The Essendon football club has called a crisis meeting with 14 current and former players, with reports they allegedly admitted to taking banned substances in 2012.
Port Adelaide says it is leading the way in illicit drug testing. Picture: SARAH REED. Source: News Corp Australia
PORT Adelaide hair-tested its squad in the off-season as part of the Power's determined campaign to fight the illicit-drug culture among AFL players.
Port was among a small group of AFL clubs - at least three - that used hair testing in the summer, a period both the league and players' union regard as "high risk" for illicit drug use.
But the greatest frustration at Alberton is how the debate on illicit drugs - that sparked a club summit in Melbourne at the end of January last year - has been lost amid the Essendon supplements saga.
Port's push to have club chief executives alerted as soon as a player fails his first drug test - rather than on the third that leads to suspension - is unlikely to progress at this week's AFL meetings in Adelaide.
Power chief executive Keith Thomas notes the "distractions" from the Essendon crisis and football's other off-field battles to carve up the league's money pool have virtually pushed the illicit-drug issue off the AFL agenda.
Fox Sports AFL correspondent Julian de Stoop says players named as having admitted to taking banned substances in their interviews with ASADA face an anxious wait to find out if they will be served with infraction notices.
This is despite concerns the drug problem has not improved 12 months after the AFL summit and the league last year revealed 26 players had failed drug tests with three players on two strikes.
"(Club) visibility is still restricted," said Thomas, declaring his frustration with the three-strike policy informing club leaders on the third strike. "The issue is still there."
Port - and other AFL clubs - were able to use the AFL Player Association-approved policy to seek hair tests of the Power squad when it returned from their end-of-season break.
The Power absorbed the cost - about $200 for each hair test.
There is no indication the hair tests at Alberton revealed a concern for the Power administration. But Port's exposure to the detail of the test results was limited.
The clubs also do not get the individual results. Rather, the hair-test results are viewed by the AFL's medical officer who presents each club with a "drug profile" of the player list while not identifying any player who has a drug problem.
And while the hair tests reveal any drug a player has used in a three-month period, the results do not count as a strike against a player.
The clubs, however, can then seek target testing of their players - at the club's cost - with urine tests that do count.
If these target tests identify a player "acting or displaying an attitude contrary to the objectives and spirit of the illicit drugs policy", he will be enrolled in intense education and counselling programs. But he will be identified to his club's chief executive only if these programs lead to no change in behaviour.
Thomas notes this emphasises the AFL and players' union see illicit-drug use as a "health issue" rather than an integrity battle - and the club are being locked out of helping on either front.
The AFL can now use hair, blood and urine tests. Only results from blood and urine tests count against a player's record because the hair tests are still not endorsed as reliable evidence in courts.
