Controversial loophole to be closed under AFL's proposed new illicit drug policy
Updated . First published at
Caroline Wilson has revealed the AFL has proposed a new anti-drug regime, which would close a controversial loophole in the current system.
The new scheme would crack down against the use of illicit drugs, with new rules set to include year-round hair testing and immediate fines if found guilty.
Additionally, Wilson disclosed in The Age that clubs and AFL officials would be across drug offences and the identity of the guilty player earlier than the current system.
READ MORE: 'I was a scapegoat': Bateman explains 'bizarre' Tigers exit
READ MORE: 'So much more': Stars' plea amid fears for All Stars future
READ MORE: 'Sad day for tennis': Kyrgios fumes over 'dodgy' Sinner ban
The proposed drug policy changes come as unrest continues to grow between the AFL and its 18 clubs, with confusion and conflict rife.
Wilson has revealed how a possible new punishment system would work, replacing the league's current suspended $5000 fine for a first offence.
Joel Smith. AFL Photos via Getty Images
"AFL players would be fined $5000 for a first offence. AFLW players would be subjected to the new rules, but would only be fined $900 for a first offence," Wilson said.
"In both the men's and women's leagues, a second strike would result in the offending player being publicly named and suspended.
"These punishments would also apply to players who refused or failed to report for treatment."
Under the current system, if AFL players self-report for their first offence, they forego a strike on their record.
That loophole would be closed under the new proposal.
Additionally, a player's identity would be reported to an AFL panel that would be created especially for the updated drug policy.
This model has been backed by the AFL Commission.
Currently, only an AFL doctor and club doctor are made aware of a positive test.
AFLPA CEO Paul Marsh. Getty
However, not all parties are satisfied with the removal of anonymity if the new regime goes ahead.
AFL Players Association CEO Paul Marsh declared his union feared the new policy could put players' protection at risk.
"This is a fine dressed up as a co-contribution, and we won't be accepting that," Marsh told The Age.
"If we are purely talking about a wellbeing model, then why are AFL players being fined $5000 and AFLW players $900?
"Our industry is not always great at keeping confidentialities."
Marsh refused to endorse the new scheme.
"We are not prepared to go down that road," he said.
"Our concern is that these issues could be used against players in their contract negotiations."
