Advertisement

CFL and CFLPA respond to drug policy criticisms, but changes may be needed

Andrew Bucholtz
Saint Mary's linebacker Jonathan Langa (centre), the 2014 Presidents' Trophy winner as CIS defensive player of the year, was one of five CFL prospects who failed a test this year for performance-enhancing drugs, but he was still drafted 20th overall by Hamilton and won't miss any games.

The CFL has been under fire this week for its drug policy, with Christiane Ayotte publicly bashing the league and telling CBC her lab won't test CFL samples going forward. Ayotte is the director of the Montreal-based INRS-Insitut Armand-Frappier Research Centre, the only permanent lab in Canada accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency. WADA itself weighed in Wednesday, saying in a statement that the CFL has "room for improvement" and that they've reached out to the league to have a meeting about the drug policy. The CFL and the CFLPA responded with a joint statement from CFL commissioner Jeffrey Orridge and CFLPA president Scott Flory Wednesday night, saying they believe the current policy is largely fair:

"We are united in our commitment to safeguard the health and safety of our athletes and the integrity of our game. That is why, four years ago this month, we introduced the CFL/CFLPA Policy to Prevent the Use of Performance Enhancing Drugs, as part of our Collective Bargaining Agreement.

It is a joint policy that works for our league. The policy's structure is based on education, prevention and rehabilitation. Public disclosure is not made for a first offence only, as our goal is to create behaviour change through assessments and rehabilitation administered by professionals.

Repeat offenders are subjected to escalating penalties: a three game suspension for a second offence, a one year suspension for a third offence and a lifetime ban for a fourth offence. We are confident the program is working: as we enter our fifth season under the policy, no player has received a suspension as no player has tested positive a second time. Any policy can be improved and strengthened which is why we are in dialogue about how we can make ours better.

It's that lack of public disclosure and punishment for a first offence that has Ayotte annoyed, and she's particularly bugged by the way the CFL doesn't suspend university players who enter the league with positive tests. As discussed this May, five CFL prospects tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs at the national and regional combines in March, but while they all received four-year bans at the university level, the CFL won't be suspending them. Three of those players were drafted with little if any hit to their draft stock, and their only punishment is to be placed in the CFL drug-testing program as a first offender. That also happened last year with Quinn Smith, who tested positive and was still picked in the first round. While that's more than the league technically has to do (considering that these postive tests came before these players were officially in the CFL), it's not enough to please Ayotte:

"What is the point in testing and issuing positive results if nothing is being done?" Ayotte said. "That puts us in contradiction of our code of ethics that comes with WADA." ...

"I found the CFL was silent," Ayotte said. "They were recruiting dopers."  ...

Ayotte said she thinks the league does not conduct enough drug tests and it is not serious enough about testing for PEDs, so her centre has taken a stand.

"I felt that we had a responsibility not continuing to give a gold stamp of approval," she said.

She also believes Canadian student athletes carry a mentality they need to dope to reach their potential and that only reinforces that belief. Ayotte said athletes who test positive should be kicked out of university football.

"It may look tough, but what about the other young men who are trying to get there and use no dope to get there because they think it's a fair play," she said.

Ayotte has a point there, especially when it comes to incoming university athletes. Some of her suggestions, such as saying the House of Commons should hold an inquiry like the one the U.S. Congress held into Major League Baseball, go way too far (and it's worth pointing out that the congressional inquiries didn't actually do much), but the CFL's current policy seems way too lenient for first-time offenders. That's particularly the case with those entering from the university level, and what makes things difficult there is that the majority (not all, but the majority) of university football drug tests are done at the CFL combines. Thus, there would seem to be substantial incentive for players to use PEDs to bulk up in the months and years leading up to the combine, apologize and say they're sorry when caught, and then stop using to avoid actual penalties.

It does sound like things may change on that front, though. The joint CFL/CFLPA statement says they're concerned about the numbers of university athletes testing positive and are investigating policy changes:

"This past spring, a number of CIS players attending the CFL Combine tested positive for banned substances under our policy, including some who were subsequently drafted into our league. We found this deeply concerning for the integrity of the league and especially the health and safety of all current and future players.

We are actively looking at ways to further deter the use of physically harmful performance enhancing drugs prior to players becoming professionals. Our goal is to provide a safe, fair and level playing field for all players in the CFL."

Of course, arguments can be made in favour of the current policy's first step and its quiet treatment too. Ticats' guard Peter Dyakowski made some good points on that front on Twitter Tuesday:

That's a good case in favour of the current model's treatment-focused approach. However, from this corner, treatment and punishment don't have to be mutually exclusive. We're also talking about suspensions, not prison terms. The rest of the policy isn't bad (and it's actually far ahead of many other professional leagues in some respects, such as testing for HGH), but what if the first offence kept its treatment focus, but also included making the case public and giving the player a one-game suspension? The players' association is sure not to like that, but this is a league that's given plenty of people second chances after public misdeeds, including domestic violence accusations. With that in mind, it's extremely hard to picture players being run out of the CFL over a single positive drug test.

It's worth noting that the CFL's drug policy remains in effect despite Ayotte's protests. Testing will continue, and if she keeps up her boycott, samples will be tested at a U.S. lab instead. There's still a good policy framework here, not total anarchy. However, that doesn't mean it couldn't use some changes. The treatment and education elements could remain for a first offence, but adding some actual punishment as well could work as a deterrent and help to promote a cleaner game. The CFL's decision to try and work with its players through treatment and education isn't a bad one, but that doesn't mean that the first strike has to be free.