INSIDE FOOTBALL Wednesday May 1, 2013 23

INSIDE FEATURE Dr Jodi Richardson

Everything

“THE blackest day in Australian sport” is how Richard Ings, former Australian Sports Anti-Doping

Authority (ASADA) chief described the February announcement that the use of banned drugs was widespread in professional Australian sports, including the AFL.

Dr Peter Larkins had a different perspective, commenting on SBS’s Insight program: “It’s not the blackest day, it’s a great day, because we’ve now got on the table things that people haven’t been recognising as happening.”

Whichever position you take, the widespread and emotive publicity of the issue can only serve to make players, and others, a whole lot smarter about what goes into their bodies.

The AFL has two drug policies – the Anti-Doping Code and the Illicit Drugs Policy – that work independently of one another.

The Anti-Doping Code sees play-ers tested for performance enhanc-ing and recreational drugs in game day testing. Urine samples are tested according to World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) policies and test results are available six to eight weeks later.

WADA is an independent inter-national organisation, responsible for developing anti-doping policies and regulations within sport. The organisation that conducts testing for the AFL is the Australian Sport Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA).

ASADA provides education on performance enhancing drugs directly to AFL draftees.

“ASADA has worked closely with the AFL education staff over the last 12 months to improve the quality and reach of their anti-doping edu-cation program,” a spokesman said. 

“We have collaborated on some new video and face-to-face sessions which were presented to top level players by the AFL, and have con-ducted a  ‘train the trainer’ session for state-based AFL staff who sub-sequently presented the anti-doping message to approximately 2500 state-level players.”

The AFL introduced the Illicit Drugs Policy in 2005 to test for out of competition use of drugs such

as cocaine, ecstasy, amphetamines, narcotics and cannabis as well as γ-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB).

GHB has similar effects to alcohol such as reducing inhibitions and euphoria but has also been shown to elevate levels of human growth hormone.

The use of illicit drugs by AFL players can have huge ramifications for their health and careers; exhibit A – Ben Cousins.

The AFL has been tracking drug use among players for years and has reported on the outcomes of that regular testing. The report published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine entitled “A strategy to reduce illicit drug use is effective in elite Australian football” reveals details about illicit drug use the AFL between 2005, when the policy was introduced, and 2011.

Written by AFL Medical Directors Dr Peter Harcourt and Dr Harry Unglik, together with Professor Jill Cook, the report shows a significant reduction in positive tests among AFL players over the seven years. The testing focused on out of com-petition periods.

While performance enhanc-ing drug tests were conducted by ASADA, illicit drug tests were conducted according to WADA pro-tocols by a commercial pathology laboratory.

Players were tested randomly but could also be target-tested if they had recorded a positive drug test or had not been tested in the previous 12 months. Test turnaround time is two to three weeks.

The number of players testing positive to illicit drug use dropped from 19 in 2005 to six in 2011.

Over the seven years of testing detailed in the report, there were 80 positive tests in all.

In 2005, three of the 19 detections were for players recording a second positive, while in 2007 there were again three second offences; in 2011 there were none.

The AFL has adopted a “harm minimisation” approach to illicit drug use.

“The medical model includes an environment where an individual feels safe to talk about things and where it remains confidential so that their ego or self-esteem is not dam-aged by the process of others find-

ing out,” Dr Harcourt said. “Confidentiality is important in

the medical model, which has a lot of counselling, education and pre-vention type strategies around it.”

Though it may not remain the case, Dr Harcourt feels that a play-er’s second positive test should also remain confidential.

“With such an insidious problem, you have always got to have a shift-ing strategy and review what you are doing,” he said.

“At the moment, I think that it (confidentiality) is definitely the right thing, and the reason I say that is that 50 per cent of the young men that have second positives have got either drug issues or mental health issues.

“Some of those guys, maybe half of that 50 per cent, are actually depen-dent on making it in the AFL or in professional sport to make a go of life.

“From a welfare perspective it’s really important to keep them involved, help them deal with their issues so they have some future. Some of these guys really don’t have a lot of personal resources other than their football.”

When a player has a first or a sec-ond positive test for illicit drug use, the club doctor and an independent expert experienced in the treatment of alcohol and drug related matters are involved.

In 2011 only six positive tests were

recorded, a detection rate of 0.4 per cent, compared with 4.03 per cent in 2005, a 10-fold reduction.

This finding also showed a shift away from the use of marijuana, as all six positive tests in 2011 were for stimulants.

Cannabinoids can be detected in a player’s system for up to six weeks whereas stimulants can be detected only within a window of around four days.

With a holiday break of eight weeks and drug testing on return to the club, there is little chance for a player to use cannabis and avoid detection. The introduction of hair testing, which can detect drug use in the three months prior, is also a deterrent, though a positive test from a hair sample is not recorded as a strike.

If a player tests positive to illicit drugs for a third time, they are subject to a suspension of up to 18 matches and a fine of $5000 but will continue to receive treatment and counselling.

The reduction in illicit drug use among players coincided with a dramatic increase in the number of drug tests, from 472 in 2005 to 1489 in 2011.

Illicit drug testing also focused around times when players were more likely to be at risk such as soon after the season ended.

Of the 80 positive tests to illicit drugs between 2005 and 2011, 56

were associated with alcohol con-sumption.

“Alcohol is very common with regards to the use of illicit substanc-es,” Dr Harcourt said.

“Usually it’s in the context of socialising with mates who are not part of the football club so having strategies around the management of alcohol is probably more impor-tant than drugs themselves.”

Dr Harcourt stresses that harm minimisation is the best approach for parents handling these situations with their children.

“If you do confront illicit drug use with your children, you’re not going to ‘frog march’ them down to the police, you’re going to confront the situation, you’re going to talk a lot about it, and get some advice from an expert, moving forward in a con-fidential and smart way,” he said.

“Parents should be talking to their kids about it and start young. At the moment it’s so available in social and peer groups. A lot of kids are going to be confronting those ethical dilemmas at some point and it’s not going to hurt to have open commu-nication with your child if you’ve got their best interests at heart, which of course a parent does.”

He suggests that your GP is an excellent place to start when tackling illicit drug use in your family.

The Australian Drug Foundation is also a great online resource: www.adf.org.au/

‘Some of those guys are actually dependent on making it in the AFL to make a go of life.’ – DR PETER HARCOURT

There should be no confusion about the difference between performance enhancing and illicit substances, even when the lines between them blur.

you need to know about drugs