Titans: Prince backs Titans' tough drugs stance

[Queenslander]

Prince backs Titans' tough drugs stance

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 4:30 PM

Gold Coast co-captain Scott Prince says he fully supports his NRL club's hardline stance on illicit drugs, despite the players' association backing the controversial "three-strikes" testing policy.

Almost one-third of NRL clubs have rejected the AFL-style policy aimed at introducing standardised procedures for testing for recreational drugs.

"I think from day one we've set a stance and if any of the players overstep the mark they pay the consequences," Prince told reporters.

"I'm totally behind Searley's (Titans managing director Michael Searle) approach to drugs in sport."

Under the "three-strikes" policy, tabled by the NRL to its clubs in November, players would receive a suspended fine for a first offence.

A second failed test would result in a player being fined 15 per cent of his salary, and a third positive would mean an automatic 12-week suspension.

Clubs would also have the power to sack a player following a third failed test.

Searle said the NRL needed to send a stronger message to players that illicit drug use would not be tolerated in the game.

The Titans have a policy in place in which a player testing positive to illegal drugs can be sacked and fined 25 per cent of his contract.

"We understand that's not going to work for every club but from our point of view we feel that the three-strikes policy can be modified a little bit," Searle said.

"We would like to see a stronger message sent.

"All the players are explained in the first week of orientation that their contract can be terminated if they test positive to illicit drugs.

"In saying that, we do have a parachute clause where if they were to appeal we could come up with another result."

North Queensland, Canberra, Cronulla and Melbourne are other clubs seeking more stringent penalties.

Both Searle and Prince denied Titans players would be more tempted to use recreational drugs on the Gold Coast, renowned as a party capital.

"I'm sure you'll get your drugs anywhere in the world and the Gold Coast is no different," said halfback Prince.

"We try and stay away from that. We're professional athletes and we've got to live our lives accordingly."

Searle said he supported the actions of North Queensland chief executive Peter Parr, who tore up Mitchell Sargent's contract in August last year after the prop tested positive to cocaine from an in-house test.

It flies in the face of the Rugby League Professionals Association's push to implement the "three-strikes" policy, with secretary Matt Rodwell arguing it should be based around welfare, education and rehabilitation.

"If your son or daughter came home from a night out and they were involved in drugs, would you kick them out of home on a first strike or would you sit down with them, discuss the issue and educate them about the dangers behind it?" asked Rodwell.

"We're trying to educate and rehabilitate players rather than discard them, throw them out on the streets and say `do your best'."

Searle said the Titans would conduct more than 200 in-house drug tests on its players this year.

Source: AAP

[Queenslander]

Titans give players one chance

By Karl de Kroo
January 24, 2007

GOLD Coast Titans will adopt a zero tolerance policy on illicit drug use as the club makes it clear it is all about business on the renowned holiday strip.

The National Rugby League has proposed a "three strikes and you're out" policy in an effort to standardise the code's drug-testing procedures, but the Titans are looking to send a far sterner message.

Following in the footsteps of North Queensland Cowboys, who did not hesitate to sack prop Mitchell Sargent after he returned a positive in-house test to cocaine last year, the Titans have adopted a similarly uncompromising approach.

It is believed every player on the new franchise's roster was tested in-house within their first week of joining the club. They were warned any positive test was likely to result in contract termination.

Only in exceptional circumstances would a player survive the sack, and in those cases they would be fined at least 25 per cent of their salary.

"We support the construction of a unified policy," Gold Coast managing director Michael Searle said yesterday.

"But from our point of view we feel strong sanctions send a strong message and if we do everything we can to deter the use of illicit drugs in our game and also to send a message to the young emerging players, then that's a great result.

"As an organisation we have sent a clear message over discipline issues and drugs are a part of that policy. We are very strong in the view that a first (drugs) offence will be met with either a strong financial penalty or contract termination.

"That might not work for every club, but from our point of view, three strikes, we'd like to see a stronger message sent."

Searle denied his club needed to be more vigilant because of its base on the renowned party strip, but he said the Titans expected to conduct up to 200 in-house tests this season.

These tests will be over and above the regular random tests conducted by national sports doping agency ASADA.

Titans co-captain Scott Prince said his players had been happy to sign off on the strict drugs policy.

"From day one we set a stance that if any players overstep the mark they will face the consequences," Prince said.

"This is not just a Gold Coast issue. There are drugs anywhere in the world.

"But we just have to stay away from that. We are professional athletes and we have to live our lives accordingly.

"It is crucial to get the culture of the club right from the beginning."

Under the NRL's "three strikes" proposal, supported by the players' association, a first offence would result in a suspended fine.

A second failed test would lead to a player being fined 15 per cent of his salary, while a third would lead to an automatic 12-match suspension.

Gold Coast is one of several clubs known to have rejected the proposal in favour of a tougher approach.

Melbourne Storm and Canberra are among those to have already adopted more stringent in-house procedures.

Rugby League Professionals Association spokesman Matt Rodwell said the policy needed to be based around welfare, education and rehabilitation.

"If your son or daughter came home from a night out and they were involved in drugs, would you kick them out of home on a first strike or would you sit down with them, discuss the issue and educate them about the dangers behind it?" Rodwell asked.

www.foxsports.com.au

[Steve]

"If your son or daughter came home from a night out and they were involved in drugs, would you kick them out of home on a first strike or would you sit down with them, discuss the issue and educate them about the dangers behind it?" asked Rodwell.


Source: AAP

First thing. Rugby league teams are not parents.
These are adults who have to take responsibility for their own lives.
As far as I understand it, the teams take the time to discuss the issue and educate the players right from the start.
For better or for worse, professional rugby league players are held up as role models to children.

And as professional athletes, playing rugby league is their job. If teams consider drug use to be detrimental to their ability to properly do their job, then like any other employer, they should get fired.
How many of us would get 3 strikes turning up to work drunk, stoned, or whatever? We'd be out the door, no second chances.

[6one9]

"How many of us would get 3 strikes turning up to work drunk, stoned, or whatever? We'd be out the door, no second chances".

That example is a little misleading because drugs are recreational and players "probably" wont "turn up" stoned or drunk or watever, more of an after game/day off situation.

"First thing. Rugby league teams are not parents".

No but are they not large extended families/group of brothers?? And is that not what families do, help others out who are in trouble, or is that not how it works these days??


Kinda feel a little for Mitchell hahaha got made an example of, if it was Thurston would he have been shown the door just as quick??
Zero policies are all good to me, but I believe cases need to be dealt with seperatley. i.e case by case, not everyones situation is the same.



PEACE

[jenny]

What would happen, if a player is out and his drink is SPIKED! I mean it happens.
How would that be handled?

[Robbie_Dee]

Kinda feel a little for Mitchell hahaha got made an example of, if it was Thurston would he have been shown the door just as quick??

IMO, yes, he woulda been gone just like Sergeant! Cowboys are pretty darn strict on that sort of stuff!

[6one9]

Strict yes but Thurston is pivotal to their success and at the end of the day winning the premiership is what it is all about, IMO Mitchell was replaceable, Thurston is irreplaceable.


PEACE

[Capital_Shark]

First thing. Rugby league teams are not parents.
These are adults who have to take responsibility for their own lives.

I dunno if its quiet that black and white. A lot of players have been in brought up in a league club invironment since 16. Having people from the club and their managers do everything for them to ensure their main focus is footy.

IMO, yes, he woulda been gone just like Sergeant! Cowboys are pretty darn strict on that sort of stuff!

We'd like to think so, but no way Thurston would get the ****. Just as Johns would not get the sack from Newcastle or Locky from Brisbane.

[Future Star]

I dunno if its quiet that black and white. A lot of players have been in brought up in a league club invironment since 16. Having people from the club and their managers do everything for them to ensure their main focus is footy.



We'd like to think so, but no way Thurston would get the ****. Just as Johns would not get the sack from Newcastle or Locky from Brisbane.

I second both of those extremely good points.
Great Post!