Glen Jakovich joins calls for change to ‘three strikes’ policy

West Coast Eagles great Glen Jakovich has joined the chorus of concern about illicit drug use in the AFL, saying the league should make immediate changes to the controversial ‘three strikes’ system.

Former St Kilda captain Nick Riewoldt sent shock waves through the AFL yesterday, declaring drug use in the game was “out of control” and players were taking advantage of a drug policy that is too soft.

Jakovich said he believed the ‘three strikes’ system was easy to manipulate, and any players found to be faking mental health problems to avoid drug tests should face “significant bans” from the game.

“There is no place for them in the industry because there are people suffering serious mental health issues,” he said.

“It tars everyone with the same brush and people will start saying every player who has mental health issues has a drug problem.”

Riewoldt took to the airwaves in Melbourne yesterday to reject former coach Grant Thomas’ claim that illicit substance abuse was rife while he was playing, but said it had rocketed since.

Thomas, Riewoldt’s former coach, said last week that after he left St Kilda at the end of 2006, a former player told him drug use was “rife” at the club.

A Melbourne radio presenter then claimed 16 players at one club were avoiding drug tests by using mental health reasons as an excuse, a suggestion that was rubbished by Collingwood president Eddie McGuire.

The supposed use of drugs at St Kilda during the mid-2000s coincided with a tumultuous period of drug abuse at West Coast, which culminated in the fall from grace of former Eagles captain Ben Cousins.

“The issue that’s come out of (Grant Thomas’ comments) is what it’s like now,” Riewoldt told radio station SEN.

“Back then no, but now I would say, ‘Yeah, absolutely, it’s pretty out of control’. It’s out of control now because players can. That’s the way the policy is set up.

“The AFL, by their own admission, say the policy aims to identify AFL players who have substance abuse issues and places the necessary support around them to protect their health and wellbeing.

“The vast majority of players don’t have abuse issues. They’re just taking the piss out of the system and players who abused the system were likely to get caught. “There’s no recourse, there’s no ramifications, so it’s a free-for-all in the off-season.”

Jakovich would not speculate on the number of players who were drug users, but claimed those who were could easily get away with it and believed change was vital.

He said club bosses needed to know earlier when a player had recorded a drug strike so they could intervene.

“It’s got to go,” Jakovich said. “Players who are risk takers and recreational drug users will expose any loophole in the system.”

But Eagles ruckman Nathan Vardy defended the AFL’s drugs policy. “We have the hair test twice a year,” Vardy said.

“It is a 15-month period and if you get a positive twice in that time you get a strike and named and shamed. (But) there are guys that are going to make mistakes as well and you don’t want to name and shame guys that have just made a mistake.”

Riewoldt said players would continue to take chances until the illicit drugs policy bared its teeth.

“I know it’s a voluntary policy and the AFLPA and the players can completely scrap it,” he said.

“It is world-leading because there’s nothing else like it and I understand that. If they’re serious about getting the number closer to zero, remove the safety net. If players have a drug issue, then getting a four-match suspension on their first detection is probably the least of their worries because they need to sort their life out.

“Blokes are doing it because the system allows them to get away with it. You’re telling me if they’re going to get a four-week ban on their first detection they’re going to do it?

“They’re not going to do it because they know if they get caught they miss four weeks of footy and everyone is going to know about it.”

Asked if he had a solution, Riewoldt said: “I would have a suspension on the first detection. At the moment the deterrent is not strong enough.”