- Nick Riewoldt urges AFL to update drug policy
- Players Association is resisting a stricter policy
- Footy great says it is a bad look for the players
St Kilda great Nick Riewoldt has reignited debate over the AFL‘s illicit drugs policy, calling for a stricter, more transparent code that names players who fail multiple drug tests – and slamming today’s stars for seeming to hold out for just the opposit.
Riewoldt, who played 336 games for the Saints, slammed the AFL Players Association’s resistance to a stricter drug policy, claiming it says terrible things about today’s stars, especially in light of scandals like Demons star Joel Smith getting a four-year ban after allegedly testing positive to cocaine.
‘It’s a shocking look for the players,’ he said on The Agenda Setters.
‘This reeks of players pushing back against a tougher drug code. Society has moved so far since this code was introduced.
‘It reeks of “leave us alone, we want to take drugs”. That’s what it looks like.’
Riewoldt went into more detail on Triple M’s Mick in the Morning, explaining that the current model isn’t fit for purpose in 2025.
Nick Riewoldt (pictured) has urged the AFL to update the illicit drug policy
Ex-Melbourne star Joel Smith (pictured) copped a four-year ban from the sport for testing positive to cocaine on match day in 2023
‘Society and issues around drug-based has moved so far since that code was introduced,’ he said.
‘It is time for a refresh, but the players are pushing back. Or at least the majority of players – it’s being reported – are pushing back on a tighter code.
‘The AFL leaked the target testing names to the drug-testing authorities – of players. So, the AFLPA and the players are pushing back on the AFL, saying, “We don’t want a tighter code because we don’t trust you”.
‘I think this is where the AFLPA need to be stronger; a stricter, tighter drug code for the players has to be a good thing, doesn’t it?’
Co-host Titus O’Reilly asked Riewoldt what he meant by ‘stricter’.
‘Fines for testing positive, naming of players (testing positive)… just greater ramifications around a positive test,’ said Riewoldt.
‘The removal of the loopholes that have allowed players to self-report and essentially get a get out of jail free card any time they take drugs.’
‘The other thing that’s pretty sketchy is the landscape of taking drugs. We’re not just talking about illegal behaviour; we’re talking about dangerous behaviour.
Riewoldt says the AFL Players Association’s resistance to a stricter drug policy is terrible optics for the playing cohort
‘You read all the time about these fentanyl issues, and you think you’re taking one thing, but you’re taking another.
‘A stricter drug code could only be a good thing for the players and the player’s health and long-term prospects from a health and wellbeing point of view.’
Molloy then asked what basis would a player be targeted for more testing and also suggested that naming players is a ‘strong call’.
Riewoldt explained that doing so would keep teams and players honest – players would only be outed after two strikes.
‘If a player tests positive to an out-of-season test or a hair test, they go into the targeted testing capsule, and then they’re just subject to more tests,’ he said.
‘There’s accountability and an educational set-up that occurs as well. The code as it stands is outdated.
‘Not (naming) on the first go. The trouble now is that you read ‘ankle injury’ or ‘finger injury’ (on the injury list), and there’s every chance that’s not the case.
‘Now, everyone is tarred with the same brush, and we’ve all heard the rumours. In this situation, only those who have tested positive will be named for that.’
