Probably because the AFL are much better at flushing out drug addicts than the NRL. Ben Cousins is the only proven drug addict to come out of the WCE, the rest of them are rumours and innuendo.
The NRL and the AFL both come under the WADA (World Anti Doping Agency) code and they are both tested by ASADA (Australian Sports Anti Doping Agency). They can be tested in competition ie - at training and after games, and out of competition ie - in the off season, at home at any time. The WADA code is the standard for all professional sports in the world including the Olympics.
Now the AFL were the first to introduce an illicit drug policy in 2005 to supposedly combat illicit drug use in their game. (bullsh*t) All this policy was designed to do was cover up a growing epidemic that they didn't know how to control. I can tell you first hand that illicit or recreational drug use in all the professional codes is rife. I know this because i've played league at that level for a number of years and i've rubbed shoulders with AFL, Rugby Union and even cricket players at times.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Sport/NRL-clubs-to-introduce-drugs-policy/2006/11/30/1164777707152.html
Sadly the NRL decided to adopt in part the AFL's contraversial illicit drugs policy much to the dismay of the Federal Government who, quite rightly, believe that there is no transparency in the AFL's policy. All of the statistics that the AFL produce each year come from their own research. There is no independant reseach or analysis done, they just expect you to believe what they say each year. I guess they bank on there being plenty of idiots like you out there pet who will believe anything they say.
Both the AFL and the NRL will tell you each year that tests have gone up x amount and positive results have gone down by x amount. Firstly, how do we know this is true? Because they say it is? And secondly, if the statistics are right, are they really winning the battle on recreational drug use or are players finding ways to beat the system.
The most common illicit drugs in sport, and in society for that matter, are cocaine, ecstacy and marijuhana. Cocaine and ecstacy stay in your system for about 48 hours to 72 hours tops, Marijuhana stays for a little longer, it can be detected up to a few weeks later depending on how often someone uses it. What is stopping a player going out on a bender on a friday night after a game and turning up monday afternoon for training knowing that he is clean? Or if he is not 100% sure he calls in sick on monday and returns tuesday. Nothing is stopping them and they have been doing it for a number of years now.
Here is the AFL's illicit drug policy in a nutshell -
* 3 strikes * This means that after a first offence you get a small fine which is suspended anyway. By law it is to remain confidential and the club cannot sack you. After your second offence you get a small ban, which is also suspened. Once again, it is to remain confidential and the club cannot sack you. On a third offence you can potentially face a maximum of 18 weeks ban and your confidentiality protection is wavered and the club has the RIGHT to sack you. If a player tests positive TWICE under this code at the SAME club he can then go and sign for another club and that club, nor the public will have any knowledge of the players previous drug history. Legally the only person that can be notified is the new club's medical officer and that is only if a player tests positive TWICE at his previous club. The medical officer is bound by a confidentiality agreement anyway so he can't tell anyone...
So, under this system a player could test positive twice at one club and then go to another and test positive twice, then go to another club and test positive twice again and so on and A) at no stage can he be named; B) at no stage can any of the clubs legally sack him; and C) none of the clubs will have any record of the players previous offences. WHAT A FRIGGIN JOKE!
As I said earlier, unfortunately the NRL decided to go down a similar path but after much debate the decided on a two strikes policy which works much the same as the AFL's three strikes. I much prefer this as I still believe that everyone deserves a second chance but not a 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. The thing that I hate about both policies is that if you sign with another club effectively your 'slate' is wiped clean. Your new club has no knowledge if they are buying someone with a monkey on their shoulder or not and not even the governing body (AFL or NRL) keep records of individuals, they just record the amount of positive tests each year.
The NRL claim they are responsible for the first wide ranging testing program for performance-enhancing and recreational drugs in Australian Sport and that the use of drugs in the code is minuscule compared to previous years. How do we really know that? On, that's right because they tell us...
The AFL have recently adopted a series of improvements to it's illicit drug testing policy including more tests and... wait for it... groundbreaking VOLUNTARY hair sample testing. Yes that's right, voluntary. I bet the drug users are lining up for that one! It's all just one big PR exercise, they WANT everyone to think everything is ok because neither code could handle the damage that would be caused if people knew the extent of the problem.
Now let's go back to your original comment about AFL being much better at flusing out drug addicts than the NRL. Well, pet nothing could be further from the truth. The AFL were the first to introduce a drug policy to PROTECT drug addicts like Ben Cousins and co. WELL DONE AFL!
So Pet please refrain from making completely unfounded statements with no basis whatsoever on topics you know nothing about. Stick to conversations about K Mart catalogues, breakfast cereal ads and make-up because your i'll equipped to talk intelligently on this topic and, like you did just now, you will get 'slaughtered'.
THE END
