appeal would be upheld in a court of law. This is because the test wouldn't have been conducted under standard conditions (no 'B' sample, no chaperone, etc.) However, it is unlikely an appeal would go ahead as it appears that the sacking is based on a string of misdemeanours over a longer period. The theoretical problems with these in-house tests remain, and it may result in them being less commonly used in the future.