The Hawthorn onballer became the first player to record a third strike under the code after he was found slumped in his car in the Melbourne suburb of Berwick as the Hawks prepared for their elimination final against Fremantle a fortnight ago.
Under the terms of the code, a third strike saw Tuck publicly named and go before a tribunal which had the power to fine and suspend him, but ultimately settled on a 12-week ban.
The club pledged its strong support for Tuck in the future, but coach Alastair Clarkson expressed his disappointment at not being informed of the issue until it became public - a position echoed by several other senior figures at other clubs.
Under the terms of the code, only the club doctor is informed when a first or second strike is incurred, which the AFLMAO feel is a key part of the code which has the welfare of the players at its core.
“Some clubs have stated they have a right to know. If they could guarantee that the club’s approach would be entirely welfare-orientated that could be workable,” a statement released by the association on Wednesday read.
“But coaches, CEO’s and presidents are not drug experts, trained counsellors or skilled medical personnel.
“Of course senior club personnel are concerned about their player’s health and welfare.
“This cannot be denied. Unfortunately they cannot guarantee that any aspects of information surrounding a first or second positive drug test will be retained within a circle of well-meaning club personnel.
“Clubs leak like sieves and it would be highly likely that such information could reach other people and be detrimental to a player’s future. Club doctors, however, are bound to adhere to patient confidentiality. They can only release patients or players private and personal information with their permission.”
The code does not preclude players who have incurred a strike from informing club officials other than the doctor.
The AFL doctors expressed their frustration at the lack of understanding of some critics of the code, which operates alongside, but distinct from, the performance-enhancing World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) drug testing code that the AFL continues to comply with.
The association also applauded the involvement of the AFL Players’ Association, which has maintained its support for the illicit drug code for the past five years.
“By agreeing to participate in this ground breaking code the AFLPA have determined that the player using illicit drugs is likely to need help and education,” the statement continued.
“Alcohol and drug experts say this approach is far more appropriate than punishment in the first instance. So this policy is principally about the welfare of the player.
“If a player offends twice he is deemed to have a potentially more serious problem. The common public perception is he must have been stupid to try drugs again. But often the situation is more complex than that, and the player needs more intense support, counselling and possibly other treatment. But at both these stages the model we follow is a welfare model.
“While the aims of the policy are to set a strong example of social leadership, combined with a welfare approach for the players, it must eventually have a punitive consequence for a repeat offender. This is why after two positive tests the player suffers a major punishment if he offends a third time.”
