If your team mate was arrested last weekend, would you still want them to play? What if they just drank too much and had an embarrassing public spat with their partner? If the best player on your team was taking illegal recreational drugs, would you ban them from playing to encourage them to seek help? What about performance enhancing drugs?
For most recreational sports teams, you would probably not be too concerned about any of these questions. However recently, there have been a number of professional athletes suspended by their own team for these breaches. In the AFL players have been suspended for off field indiscretions at West Coast, Geelong, Collingwood and Fremantle. Most spectacularly, Michael Rasmussen was suspended by his team Rabobank from the Tour d’France when he had a virtually unassailable lead with 4 stages to go.
The official spin on these suspensions barely scratches the surface of the reasons behind these decisions. Rasmussen was apparently suspended because his team discovered he was lying about his whereabouts during training, and that’s why he missed his drug tests! It’s hard to imagine they considered this made any real difference, as they had full knowledge of his four missed drug tests prior to the Tour and had ample opportunity to suspend but chose not to. So why make this tough decision after ignoring public pressure for almost the entire race? Pressure from tour organisers and the French media may have had something to do with it – ‘protecting the brand’ is such a common phrase now in elite sport. Perhaps it was the fear of bad publicity should the team be stripped of the title after the race, and there may have even been threats of team penalties in future years. Whatever the reasons, it is likely that the decision was made for the benefit of Rabobank, not because the decision makers thought it was the moral decision.
The AFL suspensions also do not survive the morality test. This season Collingwood have suspended three junior players for a night out clubbing against team rules, yet failed to suspend stars Alan Didak or Chris Tarrant for infringements that led to police charges. West Coast eventually suspended Ben Cousins, which seems to have been a good decision given the positive effect on his health; however, they ignored his obvious health problems for at least six months and only made their decision after his substance abuse problem began to affect team harmony. Fremantle suspended Jeff Farmer for 6 weeks early in the season for another late night episode, but recently decided against any action for a similar infringement.
It is hard to understand what the clubs consider in making these decisions. At the time of Farmer’s initial harsh treatment, public perception seemed to be strongly against ‘arrogant footballers.’ Meanwhile, West Coast faced AFL threats to strip the Eagles of premiership points for player indiscretions. More recently, with Cousins’ positive return to football, the Dockers have decided that treatment is a better course of action. While it seems they have public support (or at least media support) for their chosen course of action, it seems ludicrous that this would be the basis for their decision.
Despite these inconsistencies, it is good to see drug cheats suspended and AFL clubs enforcing discipline – particularly for their younger members. Best of all, it is also good to see people supported through recovery. Hopefully these experiences have been learned from, and future decisions will be made for the best interests of the players involved rather than public perceptions.
