The AFL management, the AFL Players' Association and the League's medical fraternity met for nine hours on Wednesday together with a host of outside experts, originally at the behest of Collingwood chief executive Gary Pert to discuss the League's illicit drugs policy and the overall issue of work-life balance among footballers.
After nine hours, they were all singing from the same song sheet. The contentious three-strike policy will remain, although elements of it will be tweaked.
Alcohol a key issue, says AFL
In addition, there was widespread agreement that the football community – chiefly the clubs and the League – might have "dropped the ball" on the issue of alcohol and the importance of players developing interests outside of football that will help set them up for when they leave the game.
A working party comprising the League, the AFLPA, medical experts and three club chief executives – Essendon's Ian Robson, Gold Coast's Travis Auld and Pert – will meet soon and it is likely that the self-notification loophole that spares players from having a strike recorded against them will be eradicated, perhaps as soon as the start of the season.
But the bonhomie that marked Wednesday's proceedings might not last much longer because beneath the goodwill, there remains a firm commitment from key parties to stick to their guns when it comes to the thorny question of who should be informed when a player is facing his second strike.
AFLPA chief executive Matt Finnis made clear that there are "fundamental pillars of welfare and privacy" that govern the players' desire that only the club medical officer be made aware of a second strike.
And despite the protestations of club officials who would like more people at their level to be brought into the picture at this stage, the AFL medical fraternity will remain firmly in the same corner as the players.
Put simply, the doctors don't trust footy club officials and in particular, the coaches, when it comes to the welfare of players with drug and mental health issues.
The scenario of a coach or a chief executive knowing the identity of a player on two strikes, then moving to a new club, taking that information with them and applying it to trade and list management discussions, is mentioned regularly by the League's medical fraternity.
They also cite examples of coaches playing the "welfare card" when it comes to troubled players and then dropping them from the side or offloading them altogether as further examples of the "win at all costs" mentality that would be at odds with player welfare.
"The drugs policy will disappear in a cloud of some," said one AFL medical identity when asked about the prospect of clubs learning the identity of players with two strikes to their name.
The doctors will shift their position slightly and will allow the release of more data for the clubs to digest. In addition to the general figures released by the AFL each year with respects to the drugs policy, clubs will be given information specific to them and how their figures compare to the League average.
Pert's strident argument on Wednesday that the clubs won't use any information about a player's drug habit for what he called "the worst intentions" was well heard by the rest of those in the room, particularly given that he provided the inspiration for the meeting.
But it is also fair to say, perhaps not so well received.
You can follow AFL Media senior writer Ashley Browne on Twitter @afl_hashbrowne
