How the AFL is planning to take a harder line on illicit drug use among its players through strict new proposals which will slam shut a big loophole

The AFL is reportedly looking at toughening up its illicit drug policy by implementing a set of new proposals.

According to Caroline Wilson of The Age, the organisation are hoping to impose stricter regulations on the use of illicit drugs that could include ‘full-scale and year-round hair testing programmes’.

Wilson also writes that immediate fines could be put in place, in a bid to crack down on illicit drug use.

Under the league’s current rules, only the club doctor and an AFL doctor are informed of a first positive test for an illicit substance. However, under the new rules, a player’s identity is reported to a newly established AFL panel – meaning more AFL officials are aware of the positive test earlier on.

Wilson reports that AFL players would receive a fine of $5,000 for a first offence. Meanwhile, AFLW players would be handed a $900 fine for a first offence.

A second strike would see both AFL and AFLW players named in the public. They would also receive a suspension.

The AFL is looking to introduce tougher rules to clamp down on taking illicit substances

Players who failed to show up for treatment or refused it would also incur the same punishment.

Under the current rules, players can avoid a strike for a first offence if they self-report the infringement.

But the new proposals would remove this loophole.

The AFL Commission are backing the new rules but AFL Players Association CEO Paul Marsh has expressed concerns over the new rules.

Wilson states that the AFL will use the fines from a first offence as ‘co-contribution’ for the subsidisation of a medical programme which players falling foul of the rules will be forced to undertake.

Marsh, though, criticised the ‘co-contributions’, stating to The Age: ‘This is a fine dressed up as a co-contribution, and we won’t be accepting that. If we are purely talking about a wellbeing model then why are AFL players being fined $5000 and AFLW players $900?’

Marsh, meanwhile also expressed concerns over the reporting obligations that come with the AFL’s suggested drug rules.

Noting that more people than a club doctor and an AFL doctor would be informed of a positive test under the new regulations, Marsh issued further concerns.

‘Our industry is not always great at keeping confidentialities,’ said Marsh. ‘And we are not prepared to go down that road. Our concern is that these issues could be used against players in their contract negotiations.’

AFLPA CEO Paul Marsh stated that he had concerns over some of the AFL’s new proposals

AFL chief Andrew Dillon stated that education and wellbeing are both ‘critical’ for players when it comes to the topic of illicit drug use

 The AFL, though, is eager to clamp down on the use of illicit drugs among its players.

‘The issue of illicit drugs is a challenge for every community, every sport, every workplace,’ AFL boss Andrew Dillon said.

‘We are not immune to this and remain committed to ensuring our policy is as strong and effective as possible – one that educates to deter use, holds players to account, and, most importantly, provides the necessary welfare and support for those who need help.

‘Education and player wellbeing are critical pillars of our approach. We are working closely with the AFLPA to refine and strengthen our policy so it reflects the expectations of both the game and the broader community.’

Wilson, meanwhile, writes that the AFL are of the opinion that ‘fewer players would test positive under the new regulations’.

Players are currently tested via urinary samples and the introduction of hair testing could yield more accurate results.

Marsh added that while the AFLPA has ‘no issue with hair testing under the right framework’ but added: ‘With the program being administered by the club doctors we have real concerns looking at the pressure they are under with soft cap cuts and increased risk of concussion.

‘It doesn’t make sense logistically. We’ve got real questions over the ability of the industry to administer what the AFL is proposing.’