In March, Australian MP Andrew Wilkie used parliamentary privilege to allege the Australian Football League (AFL) was operating an “off the books” illicit drug testing regime that is at odds with its obligations under the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code.
Author
Daryl Adair
Associate Professor of Sport Management, University of Technology Sydney
This prompted an investigation by Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) and, after three months of evaluation, the nation’s peak sport anti-corruption watchdog has now released its findings.
What did Sport Integrity Australian find?
Crucially, the SIA report found no breach of the WADA Code by any players or support personnel, noting a “lack of understanding” about the AFL’s illicit drug policy had contributed to public speculation about nefarious intent.
Indeed, SIA understood why players would make themselves unavailable for match day if they believed an illicit drug (prohibited by WADA only in competition) put them at risk of a doping violation.
While SIA was hardly condoning illicit drug use among athletes, it acknowledged the ubiquity of such substances, noting 13.5% of Australians over the age of 14 had admitted to using cocaine in 2022-23.
The game day withdrawal strategy, which seeks to avoid a doping infringement, is not a breach of the WADA Code.
Why does the AFL have an illicit drug policy?
There are two main elements: player welfare and risk management.
At its core, the illicit drug policy has for many years adopted a harm-minimisation approach based on a medical model, the goal being behavioural change under the oversight of a doctor, with confidential counselling at the “first strike”.
But there are also penalties: a “second strike” results in public disclosure and a four-game suspension, with a “third strike” incurring a ban of 12 games.
The SIA report noted some critics of the AFL policy prefer a more punitive approach at the outset, with “naming and shaming” of transgressors at the first strike and much harsher penalties generally.
However, SIA felt it was not within its purview to endorse a particular strategy, which it said was a matter for the AFL and the AFL Players’ Association.
After all, SIA acknowledged, the athletes entered into the illicit drug policy voluntarily – there is no requirement to do so by WADA.
That said, if an athlete presents on match day with an illicit drug in their system, WADA will treat them as a doper. In other words, a player would receive an anti-doping infringement and be subject to a ban from sport.
There is a crucial risk-management point here: WADA does not test for illicit substances outside of match day, in effect leaving the responsibility for managing illicit drug use to sport organisations.
And these bodies hardly want to lose athletes to a doping infringement because they have traces of cocaine or cannabis in their body on game day.
What does the SIA report recommend?
The SIA report acknowledged the AFL’s illicit drug policy has been in place for nearly 20 years but, like any policy, is subject to debate in terms of its objectives and efficacy.
A review of the policy, which was already under way, has now garnered considerable public interest. SIA has offered several recommendations, which are consolidated below.
First, the AFL is encouraged to enhance its illicit drug education training and resources, not just to players and clubs but all of the game’s stakeholders.
The goal should be to “increase transparency” of the illicit drug policy, even though this can never be complete due to the confidentiality that underpins a medical model. SIA suggested de-identified data may be made public to illustrate the number of infringements under the policy.
Second, the AFL needs to improve the intelligence capability of the AFL Integrity Unit, with which SIA has a long relationship.
The goal here is to ascertain whether illicit drug traffickers are infiltrating the sport, which would present integrity concerns.
This should be accompanied by better promotion of the AFL’s anonymous tip-off portal, thereby encouraging anyone to raise integrity concerns.
Third, the AFL should expand its illicit drug policy to accommodate the AFL Women’s league, and to consider ways to mitigate the risk of illicit drug use among non-playing staff across both the AFL and AFLW.
Fourth, and perhaps most important, the AFL should consider establishing a committee to oversee the revised illicit drug policy, including staff from the AFL, the AFLPA, the AFL Doctors’ Association, and independent representatives from outside the sport.
The goal here is to provide a level of confidence, both within the sport and beyond, that the illicit drug policy functions with proper processes and that outcomes are proportionate to its aims.
An elephant in the room?
The SIA report acknowledged the AFL is one of a handful of sports in Australia to have an illicit drug policy.
Other major professional team sports, notably rugby league, rugby union and cricket, have similar policies to the AFL, while basketball, field hockey and motorsport also have illicit drug policies.
A lack of consistent monitoring and testing programs across the Australian sports sector, with associated athlete welfare processes and risk management education, represents a curious governance deficit.
After all, the Australian Sports Commission’s National Sports Plan from 2018 included a determination “to protect Australian sport from integrity threats, such as doping, match-fixing and illicit drugs”.
Surprisingly, though, the word “drug” appears only once in the entire report, and there is nothing to indicate what sports are expected to do by way of mitigating against illicit drug use among athletes.
The SIA report suggested the Australian sport sector could benefit from the staging of a “national illicit drugs roundtable” for all sports (there are about 60 in all).
It admitted that among the minority of sports that do have an illicit drug policy, “the guidelines, processes and sanctions that surround each code’s drugs policy are as unique as the sports themselves”.
So, there is much to be learned and revised going forward.
Daryl Adair does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
