The AFL is preparing for an increase in players testing positive to drugs such as cocaine and MDMA due to more effective testing under a new illicit substances policy, even if the public will never find out.
The players union is adamant, however, the “revised” approach will reduce harm, despite the risk of some being exposed to innuendo when they are pulled from matches under a general explanation of “unavailable”.
The policy has been in negotiation for two years, and follows explosive comments made in federal parliament in 2024 by independent MP Andrew Wilkie, citing information from former Melbourne doctor Zeeshan Arain, alleging there had been “wilful inaction” by the AFL to address a “prevalence of drug abuse” in the sport.
Sport Integrity Australia subsequently found “no irreconcilable inconsistencies” between the AFL’s illicit drugs policy and the National Anti-Doping Scheme. However, there remains wide concern over the level of drug use in the AFL, highlighted by illicit drugs scandals and bans to players including Bailey Smith in recent years.
AFL chief executive, Andrew Dillon, said the sport was a reflection of broader society. “There’s a reality that illicit drug use is not an issue unique to sport or our game, it’s a broader societal challenge and our players are not immune from the issues and pressures that it exist in the community,” he said.
“So what this revised policy does is bring together stronger education, stronger deterrence, stronger accountability and stronger support.”
Every men’s and women’s player will now be tested twice per year under a policy that will also apply to the AFLW for the first time.
The fresh approach will test hair rather than urine, a change which is expected to detect drug use up to three months before the test, compared to only a few days previously.
James Gallagher, chief executive of the AFL Players’ Association, said the updated policy – under its first revision since 2016 – maintains a focus on “reducing substance abuse and drug-related harms for players”, following a review by alcohol and drug consultancy 360Edge.
“The key outcome of that review was that it recommended a harm reduction approach with an emphasis on health and well-being under a revised policy, and pleasingly, that’s exactly where it landed,” he said.
Players who initially test positive will discuss the test only with the club doctor and psychologist, who will work with the player on a “behaviour change program”.
Subsequent positive tests will trigger more onerous obligations on players to address their drug use, including potentially meeting costs of treatment.
When attempts to work with a player have failed, they may be prevented from playing by independent experts appointed jointly by the AFL and AFLPA. That player would be listed as “unavailable” in a club’s pre-match injury report.
The public will be kept in the dark, as will others in the club, apart from the general manager of football, chief executive and president. Clubs will be fined $250,000 if this confidentiality is breached.
Dillon rejected the notion that labelling a player simply as “unavailable” would increase speculation that players were not playing due to their drug use.
“We’ve had a policy in place for 20-plus years, that hasn’t occurred previously and I think under this policy again – the most comprehensive in Australian sport – I think that we’ve got a process that will work well,” he said.
Darcy Moore, Collingwood defender and AFLPA president, urged focusing on what the policy can do for players, rather than what happens when a player might ultimately be withdrawn from playing.
“That comes at the end of what is quite a comprehensive and well resourced best practice policy to manage players who have tested positive with a hair test,” he said.
“By that stage, we understand that in reality, clubs have been involved in helping to administer this program, so it is literally designed to avoid that situation.”
Laura Kane, the AFL’s executive general manager of football operations, said the new approach would cost more than the previous one but it will be fully funded by the AFL.
The AFL confirmed players who are barred from playing under the policy will still be paid by their clubs.
.jpg?w=600)
