An open letter to Senator Brandis concerning elite athletes and illegal recreational drugs

Dear Senator,

Well aren’t you quite the Nostrodamus? Who would have thought that after all this time pestering the AFL about their drugs policy that Ben Cousins would bob up with yet another undignified brush with the law? His timing could hardly have been better, huh?

I recently heard you say that your policy of testing elite athletes for illegal recreational drugs is not about targeting athletes simply because they are athletes. You say that the policy isn’t a question of ‘targeting’ anyone. You say that you want to test athletes because they are ‘role models’. Have I got this right?

But if elite athletes really are role models, as you say, isn’t it because they are athletes? I’ve also heard you say that that when a person becomes a professional athlete, like it or not, they become a role model. In other words, an athlete is a role model is an athlete. This makes the terms interchangeable, doesn’t it? So except if I’m a star in a sport hardly anyone cares about, say scissors-paper-rock, then you really are out to get me if I enjoy a bit of weed, aren’t you?

What I can’t understand about all of this is why no one is talking discrimination. I mean, in this litigious age you would have thought the lawyers would be queuing up. I’m not a lawyer but I reckon the case would go something like this.

First, counsel representing aggrieved athletes points out that there is no obvious reason why our government should target – oops, sorry, single out - elite athletes. After all, safety’s not the issue here is it? You plan to test all year round, don’t you Senator Brandis, not just when people are about to run onto the field.

Before resuming their seat, counsel adds that professional athletes are, in many respects, normal honest workers. Why should they have to endure constant surveillance that has little if any bearing on their ability to do their job?

It’s now your turn Senator. Your man gets to his feet, unable to conceal a confident grin. You’ve briefed him well. He’s listened to your arguments. He’s ready to go.

He reminds the court, as you have been reminding the country, that the people are with you. Sports men and women are role models; everyone knows that. Impressionable youth look up to their sports stars. Furthermore, it’s all part of the government’s highly effective zero tolerance drugs policy.

To ram home the point, counsel implores the court to think about the damage that drugs can do, to hold the image of a sports-mad teenage boy in its mind and to ask what kind of message it would send if the policy was scrapped.

Just between you and me, Senator, this argument seems a bit cute. Over the years your government has put a lot of stock in "sending messages". But the existence or absence of a policy can only "send a message" once it exists. Like the good Lord, you gaveth the policy and it is yours to taketh away. But what message did the policy send before it existed Senator? What if we had simply left sleeping dogs well alone?

Summing up, our learned friend repeats your claim that it is legitimate to hold sports stars to higher standards than other professions and that (he seems not to see the contradiction) the government’s policy only requires athletes to follow the same laws as everyone else.

So…. athletes are different but the same, Senator?

I can’t see far enough into the future to tell you the verdict but I reckon I can read your mind as you sit there listening to proceedings. The idea of a legal challenge has come as a bit of a shock. You’re thinking that sport is a quintessentially Australian symbol of fair play and clean living. The voters want you to protect sport. If drugs can spoil the moral authority of sport, where will we look for guidance. Religion? Enough said.

As a humble sports fan I’m guessing that neither defendant nor litigant will ask my advice. But if they did I would ask two questions.

First, I’d ask what evidence is there that the drug taking behaviour of young Australians is in any sense – large or small - a product of the drug taking behaviour of elite athletes? Actually, this is a simple question. There isn’t any evidence, something anyone who cares to look will soon find out. But we already know this, don’t we Senator? If there was any evidence you would have drawn our attention to it, wouldn’t you?

Second, I’d ask whether I have really understood the reasoning behind your policy. As it stands, you seem to be saying that the government is justified in discriminating against a group of people because public opinion is with you.

It all boils down to this, doesn’t it Senator? This policy rests on your no doubt correct assertion that if you bowled up to the average punter in the pub, they would agree with the proposition that sport stars are role models.

But what does this actually mean? Sports stars are famous, right? A small percentage of them get paid a huge amount of money. Because of this, lots of young people are attracted to the idea of becoming a sports star. But how, where and when do illegal drugs come into this? Is it possible, Senator, that you are confusing the notoriously rubbery concept of ‘role models’ with plain old celebrity. Aren’t elite athletes just celebrities rather than moral blue prints for a generation of gullible youth?

I could go on but I think you get the idea. I could ask whether there are any grounds (other than pub talk) for thinking your policy of testing athletes for illegal recreational drugs is likely to make any difference but my guess is that you’d remind me of the need to "send the right message".

Fair enough. But I can’t help thinking that if we simply stopped testing athletes for recreational drugs the "message" would take care of itself. Don’t ask don’t tell, right Senator, and then we could leave the police to do the work they’re paid to do.

Although I don’t doubt the sincerity of your intentions, I can’t help thinking that you’re creating the problem you’re trying to fix. After all, the idea of the athlete as role model is hardly more than a generation old. We’ve always loved our sports stars, true enough, but it’s really only since big business got its teeth into sport that the curious idea of athletes as symbols for moral conduct has been foisted upon us.

Senator, the more you tell children that athletes are "role models" (whatever a role model is) the greater the significance of their inevitable, personal, human frailties.

Not only does your policy, based on what you see as the compulsory moral responsibility of athletes, make it easier for people to feel virulently self righteous about the Ben Cousins of the world, it also makes it harder for all of us to see athletes for what they are: athletes. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yours in sport,

Michael Gard.