Epic Carnival: Australian Rules Football Players Want Their Drug Use Kept Private

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Australian Rules Football Players Want Their Drug Use Kept Private

by Kyle Smith, Doberman On The Diamond

Apparently, journalists in both America and Australia have no problem receiving stolen documents in order to report on drug use among athletes.

There are differences, however. Unlike the San Francisco Chronicle reporters who received grand jury testimony about Barry Bonds, the Aussie's paid for their information, and it wasn't about steroids, it was about rolling and gettin' blunted.

And players in the Australian Rules Football League are pretty pissed about it.

Brett Burton, vice-president of the AFL Players Association, said yesterday players will boycott the Seven Network for the rest of the season unless they receive an apology from the broadcaster ... Burton said players were "disgusted" with Seven's actions in broadcasting a story about illicit drugs use and a Melbourne football club.

So what's the big deal? Apparently, the issue isn't embarrassing information about drug use, it's all about privacy, according to Burton. Hear that? PRIVACY, not drug use.

"We think it's very wrong, not only for footballers, but for anyone to buy private medical documents between a doctor and his patient is ethically and morally wrong."

The problem also has to do with the AFL's drug testing policy, which makes MLB's look like the gold standard.

Under the AFL's three-strikes drugs policy, players testing positive to illicit drugs are not named until a third positive, and then they are referred to the AFL tribunal.

The good news in all of this? At least Aussie fans know their athletes are might be on an equal playing field. Performance-enhancing drugs most certainly were not the problem (at least not in this case - With Malice has informed me that, indeed, Aussie Rules Footballers have problems with performance-enhancers).

Players tested positive more often to hard drugs such as amphetamines, cocaine and ecstasy, rather than cannabis, which was by far the most popular drug used by players in the previous two years.

So, what can American sports fans learn from all of this? Two things. 1) Aussie journalists have questionable ethics, and B) Australian Rules Football players would be fun to party with.

5 comment(s):

With Malice said...

Ummm... you've missed a few of the important parts of this story:
- the medical documents at the heart of this story were probably stolen, then purchased illegaly.
- there is definitely a performance-enhancing drug problem in the AFL.
- the three strikes policy (very lenient) does not apply to performance-enhancing drugs.
- Network 7 aren't really planning ahead. They telecast games, and post game interviews. As well as being the hosts for the equivalent of the MVP award for the AFL - players have stated they'll boycott 'em all. Add to that, AFL Chief Exec Andrew Demetriou has stated he's pissed as all hell at 7. Not a good working relationship created by 7.

DCScrap said...

Leave it to an Aussie to worry about things like "facts"...pfft.

Kyle Smith said...

"the medical documents at the heart of this story were probably stolen, then purchased illegaly."

- Yes, I referenced that.

"there is definitely a performance-enhancing drug problem in the AFL."

- The article certainly didn't make it seem that way, hence the emphasis on fun drugs instead of PED's.

"the three strikes policy (very lenient) does not apply to performance-enhancing drugs."

- This article did not reference that.

"Not a good working relationship created by 7."

- Hence the questionable ethics line.

I think you misunderstood my intent. Or, (and I'm sure this was probably it) I did a shitty job of being clear. It wasn't (supposed to be) about Per. Enh. Drugs in the AFL. It was about fun drugs.

But as I am a perfectionist, I am going to edit this sonofabitch or I'll be all pissy about it.

With Malice said...

lol Kyle...

I realise that your article wasn't covering performance enhancing drugs, and sorry if it seemed as if I was critiquing... not my intent.
What I did mean to do was to raise the awareness of the issue to the general public out there in ol' US of A.

By the way, this issue is blowing up quite ... HUGE now. There is a damn good chance that it will end up being one of the biggest issues of all time in the AFL.

Greg said...

Very thorough. And in late-breaking news ...

* Players from the league are "boycotting" the television network responsible for airing the story - no more interviews. This is awkward, since the network is also their broadcast partner.
* Police confirmed the Drug Squad has investigated a high-profile player at the club for dealing recreational drugs to team-mates. Does this mean they're not being paid enough? In this day and age, pro athletes should be able to afford a coke habit, right?

A court injunction means we can't name the club, despite it being broadcast on the free-to-air television news. But you probably have better free speech laws than us.


- ADVERTISEMENT -




HOT STUFF ON THE WEB...

OUR BENEFACTORS