it's such a grey area. There are substances that we the general public can take, that are found in supplements bought over the counter, that an athlete subject to testing cannot.
Club officials are not competing on the field, so I cant see why they would come under WADAs scrutiny, or even jurisdiction for these substances.
If you talk about recreation drugs, which you would not want a teacher to be on with kids in their care, then that is different. I actually dont see why players would be tested for this, as many hamper performance rather than enhance it, yet club officials and AFL officials are not tested.
It seems that it must be OK for the head honchos of the AFL to snort coke but not a player.
I'm not a great reader of legal mumbo jumbo. Does what MT post say players are testing for recreational drugs but when it comes to performance enhancing drugs they test players, docs, coaches etc?
I don't believe they test the coaches nor other club officials. It was Dank who said the coaches especially Hird were well aware of what was going on and Hird was present sometimes when waivers were signed. Dank added that some coaches (no names) were also on supplement programs which in their case could include non-WADA approved substances as they didn't have to worry about that unlike the players.
It's just interesting to find that the AFL anti-doping code applies to club officials also. Where this all fits together regarding Essendon and alleged claims by Dank that the coaches were using non-WADA approved substances I don't know.
