Revelations of secret AFL drug testing leave many unanswered questions | Jack Snape

They call it a three-strike policy, even though nobody – as they long as they keep it in-house – seems to strike out.

The AFL’s approach to the illicit drug use of players has been thrust into the spotlight this week. The episode has been prompted by allegations by independent federal MP Andrew Wilkie in parliament on Tuesday evening that secret illicit drug tests are being conducted by clubs to enable AFL players to avoid detection on game days.

Rather than challenge those facts, the AFL on Wednesday did something extraordinary, confirming players who test positive to internal club drug tests have indeed been pulled from match-day lists as part of its illicit drugs policy. The league’s 12-paragraph statement outlined how, in fact, the process was not a scandal at all, but is designed to help players and minimise the potential harm of drug use.

It’s a noble goal, particularly given the obvious struggles of fallen heroes like Ben Cousins due to their use of illicit substances that have played out in the public eye. The AFL said it was “unapologetic” about pursuing the health, welfare and privacy of its players. And the AFL Players Association (AFLPA) backed the league’s stance. But Wilkie has peeled the curtain back, and it’s now impossible to look away.

The AFL’s illicit drug policy was established in 2005 and most recently updated in 2015. It is one of two sets of rules that govern players’ use of drugs, alongside the AFL anti-doping code. But the two have few things in common.

The anti-doping code is designed to prevent players from using performance-enhancing drugs, based on the prohibited substance list provided by the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada). Cocaine is on the list and attracts a ban of up to four years, but under the Wada code, it is only banned during competition – meaning around the time of matches.

The illicit drug policy, on the other hand, has been developed jointly by the AFL and the AFLPA. The purpose of the policy has always officially been player health and wellbeing. When introducing it in 2005, then AFL football operations manager, Adrian Anderson, said the use of drugs like ecstasy and cocaine posed “a serious health risk to the present generation of AFL players”.

Prior to the policy’s introduction, the AFL faced much of the reputational damage but had little control in situations such as when, in 2004, two Carlton players came to training under the effect of ecstasy. At that time, clubs had the responsibility to sanction players they found to have consumed drugs.

Education and counselling sessions for players who test positive has always been a focus of the program, but over the years there has been a trend away from transparency and disclosure.

The policy was initially described as giving players three chances before they would be publicly named. But the only player to have recorded three strikes was Travis Tuck in 2010, and that sanction was triggered after the police found him late at night unconscious. Since the policy was revised in 2015 and public disclosure introduced after only two strikes, not one player has been revealed publicly. For many years the league released annual statistics on its drug-testing program, and a record 26 failed drug tests were reported in 2012. But that data was no longer released after 2015.

The situation suggests that, unless a player’s interaction with drugs comes to light due to social media – as it did for Bailey Smith – or the courts, as in the case of the Swans’ AFLW players this week, or in-competition testing, it will almost certainly not be made public. Melbourne’s Joel Smith currently faces the full wrath of the anti-doping code because he tested positive to cocaine as part of match-day testing last year.

The AFL chief executive, Andrew Dillon, said on Wednesday the approach to stand down players applied only to a “small handful” over a year out of 1,300 players. By comparison, almost one in five Australians have used illicit drugs in the previous 12 months, according to the National Drug Strategy Household Survey.

The deeper you peer into why there haven’t been more strikes, the more questions emerge. If, under the illicit drug policy, only the first strike remains confidential, how much faith can we have in the process that sees the clubs and league choosing when and when not to formally record a positive test? Is the approach applied fairly between the fringe rookie and the superstar? And how can fans now trust their club’s explanation for their favourite player missing this week’s match?

“There is a difference between what the public is interested in and what’s in the public interest,” Dillon said on Wednesday.

The interests of the league, clubs, broadcasters and partners are broadly aligned with non-disclosure – at least in the short-term – given most brands’ reluctance to associate with recreational drug use. In that context, erring towards not disclosing players’ drug use might make sense.

But given the evidence this week, it will be up to the AFL to show how the absence of disclosure of positive tests is no cover-up, that drug use is not enabled by the football environment and the illicit drug policy actually is in the long-term interests of their athletes.

Shaun Smith, the father of Joel Smith, provided information to Wilkie. He told radio station 3AW on Wednesday the AFL must fix its “bad culture” as soon as possible, “because it’s not just the player it affects, it affects family, it affects friends, partners, everyone.”