AFL and WADA - Your Questions Answered

1 Jul 2005 - Matthew Finnis

Who is WADA and what is the WADA Code?

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was established in 1999 by the International Olympic Committee in an attempt to present a more united front in the global battle against performance enhancing drugs.  The WADA Code was developed in 2003 and is basically a one-size-fits-all policy governing drug use in sport.  WADA's goal is to have every world sporting code adopt the WADA Code as its anti-doping policy.  The WADA Code was developed to respond drug use in Olympic sports such cycling, weightlifting and athletics and grew out of the anti-doping policy previously adopted by the IOC.  Professional sporting leagues, non-Olympic sports and the athletes themselves have had little or no input into the development of the WADA Code. 

What are some of the AFL and AFLPA's concerns with the WADA Code?

Putting aside the lack of consultation in developing the WADA Code, the AFL and AFLPA have a number of concerns with the specific content of the WADA Code.  These include:

1.         Banned List

The WADA Code contains a list of prohibited substances and methods, which if used by an athlete will result in an anti-doping violation.  The list of substances and methods is constantly reviewed and amended in light of developments in medical knowledge and scientific procedures.  The AFL's anti-doping policy expressly incorporates all banned substances and methods on the WADA list with some limited exceptions.  In order to comply with the WADA Code the AFL would be required to defer completely to the WADA list of banned substances and remove its current exceptions, notwithstanding that they have each been identified, reviewed and maintained on the basis of expert medical opinion applied to the context of AFL football.

A particular concern is the treatment of cannabis under the WADA Code.  The performance enhancing value of cannabinoid's for an AFL footballer must be questionable.  At present, the AFL seeks to prohibit use of cannabinoid's by AFL players on a year-round basis via its Illicit Drugs Policy.  Under the WADA Code, cannabis is only prohibited "in-competition" whilst under the AFL policy the drug is prohibited on a year-round basis.

2.         Strict Liability

One of the principal hallmarks of the WADA Code is its strict liability approach to anti-doping.  Under the WADA Code an athlete is held responsible for the presence of any Prohibited Substance found to be in their bodily specimens.  Full stop.  The Code expressly states that "it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on the athlete's part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping violation…" 

Such a rule, particularly given the gravity of the consequences for a professional athlete, is contrary to principles of fairness and justice widely accepted as basic human rights throughout this country.

The AFL Code differs from the WADA Code in that the AFL Code provides a defence for a player to prove that the presence of a prohibited substance in his sample arose through "exceptional circumstances."  For example, a player who can demonstrate that his food or drink was "spiked" with a banned substance would most likely succeed in proving exceptional circumstances were the basis of the positive drug test.

Hence, under the WADA Code, an AFL premiership player who tested positive to the presence of cannabis in his body on AFL grand final day would be stripped of his premiership medallion, even if it could be established that his previous day's lunch was tampered with and the presence of cannabis had no performance enhancing effect on the player.  Further, risks of mistakes in the labelling, advertising, manufacturing and prescribing of medicines and food supplements may also give rise to "exceptional circumstances" which under the WADA Code would have no bearing on the ability of the grand final player to retain his premiership medallion.

3.         Mandatory Penalties - Illicit Drugs

The AFL has already conformed to a major extent with WADA's desire for the implementation of uniform mandatory penalties to apply to athletes committing doping offences regardless of the sport in which they are involved. 

The current average AFL career spans approximately four years.  It follows that a two year mandatory prohibition for a first doping offence is likely to have a more significant impact on the career of an AFL footballer than an individual athlete pursuing a career in rowing or archery which may span over two decades and four Olympic Games.  Further, the individual sport athlete is able to continue to train as usual during his period of ineligibility whilst an AFL footballer would be excluded from all team based training activities at all levels of the sport.

Under the AFL's Illicit Drugs Policy, positive tests for illicit drugs result in reprimands and formal medical counselling in the first two instances, and match suspensions for third and subsequent offences of up to 12 matches.  This approach was agreed between the AFL and AFLPA in January 2005 in anticipation of WADA taking a tougher stance on illicit drugs notwithstanding their lack of performance enhancing effect.  The AFL and AFLPA undertook detailed research and analysis when determining how it would deal with cannabinoid's, narcotics and stimulants under its Illicit Drugs Policy and sought the best possible information from around the sporting and medical world.  We were consistently advised that the best way to deal with any illicit drug problem is confidential counselling, rehabilitation and education (ie. the emphasis should be on prevention and intervention) with punishment used only as a last resort.

The AFL policy currently goes further than the WADA Code in providing that AFL players can be tested for illicit drugs "out of competition".  In our view, the AFL has taken a more responsible approach to tackling illicit drug use as a legitimate social and health issue than WADA's simplistic and very public "three strikes and your out for life" policy.

Why should AFL players be treated differently to Australian swimmers, rowers or cyclists?

AFL Players are subject to the same standards, testing and penalties as other Australian athletes in relation to performance enhancing drugs.  However, when it comes to illicit drugs, AFL players are subject to more testing on a year-round basis.  Olympic athletes are not tested for cannabis use outside of competition - AFL players are.  The AFL conducts more testing for illicit drugs than any other sporting body in Australia and probably the world.  the world.  As such, it is appropriate that if the AFL is going to take a harder line on drug testing for illicit drugs that it should have a comprehensive rehabilitation and treatment program in place to respond to positive tests, rather than simple mandatory bans for positive tests occurring during competition.

Conclusion

Unfortunately one size does not fit all when it comes to sport.  For the AFL industry to set its own agenda on drugs is not to be soft on drugs.  Rather it represents a more considered and perhaps enduring commitment to the issue which reflects the principles of justice, fair-play and sportsmanship which underpin the entire anti-doping campaign.

Matthew Finnis is the AFL Players' Association Manager of Player Relations.