Two Strikes.....soft?

[Stormwarning[c]]

CLUB chief executives will be notified as soon as players record a positive test under the NRL's uniform illicit drug testing policy, expected to be adopted today.
It is understood the "two-strikes" policy has the backing of the players' union, the Rugby League Professionals Association, and will be unanimously supported by clubs.

Its acceptance will end a four-month process that began with a draft three-strikes policy being tabled to club bosses last November.

That policy was rejected by nearly one-third of the clubs, forcing the NRL to review its proposed in-house drug testing regime, resulting in a two-strikes policy being flagged last month.

Key elements of the two-strikes regime include:

* Each club to form a testing and rehabilitation committee to oversee the process;

* Players to receive a formal warning as well as a suspended fine of 5 per cent of their net annual contract for a first offence;

* Players to undergo rehabilitation, ongoing testing and be warned that a second offence could result in dismissal;

* Confidentiality immediately lost and an automatic 12-match suspension imposed after a second offence; and

* Clubs to have the option to terminate the player's contract after a second offence. Should a club decide to retain the player, a further 10 per cent fine to be imposed.

As opposed to the controversial three-strikes policy adopted by the AFL, NRL club chiefs will be notified, on the condition of confidentiality, as soon as one of their players fails a test.

Under the AFL system, clubs are only notified once a player has failed a third in-house test, a move that has attracted criticism in the wake of the drug scandal engulfing West Coast Eagles.

NRL chief executive David Gallop said adoption of the one-chance policy would be a positive outcome for the game.

"I think it's a great policy and it is a good outcome in terms of process to get everyone on the same page," Gallop said.

"That's a significant step in the issue."

But which way......backwards or forward?

[Pal]

I think I would prefer the AFL system but with the amount of testing performed by the NRL.

[Stormwarning[c]]

Can I ask Pal what part of the AFL's policy is good, both from an employer point of view (the club) and a supporter's point of view (a member putting money into running a club)?

[Buzz]

There are a myriad of issues relating to the AFL system - most of which stinks. How can an employee who relies on the health and well-being of their staff (and spends millions on it) NOT be informed when one of their players is straying? And for all the AFL's bravado over how many players have been caught - I know three that slipped through their net! Daniel Kerr, Ben Cousins and Jonathon Haye.

In the case of Cousin's who by all reports was heavily addicted - how could he not be found out? Perhaps because he wasn't tested regularly?

The upside of the NRL system is the number of tests - 1,000. The downside is this is still not enough. If there are 400 first grade players in the league, averages say you'll get tested twice in a year. Reality is some will get tested 4, 5 or 6 times, others won't be.

Until a league implements mandatory year round testing, we'll never see the end of this issue.

[bula]

I agree with Wayne Pearce, 2 strikes for recreational drugs and 1 for Performance enhancing drugs

[Bourbon Rat]

Storm drug tests soar :Source Herald Sun

OK...............two interesting points from this article.

70 tests annually & Brisbane choose to do 30 in one week 
Points to an obvious glaring flaw in season long testing.

Saliva versus Urine - If it's done under ASADA guidelines ie: You watch the person give the sample
Then I'm sure both testers & testees would be more comfortable with a Saliva test