Tuesday, July 05, 2005

afl full of spliffers? [is that a real word? is now]

i heard on the radio the other day that the afl is refusing to sign an agreement on a drug code because cannabis can show up in urine for up to 4 weeks after use.

rugby and other codes are happy to sign. maybe that's because bundaberg rum and xxxx beer don't show up as illicit substances.

but perhaps afl players are pot heads. see this sentence.

demetriou says that the afl already has the one of the toughest drug testing policies in the world, and therefore signing the agreement would be doubling up. it seems.

for a full, non-yahoo read, look here.

6 comments:

Clokeeeey! said...

Looks like you are treading on my turf MG.

Toadie from Neighbours said...

i'm full.

Toadie from Neighbours

problematic said...

There's more creativity in afl, a little bit of a toot will surely help with more imaginative options on the field. Go Freo.

Aleks - Anarcho-Syndicalist said...

Being from Sydney I used to think only dopes played AFL. However it now seems that people on dope play AFL. Bickity bam.

aiellas said...

The AFL says that if they sign, they could only test during the season for all drugs. The penalties in the case of WADA for dope use is 1 to 2 year bans, the AFL has a policy of mediation etc. to get them of the gear.

Clokeeeey! said...

Sorry, that was me, not aiellas.