Anti-Doping - It's not all Black & White

17 Jun 2005 - Brendon Gale

Picture this.  It is Grand Final Day 2006.  Collingwood has achieved a remarkable turnaround over the past two years and is now in a position to secure its 15th premiership cup in the club's proud history. 

Midway through the first quarter of the Grand Final a serious head collision occurs between Collingwood captain Nathan Buckley and his direct opponent as they both dive for the ball in attempt to gain a crucial centre clearance.  In a disastrous start to the game for Collingwood it's skipper is forced from the ground and is no condition to return to the field of play for the remainder of the game. 

Despite this seemingly catastrophic turn of events, the Pies rally and turn on a remarkable display of football to easily win the 2006 Grand Final by 10 goals and secure the prized premiership cup.  The Collingwood skipper, who is credited with getting his team to the last day in September following three best on ground finals games in a row returns to the ground to receive his premiership medallion before a standing ovation.

On Monday following the Grand Final results of random drug testing conducted on grand final day reveal that Buckley has tested positive to a banned substance.  Traces of cannabis have been found in the urine sample taken from the player after the game. 

Buckley vehemently denies ever taking the illicit drug.  However under the AFL's new "strict liability" anti-doping code adopted in 2005 to comply with the international WADA Code, he is recorded as having committed a doping offence and will be stripped of his prized premiership medallion.

On Tuesday, a current affairs television program secures an exclusive interview with the chef who prepared the meal served to the Collingwood skipper at an official function held immediately prior to the Grand Final Parade.  He admits to being a long time user of marijuana and to being as "high as a kite" on the day he prepared the lunch. In a devastating turn of events the chef also admitted that he thought it would be a "fantastic joke to spice up the skipper's lunch a little".

Amid the public outcry which follows the chef's revelations, the AFL issues a statement that unfortunately it is bound to follow the new WADA compliant anti-doping code adopted by the AFL under significant pressure from the Federal Government. 

There is no room for negotiation.  The code is black and white.  The fact that the player did not voluntarily ingest the marijuana and that in any case it did not impact on his or the club's performance in the grand final cannot be used to overturn the player's disqualification and forfeit of his premiership medal.   These facts are merely relevant to reducing the period of suspension applicable to the player who will always be recorded as having committed an "anti-doping rule violation". 

In announcing his retirement from AFL football the following week, Buckley expresses his disillusionment with the game and indescribable disappointment at never fulfilling his life-long dream of owning a premiership medallion.

Under the current AFL anti-doping policy the above scenario would not occur.  However the AFL (along with cricket and rugby league governing bodies) is currently under significant pressure from the federal government to replace its current policy with a new policy by 30 June this year. 

The federal government's policy is based on that of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) which has been developed overseas with little (if any) contemplation of the impact of its application to domestic professional sporting leagues.  If the AFL were to "toe the line" of the federal government, the scenario described above is just one of the potential ramifications of adopting a policy developed by an organisation intent on taking whatever steps it considers necessary to curb widespread drug use in overseas sports such as athletics, cycling and weightlifting.

The current AFL Anti-doping policy is considered by clubs, players, medical officers and the game's administrators to provide an appropriate framework for prohibiting performance enhancing drugs in Australian Rules Football at all levels.  The current policy recognises the importance of taking a strong stand against the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport.  But importantly, the policy also recognises that exceptional circumstances do arise from time to time which mean that a "strict liability" approach to anti-doping is not always appropriate. 

The need for some flexibility in the application of anti-doping rules is accentuated where the athletes subject to the code are amongst the most accessible professional athletes in the world.  One of the great strengths of AFL football is the ability of members of the community to engage and interact with the Game's heroes - its players. 

Unlike many international professional sportspersons, AFL players do not lock themselves away or live in gated communities where engagement with the general public is severely limited.  To the contrary, AFL players annually commit approximately 13,000 hours of their time in organised game development and community activities, in addition to living their personal lives as members of the general community.

An anti-doping regime which fails to recognise that a positive sample does not in every instance mean that the person is a drug cheat is a regime which fails to recognise the standards and principles of the law which all members of the community take for granted - that is, the right to be presumed innocent and to receive a fair hearing.

The scenario described above could just as easily apply to Ian Thorpe following a world record gold medal winning performance at the Commonwealth Games.  It would be interesting to hear the federal government's response to public dissention of Thorpey being stripped of his gold medal and world record in such circumstances. 

Finally, it is worth noting that under the WADA Code which the federal government proposes that the AFL adopt, if a team mate of the Collingwood skipper also tested positive to traces of marijuana as a result of the chef's mischief then the AFL might even be in a position to disqualify the entire team and strip the Pies of their 15th Premiership Cup.  Then we'd see some black and white!