Sorry Saga - Why do we fight?

The report is on SIA’s website. Here is the link:


Recommendation 5 - expand the AFL illicit drugs testing to AFLW. Justified by more support for the girls health and access to education on illicit drugs.
( Why not expand it to the WAGs while they’re at it, the men wouldn’t be so exposed)

I would suggest trimming that list to the three or four best and least contestable.

Nominate those you think suited best

I don’t know enough about them. The important things are a) that they should be easy to understand (for someone who knows nothing about the whole saga), b) they should be completely non-contestable (i.e., we don’t want people jumping up and saying that we’ve got things wrong), and c) they should be important (I mean, if there was a finding that X used forbidden drugs while wearing a white shirt, who cares if we have clear proof he was wearing a blue shirt?).

1 Like

SIA has a dual role as I see it. They have a binding agreement with WADA under the UNESCO Convention against Anti Doping in Sport. The protocols used are the WADA Code and Prohibited List. Australian signed on to the Convention in 2006 and ASADA was created. The criteria for addition to the Banned List were efficacy, safety and spirit of sport and could not be challenged.

SIA also have the responsibility to ensure that there is no use of illicit drugs, specifically in sports. Links to trafficing and organised crime (as exemplified in the ACC Report which lead to the SAGA).

According to our Medicines Regulator, the TGA cocaine is a Schedule 8 controlled substance, that which allows medical use of it but otherwise it is outlawed. Possession and use is illegal. All kinds of uses, selling, cultivation and transportation is illegal.

What oversight does SIA afford the AFL and their policy on the specific use of cocaine as an illicit drug. A policy that is shrouded in mystery under the guise of protecting the player. An obvious question that should be asked is what oversight do the police have is relation to cocaine in the AFL.

So we have AFL “officials” testing the players for cocaine and we have SIA “officials” testing the players for PEDs and never the twain shall meet.

Finally, like many of the substances on the Banned List, there is no clinical proof that cocaine is performance enhancing. But it is potentially unsafe and like everything on the Banned List it is against the Spirit of Sport.

As to the first paragraph of your post, SIA is a signatory to WADA, not the UNESCO Convention. As I understand it, it is not compulsory to be a signatory to WADA, but it serves to confer legitimacy to its processes. I wouldn’t give it the status of a binding agreement.
The AFL has independently decided to apply the WADA Code, including suspension of athletes found to have breached the Code.
I am not so sure that SIA has any function in regard to illicit drugs other than those banned under the WADA Code. The ACC investigation and report addressed the use of performance enhancing drugs and criminal links, it wasn’t limited to ASADA’s role.


The UNESCO convention of 1999 “encouraged” the IOC to establish an anti-doping body which was WADA. ■■■■ Pound and David Howman were prominent in the development of the WADA Code which was released in 2003 and activated in 2004. The aim was to harmonise policies worldwide on a range of governance and anti-doping issues.

National and International Sporting Organisations agreed to be bound by the terms of the Code at an International Anti-doping Conference in Copenhagen in 2003. Legal and other issues prevented many countries from signing directly to the Code - a non-government document. However governments showed their support through the adoption of the 2003 Treaty. So a signatory to either deemed the country compliant. Not completely sure that arrangement still exists but the conventions are still relevant within the Code.

Presently 3 countries and one International Confederation are not compliant with the Code.

North Korea - are we surprised, and Indonesia are non compliant because they have a number of existing non- conformities in relation to a testing program.

Thailand is in the process of having their 2021 compliance documents passed through their parliamentary system.

The IGSF (International Giro Sports Federation) is still to comply with 2021 update.

There are two incidents in our rich history of Sport worth remembering.

  1. John Coates, as Senior VP of the IOC and Head of CAS, “advised” then PM, John Howard that he does not want to be known as the PM who prevented his country’s athletes from attending the Olympics. Howard had resisted signing up to the Code and didn’t agree until late 2005 with ASADA being formed in 2006.

  2. The AFL, under Demetriou, who had wanted to use an AFL devised anti-doping system, was told by the Federal Government (with Coates looking over their shoulder) that the AFL must sign up to the WADA Code or risk being deprived of Government Funding for new ground development.

It is my understanding that where illicit drugs such as cocaine that have the potential to involve criminals, trafficing, gambling on sport etc then SIA is involved. It is also important to remember that there are many registered drugs that are used for purposes aside from their specific prescribed use. An example would be insulin. Insulin is a well characterised peptide hormone. It is described as an anabolic hormone. It facilitates the synthesis of carbohyrate, fat and protein. It is used by body builders in a cocktail with GH and IGF-1 to increase body mass. There are many more.

As I see it responsibilty spans many government agencies (which is in itself a problem) such as Border Control, Federal and State Police, TGA, and probably more. The problem then becomes how are these agencies oversighted. SIA and their appaling treatment and disregard for the FOI system is well known. That abuse alone should be enough to have a good auditor salivating.

In short, it is a mess.


“The AFL has independently decided to apply the WADA Code” because the Federal Govt, said if you don’t we will no longer fund your stadiums.

So not really independently … more like the AFL accepted bribes from Federal politicians, who were no doubt, heavy influenced by trough feeding pubic servants (insert ASADA). Public Servants whose very livelihoods generate zero gain for the heavily taxed supporters of AFL football, & who have always lived in a fantasy world that produces fark all … so in summary, just parasites hanging off the public tit for dear life like a limpid mine & use every excuse in the book to empower & enrich themselves by “empire building”.

Would love the razor gang to be re-instated to clean the whole public servant fantasy sector up & have some public hearing to make the ■■■■■■■■ accountable like people that live is the real world are.


The ANAO report on ACMA ( the Australian Media Authority) uncovered some seriously undervalued gifts from the AFL in ACMA’s disclosure register.
Anyone up for checking the disclosure of gifts register for SIA/ASADA for gifts from the AFL?
It should be publicly available under the PS rules to disclose gifts over a small amount.
The AFL of course gifted ASADA its powers to extract information from its employees, powers not then available to ASADA.

1 Like

I actually admire the AFL for how expertly they wriggled out of the last revelation they have the moral values of marauding vikings.

We’re not sweeping stuff under the carpet to protect our brand. We really care about the welfare of our drugged-up players and their close relationships with violent blackmailing deadbeats.


I don’t agree with the implication that the predicament that this family found itself in is the fault of the AFL’s drug policy.

1 Like

Harm minimisation

yes agree. I think the concerns are

  • the AFL illicit drug policy doesn’t stop addicts playing footy at the highest level;
  • organised crime has influence over players that may be further exploited;
  • the AFL appear to be head in sand on these issues (not that we’d know from the outside).

Of course also they farked us over and hung us out to dry with insufficient evidence to suspend a kid from a day at school…


Society is always looking for someone else to blame. Perhaps the parents should be to blame?

A high proportion of young males have risk-taking tendencies. Possibly, those who register high on that scale are also overrepresented among AFL players. The issue here IMO is how the AFL manages that. That is no doubt difficult but, as usual, it wants to have its cake and eat it too.

Yeah, it’s absolutely not the fault of the mentioned medical model.

I’m fine with the AFL having an approach of not wanting players to miss years of footy because they had a line at a party one weekend.

But the allegation here is that they may be missing, or worse willfully ignoring, addiction or problematic drug use. I’m far less fine with that.

There could be another issue, if the non-players on the staff or Board/Sponsors regularly around the club are seen/known to be recreational drug users and it’s tolerated by the club, part of the social scene.
Or for that matter, those at AFL House etc with whom they mix in the social scene.
What sort of message would that be?

Meanwhile, in another neighbouring room of the WADA house of straw. Sweepity sweep sweep it seems.
Nothing to see here says WADA.


So if your kids take illegal drugs then it is your fault ?