Club & Coach Ratings

[Professer E]

Illicit drugs are a no no as well under the code.  I believe that if you've got them in you system (test positive) on game day it is the same as being caught with PEDs.... Unless you play for cheats FC.

[laj]

Illicit drugs are a no no as well under the code.  I believe that if you've got them in you system (test positive) on game day it is the same as being caught with PEDs.... Unless you play for cheats FC.

Yes, that's right with some illicit drugs. If it's not on game day though they are not illegal under the WADA Code. Mumford's wasn't on game day so it's only comes under the AFL Illicit Drug Code.

[LP]

Yes, that's right with some illicit drugs. If it's not on game day though they are not illegal under the WADA Code. Mumford's wasn't on game day so it's only comes under the AFL Illicit Drug Code.

As I understand hair testing exposes cocaine drug use for months after the event, and Mumford has a beard!

Wasn't there much related derision and speculation targeted at Dusty shaving down?

So do we assume Mumford is on a strike under the AFL's own code, or if someone goes back through old footage will we suddenly find Mumford unexpectedly clean shaven?

btw., As I understand it hair drug testing works from the detection of residue in the follicle cells not the actual hair, the cells in the follicle turnover about every 90 days, while the actual hair can remain intact for months or even years.

[Professer E]

We have a lot of dramas at work with the class 2 drugs because they don't show up in a standard urine test after a very short time frame.  Thus, they get ripped on these drugs in lieu of using alcohol on the weekend or at shift change and they then front up for work in ostensibly a decent physical state.  I know they are using but there's nothibg I can do about it without a positive.  Mention hair testing and the unions go into meltdown.

But it's all contingent upon the company providing a safe workplace.... Try telling the dumb Kents we have on site with the issues I mention above.

[LP]

I know ProfE, and it's not just illicit stuff.

We've big worksafe bills to pay because some bloke has been affected by prescription medication and we've had to pay his or somebody else's rehabilitation bills because his mental state led to an accident. The lawyers argue we had a duty of care, but by law we cannot do the tests for that stuff and even if we did it's not illegal anyway! Apparently we are guilty for someone's private addiction to prescription medication that sees them use it outside the doctors guidelines!

On the packet it states in big letters it states something like, "Do not take this medication if operating machinery" That keeps the drug company and the doctor in the clear but we are still liable! How the feck does that work?

If he was drink driving or drunk at work we could test for it and stop him, but because he has a prescription medication for a diagnosed medical condition that is privileged information and we cannot discriminate!

[Professer E]

I share your pain mate.  At induction they are all told  1. front up  fit to work and 2. I don't care if you think you can chain chuff twenty cones and then fly the space shuttle, anything that effects judgement renders you unfit for work under the duty of care legislation ... And we have to provide a safe workplace, period.  Yet I and the company are liable for the idiotic acts these cretins do.  Nobody in their right mind aspires to operational management,  it's all about legal ar$e covering for the state not practical safety for the common worker.