Sports stars and the media don’t make for comfortable bed-fellows. Apart from the endless fight over who gets to be on top, neither side really trusts the other.

There can be no denying the symbiotic relationship that exists between the two. Modern professional sport cannot exist without the huge sums paid for broadcast rights directly and the potential exposure that those rights gives to club sponsors. Equally, broadcasters and other media use their broadcast rights to sell advertising, the lifeblood of commercial broadcasting.

But for both parties, the relationship is akin to keeping a wolf as a pet. They are glamorous partners that outsiders are envious of but, every now and then, they will turn on their handler and severely maul them. Of course, both the media and sports stars would have a different opinion on who is the wolf and who is the handler.

'It’s time too for the players to get over it and stop pretending that there aren't drug and alcohol problems in the sport'


A prime example of this tortuous relationship has surfaced in AFL circles this past couple of weeks with Australia’s Channel Seven, one of the two free-to-air AFL broadcasters. A reporter from the network’s Melbourne news room purchased the personal health records of two players. The reporter's source claimed to have found the records in a gutter outside a drug rehabilitation centre – seriously!

The implausibility of that story is staggering. No-one really believes that the records were “found”. The sourcing of the records is now the subject of a police inquiry and two people have been arrested, but that is a side issue compared to whether Channel 7 should have paid for and used the information.

It’s a difficult line that the media need to walk. On one hand, drug use is directly relevant to the sport. Drug use, recreational or performance enhancing, cannot be defended and any right to privacy is forfeited when the decision to take the drugs is taken. On the other hand, however, any individual’s personal medical records are sacrosanct and the idea of someone selling them for profit is reprehensible.

The AFL Players Association has responded by snubbing all representatives of Channel Seven and have even gone so far as to threaten a boycott of the Brownlow Medal (presented to the seasons MVP) presentation function. Adelaide Crows forward and vice-president of the AFL Player's Association, Brett Burton, flagged the boycott in a press conference last week.

Burton stated that the ban would remain in place until Channel 7 apologised, withdrew its ongoing court action to make the players names public and gave assurance that they would not make the players names public in the future. Other players, notably Kangaroos forward Drew Petrie, Sydney's Leo Barry and Brisbane's Chris Scott, publicly supported the ban.

While the decision by one part of the network was – to use the words of AFL chief Andrew Demetriou – abhorrent, it is equally silly to punish the entire network for that transgression when the relationship is so important for the game. It is also ridiculous for the players to blackmail the broadcaster into giving blanket assurances, regardless of whether circumstances change at some future date.

No credible news organisation could, or should, give such assurances. Indeed, Channel 7's news boss, Steve Carey, maintains that the network did nothing wrong. Nevertheless, the network has blinked first and given assurances not to identify the players involved and withdrawn court actions fighting the injunctions sought by the Players Association.

It’s time too for the players to get over it and stop pretending that there aren't drug and alcohol problems in the sport. The drugs in question are allegedly illegal as well as being in contravention of the AFL’s anti-doping policy. Rightly or wrongly, sports stars are in positions of influence and we hold them to a higher standard. Yes, they are entitled to privacy, but the issue of drugs is directly relevant to their sport and that makes them fair game. There are some ethical issues here, but they are not all Channel 7's responsibility.


The real issue that is being ignored in all of this is the soft anti-drug policy of the AFL. Rather than taking a firm stand on recreational drug use, the league is taking the softly, softly approach, relying on counselling and time in a room with puppies and fluffy bunnies. They don’t even tell the player's club – their employers –of the test results until the second positive test.

It takes three strikes before the tests are made public. All this while everyone else enforcing zero tolerance – it makes you laugh really, or it would if it wasn't so serious.

Should the AFL clean up its act before it whines about the media? Should recreational drug use be treated differently from performance-enhancing doping? Post your comment below or submit an article to Sportingo.