AFL to abandon strikes but new drug policy makes players more accountable

The AFL will update its illicit drug policy to remove references to “strikes” that trigger automatic suspensions in a new, more rigorous version of the code.

The new drug policy, which is yet to be finalised in negotiations between the AFL and the AFL Players Association and remains separate from the anti-doping code, contains two other major changes.

One is that the testing will shift from urine samples to the more detailed and informative hair testing of players, while the other is that AFLW players will be part of the testing and treatment program for the first time.

Under the current model, in which confidentiality is a key condition, two strikes – two positive drug tests – result in a suspension for the player. If a player self-reports under the current policy, they can avoid recording a strike.

The dropping of strikes is a recognition of the reality that they have never been enforced, not a step towards greater leniency, according to competition sources with knowledge of the agreed changes. In fact, one figure with direct knowledge of the revised policy said it will be tougher for players who use illicit drugs to evade detection under a more sensitive hair-testing regime, and more accountable medical program.

No AFL player has been struck out and suspended purely from positive tests under AFL-sanctioned urine testing since the policy’s introduction in 2004. But a number of players have been quietly prevented from playing – without being identified – when they have had issues with illicit drug use.

The AFL reduced the strikes regime that triggered suspensions from three to two in 2016. But the change did not result in any suspensions because, as many within the game have privately acknowledged, strikes are intended to detect and treat the problem, rather than punish players.

The updated policy, as foreshadowed by AFL chief executive Andrew Dillon in a meeting with the clubs last year, will remain a medical model, but also abandons any pretence that suspensions for strikes were enforced.

The AFL and the AFL Players Association declined to comment.

Players will be compelled to make a financial contribution to their treatment as part of the policy, as previously reported by this masthead.

Clubs have been largely supportive of what is considered a policy that is more structured and forces players who record positive tests to be more accountable during treatment, according to three competition sources who spoke about the changes that had been widely communicated.

But the club and AFL doctors will retain the capacity – as they do in the present version – to rule players unfit for selection. In practice, this lever has been the method used to stop players with illicit drug issues from taking the field.

This practice has been criticised by the likes of independent MP Andrew Wilkie, who said players testing positive for illicit drugs were often asked to fake injuries to cover up their results. However, the league has been unapologetic about not letting players take the field when they might inadvertently test positive to a substance deemed performance-enhancing on match day under the separate anti-doping policy.

“If there’s a chance that they may have something in their system, we don’t want them training and we don’t them taking part in matches for their health and welfare above anything else,” Dillon said in 2024.

Former St Kilda champion Nick Riewoldt has been at odds with the players’ union in arguing the current regime leaves too much wriggle room for players to avoid consequences for illicit drug use.

However, the move to hair testing means that more players will be tested overall, potentially leading to more positive tests. Hair testing can detect drug use that happened weeks if not months earlier.

Until 2026, hair testing was used only for clubs and the AFL to gain a snapshot of their clubs’ extent of illicit drug use, without identifying players, but the hair testing did not directly trigger strikes.

A number of players, including Melbourne’s Joel Smith, have had game-day positives under the WADA code (which focus on performance-enhancement) because some illicit drugs that act as stimulants are banned on game day and carry years-long suspensions.

Confidentiality will remain a key condition, given that the policy is voluntary and would not be enacted without the consent of players.

The overlap between drug use and mental health also has seen players placed in an AFL medical group, where they are treated confidentially and only tested for treatment purposes.

Much of the decision about the players’ treatment for drug use is in the hands of the club doctors, who have patient/doctor confidentiality. Under the new policy, according to sources apprised of some details, there will be more rigour in how players are treated, placing more responsibility on the players themselves.

Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.