This interesting report in the West Aussie today. Not too good and just another revelation in ongoing reports of damage. And its from inside, the AFL player actually playing the game

www.thewest.com.au


A PROMINENT Perth-based AFL footballer has accused some of his teammates of using illegal recreational drugs.

The player, who did not want to be named, said several of Perth's elite AFL players used recreational drugs instead of alcohol so they could party without putting on weight.

He said party drugs, including ecstasy, were easily available through friends of players.

They were particularly popular during the AFL off-season, when players were not drug-tested but when they were concerned about keeping their weight down before pre-season training.

"Rather than get a belly full of beer, players can take an E (ecstasy tablet) and a bottle of water and still go out and have a good time with their friends," he said.

The revelations came after Carlton player Laurence Angwin was sacked and teammate Karl Norman suspended for a week and fined $5000 after they were found guilty of breaching the players' code of conduct.

The pair had turned up at training last Monday under the influence of the drug ecstasy.

West Coast Eagles chief executive Trevor Nisbett said that if the claims were true, it was a cop-out for undisciplined players.

Mr Nisbett said the club did not tolerate any use of recreational drugs and players found using them would face serious repercussions, with each case assessed on its merit.

He said he was not aware of any players in the club using recreational drugs.

AFL players who test positive to recreational drugs at training do not face any action from the AFL tribunal, but performance-enhancing drugs are banned.

However, if a player tests positive to a recreational drug after a match, they will be charged.

Ecstasy stays in the body for between two to five days, depending on the size of the tablet.

Drug tests are conducted at random and are performed by the Australian Sports Drug Agency.

A prominent former Melbourne-based AFL player told The West Australian it was well known in Eastern States football circles that certain players in the Eagles and Dockers used recreational drugs.

"There was always talk and rumour on the grapevine about Eagles and Dockers players using drugs - everyone knew who they were," the player said.

Police, the AFL and the Eagles launched investigations in 2002 into a claim that two players were caught on tape phoning a drug dealer for cocaine. The players involved denied the claims, which were never substantiated. No charges were laid.

This is only a bit related, but I've always been of the belief that recreational drug use should not be tested for in sport. It is a personal choice and if it has no performance enhancing properties, than it is none of our business.

I'm with Jeffles...

The facts are that there is no proof that low use of ecstasy causes any irrepairable damage... and on top of that, damage caused by alcohol abuse is much greater, and more likely.

Sweet merciful crap, my GOD!!! Next thing you'll be suggesting that the whistleblower should be fired from the club and blacklisted if his identity is ever revealed. I'd like to see you say that ecstasy does no damage to the families of those poor souls who had a pill from a bad batch or even worse had their drink spiked and died or ended up with brain damage. These things happen to people who have the same attitude to recreational drug taking as you do. That is the most irresponsible thing I've ever heard and I'm no wowser. Its for those reasons that these substances are tested for. Especially if players turn up for training under the influence. Don't get me wrong, alcohol can be just as bad if it is not used in moderation. But, just remember that players used to drink a schooner at the end of every quarter before Kennedy's Commandos came along and revolutionised the health of modern players. Many of those former players are still alive and kicking and healthy to boot.
Look, if you want to choose to use recreational drugs then go ahead, but please don't try blabbering that there are no known risks when it is clear that there are.

The only risks with ecstasy use are due to the fact it is not legal, and it is produced in clendestine labs where it could include anything dodgy. In it's purest form, ecstasy poses very little danger... far less than alcohol.

I'm sure you've used alcohol before, but tell me, have you ever tried ecstasy?... give your opinion if you have, but until then, how would you know anything?

Please list some facts to substantiate your claims about "bad pills" (which aren't ecstasy anyway) killing people. I think the total could be counted on your hands in Australia since ecstasy's popularity rise in the early 90s. Then, go and find some facts on Alcohol related deaths in Australia during the same period. I think you'd be shocked to see the results! The only reason alcohol isn't made out to be as bad in the media is because the Government gets a ****load of revenue each year from taxing it.


Give over with your "it must be bad because the media says so" stance!

to all those impressionable youngsters who view this forum...

You'd prefer to give the impression to them that alcohol abuse is good?

Argee, like you know whatever.... it is a great episode.



If a player arrives to training under the influence, that IS effecting his performance and clubs should be within their right to test. The criteria for RECREATIONAL DRUGS should be reasonable suspicion based on work performance. At the moment, players are tested under the same criteria for all drugs. Ie. pee in this cup and we'll look for everything regardless of if it is performance enhancing or not. I disagree with this.

If there is no problem, then don't test. If there is no test, no one knows what they're doing so it wouldn't effect their status as a role model. A bit of twisted logic but it's their private life.

I'm not saying there are no risks with recreational drugs but if it does not effect the performance of players, then it should not be tested for.

Argee I fully stand behind your comments. No excuses for any drugs used missappropriately, the alcohol v ecstacy argument doesnt way up. ECSTACY is ILLEGAL and where saying we shouldn't test players, cos its none of our business. We should use this as a deterent to those who use recreational drugs even if it is none of our business these players have done an illegal act. And because it is a so called ' soft' drug people are saying we should just mind our own business. (thats my impression of some of the posts)

If Alcohol becomes illegal, then I would have the same comments. But the difference is, Alcohol actually has been used as part of our diet for centuries and is used responsibly by 90% of the population, comparing the abuses of Alcohol is not valid.

Drug taking should and wont be tolerated. Glen Jakovich stated he hadn't seen it in 14 years at the club. Whether we believe him or not it is objectionable. To those like who James stated who are impressionable, the jist I got with his comment and thoroughly agreed with him, that now they will be thinking its ok to use Es.

Finally everyone has different backgrounds, different morals and theirs no need to state our dissaproval of actions of others. Remember if this topic becomes discussed too much, where getting away from what this site is about, sport and the love of it and to talk about stadiums. I only posted this to show how sport is going through a rough patch and knowing the reaction i probably wouldn't of posted it.

Players should lead by example, but at the end of the day they are humans and when the 'fashionable' kids are doing it I have no doubt the egos of AFL players would do it, in the end of the day like Jeffles said it is their choice, but it is to the detrimental to them and the sporting code. What would AFL be like if we accepted that using recreational drugs should not be tested in drug tests.

A sports commentator in Perth had a similar view to Jeffles and Waz. I can see their point of view, but I just think they should stamp out all drugs and not have discrepancies of recreational drugs, in the end of they day they are illegal. Angwin should but wont be charged by the police.

You gotta love Austadiums and the arguments that pop up

I can tell some of you are still young impressionable students by the way the media has controlled your thoughts...

It's sad to see the way peoples thoughts are dictated... it'll never change though...

Only reason i argued is because I know for a fact that alcohol is far more damaging to society, yet it is still socially accepted over other drugs... yes, that's right kiddies, Alcohol is a drug! Shock horror!

Either way, I'm over it, because I realise I'm just one person who cannot change the minds of those influenced by a corrupt majority....

For more info on the real facts about ecstasy, check out www.erowid.org

Cheers!

Wow.... we've got a Gramsci-Marxist here!

2 critical questions:

1. How do you know "for a fact" that alcohol is far more damaging to society than ecstacy. Where did your information come from? Personally, I am tempted to argue that ecstacy is less harmfull to society because it is illegal.

2. www.erowid.org is clearly pro-drugs and has its own agenda. Why are they 'real' when the mass media is "corrupt"

And please don't portray your self in such an elitist light. We bow down to the great enlightened one! Please, it is frankly sickening.

Waz if you noted i can see your viewpoint, but I reject it. If the media had such an influence on they way we perceive drugs like Ecstacy. Then why so many people like yourself come out of that perception and say its ok.

Its just a query, I have no problem with your stance.

Once again ill state that Alcohol and Ecstacy abuse can not be related, both entirely different subject areas. You are implying that those who drink alcohol are prone to be more scepticle to abuse and addiction then those who are Ecstacy users. Something that I struggle to believe.

Alcohol IS used RESPONSIBLY by a majority of the population.

Alcohol may be a drug and cause heartache to some people due to what happens when it is abused. But it has been used as medicine, and part of a diet forever. I know some recreational drugs claim to have medicinal powers as well, but I can't see where your coming from that Alcohol is so much worse then Ecstacy

The only real input I have to this thread is I smoked my fair bloody share of bud in high school

Sorry if I sounded elitist, I didn't mean to sound that way. I was just quickly trying to summarise my views, as I was going to give up, as I'm aware no-one seems to share the same thoughts.

My views have been established over a period of about 7 years of having used ecstasy, not having read someone elses opinion. It's hard to say to someone (especially someone who has never tried the drug) that taking it is as safe as pie...

Ecstasy, in it's purest form, is safe. If it were legalised, it would be as safe, or safer than alcohol. Because it isn't legal, variants of it, which are harmful, for example PMA (Para-methoxy-amphetamine) are available on the streets, and some people take that, thinking it is ecstasy (MDMA - methylene-dioxy-methamphetamine)... this is the only risk. There are testers available, and responsible users generally only ever have pills that are safe. You could take 30 pills that are pure and come out of it safe. The only problem is you could have 3 PMA pills and quite easily kill yourself.

Ecstasy has been proven to not be addictive. Users of ecstasy don't have the urge to "need" it, like alcoholics "need" alcohol. In this respect, it is far less damaging to society.

I'm just saying that if taken responsibly, it is at least as safe as alcohol.
If it were made legal, taxed, and produced in ways where there were no impurities, hardly anything bad could be said of the drug.

And no, I'm not saying the drug is harmless. The one thing that has yet to be proven, but may be true, is that ecstasy, over time reduces the neurotransmitters in the brains' ability to produce serotonin (the chemical that balances your mood and makes you happy). I think this would be true for long time heavy users. But for responsible users who use lightly, and on a less frequent basis, there has been no signs of change. Yes, if you use lots, you will get depressed due to this, but if you use responsibly, you should be ok. This is no different to alcohol in regards to liver failure, and other things it may damage.

The two are on par in my mind. The real killer drug is tobacco... but geez, the media couldn't badmouth that, or else the big companies would come down on them like a tonne of bricks!!!

I thought I said probably, or they're about the same?
It would be far less damaging if it were legal. Firstly, you'd have a lot less organised criminal activity in this area!!!
That site is not pro-drugs in any way... have you actually read any of it? It is an informative site that is purely about drug awareness. It's main aims are to educate users about the potential harms in drugs they use, and also shows some of the positives of the drugs.