Banned Camp.

There used to be a saying that sport reflected life. That often it was unfair.

Of course this was in the main referring to sporting competition, and how some days decisions go your way, and others they do not. Some days when you deserve to lose you win, and others when you should have won you end up losing.

Stan Lazaridis is a Western Australian footballer who from playing in the State League rose through the National Soccer League with West Adelaide to earn a contract in the English Premier League with West Ham United. He would also play for Birmingham City and help guide them to Premier League status. He was part of the Olyroos side at the Sydney Olympic Games, and went on to make 60 appearances for the Socceroos, and was part of the 2006 Australian World Cup squad. He also played in the Socceroos’s famous victory over England at Upton Park in 2003, and was booked for “unsporting behaviour” when he clashed with England captain David Beckham.

It is fair to say that as a footballer and a man Stan Lazaridis was respected.

He returned to Australia at the end of his career and looked to finish playing in the A-League with Perth Glory. Sadly it was not to be the farewell he hoped for, or his career deserved.

His last game in national colours was against Paraguay in Brisbane on the 7th of October 2006. In January 2007, it was announced that Lazaridis had returned a positive drug test for anti-androgen Finasteride, a prescription alopecia medication, which was banned at the time. The test had been taken in November 27th.

In January 2007 Lazaridis was granted a therapeutic-use exemption by the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee because he suffered from alopecia areata, an autoimmune disease that causes hair loss.

The drug he took was said to be used as a masking agent for other more serious drugs, and a 12 month ban was the minimum for the offence. Sadly for Lazaridis, finasteride was removed from the banned list soon after he was banned. This was in a large measure as a result of the widespread discontent that followed his case becoming public.

Lazaridis was banned for one year on the 28th of August 2007 which was backdated to the date of his positive test.

Few could believe that Lazaridis would take drugs to enhance his performance, or as a masking agent. He was given what he described as “a fair hearing” and was happy that the tribunal “made it clear in their findings that I have a legitimate reason for taking the medicine. The FFA Anti Doping Tribunal stated in their verdict that I’m not a drug cheat.”

The issue was that Lazaridis had taken the medication before the approval had been received from the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee even though an application had been lodged.

Unfortunately he still had to suffer a one year suspension, which meant he was not allowed to play or train with Perth Glory. He had to train alone away from the club to remain fit for action when the ban ended. ( A SADA Day in Australian Sport, There Probably Never Was)

In October 2017 Malaysian hockey goalkeeper Kumar Subramaniam failed a doping test. Like Lazaridis, those who knew him could not believe the news. For here again was an individual respected nationally and internationally as a player and as a man.

Kumar failed a doping test during the Asia Cup in Dhaka, Bangladesh when a small amount of sibutramine.was found in his urine sample. A drug on the World Anti Doping banned substance list.

At the time few could believe the findings, as Kumar was known to be an extremely diligent athlete. He had at the time played 295 games for his country and had undergone over 10 doping tests in his career. All which had produced negative results.

Like Lazaridis, Kumar was not allowed to train with his national team mates from the time his positive test was announced. He spent six months “on the outside.” Throughout that time he was adamant that he had not taken any performance enhancing drugs.

Sibutramine is a drug normally used for slimming purposes. It was unlikely that he would have needed to take such a drug, or that it would have in anyway enhanced his performance. No one could understand how it came into his system.

In April 2018 he was cleared, when the explanation that he had simply eaten some chocolate that his wife had brought home from an office party not realising that it was a slimming chocolate, was accepted.

Unfortunately, both of these athletes, who inadvertently took substances on the banned substance list had to sit out a year and six months, and could not train with their teams at all during that time.

Why mention these two situations?

Well unfortunately the “suspension” of Australian hockey player Tom Craig is really causing a rift within the hockey community. Craig as most people will know was arrested in Paris at the Olympic games for purchasing cocaine. Not The Footy show tried to get to the bottom of who should have been responsible for any sanction handed down, but it appeared that the various world bodies all wanted to pass the buck. They also chose to ignore their own explanations of what is “in competition,” which would have a bearing on the penalty handed down. (I Don’t Wanna Talk About It )

Hockey Australia’s statement after an internal investigation by their Integrity unit read as follows:

Following an investigation into the arrest involving National Men’s Hockey Team athlete Tom Craig at the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris, Hockey Australia’s Integrity Unit has imposed a 12-month suspension. Six months of this suspension will be served fully, with the remaining six months fully suspended, contingent upon meeting conduct and behavioural requirements.

During the suspension, Craig will be prohibited from playing in any match, competition, or event at any level sanctioned or organised by Hockey Australia, including the upcoming Hockey One League and FIH Pro League seasons. Additionally, Craig is required to complete mandatory training and education programs as part of his sanction.

Craig will remain eligible for selection in the 2025 National Men’s Hockey Squad, which is expected to be announced at the end of the year. Tom has had access to all of the athlete support services under our program and he will continue to do so throughout his suspension. His welfare remains our priority.

The sanction takes effect from Monday, 9 September 2024.

It is fair to say that many hockey fans in Australia and across the globe expected this to be a ban similar to those imposed on Lazaridis and Kumar. However, the ban only stood in Australia, and Craig was allegedly approved by Hockey Australia to play in Germany, and go into the auction for the Hockey India League, where he was picked up by Tamil Nadu Dragons. All during the six months of his suspension.

Cynics believed that Hockey Australia wanted to look like they had taken action, but also wanted to ensure that the player stayed match fit ready for his return when the ban reached its end. Hence why he was given the all clear to play overseas; although the German deal was done before his arrest. These cynics may in fact have a point.

What has provoked greater ire from many hockey fans is the news that since returning to Australia Craig has in fact been training with the Australian national squad. As the Hockey Australia statement said they would give the athlete “access to support services,” many believing that this would be counselling in relation to the drug issue. Many are asking is it appropriate to have a player training with the national squad while suspended for such an offence?

Kumar and Lazaridis were not allowed any access to the high performance facilities and support mechanisms.

This raises the question as to whether it is a gross injustice to these two athletes who inadvertently took banned substances that they were completely excluded from their teams, as opposed to someone who deliberately broke the rules and was caught, being allowed to continue as normal?

When contacted, a spokesperson for Hockey Australia stated “he is only banned from playing.”

What example does this set to those young players in the game? Does it set a precedent for others who may get caught in the future?

Those who have contacted NTFS are of the strong opinion that heads must roll within the national body, but whose heads?

Some have stated that the board have shown a lack of leadership throughout this issue, and have kept remarkably silent. Some have stated that this silence has given them cause to have a lack of confidence in those on the board whose responsibility is to protect the integrity of the sport.

Certainly one feels that there should be a review of those whose portfolio encompasses high performance, as this has brought the once highly respected Australian program into disrepute.

Others have contacted us asking how a player who is currently suspended can be allowed to be a part of a youth coaching event? Some asked whether following his arrest Craig would be granted his working with children clearance.

First up the academy is a private company and so ultimately it is their call as to whether they employ Craig. However, Hockey Australia’s statement said that Craig “will be prohibited from playing in any match, competition, or event at any level sanctioned or organised by Hockey Australia.” Did Epic Hockey Academy require Hockey Australia to sanction this event? If so, and they did, Hockey Australia has failed to enforce their own ban.

What is interesting is Epic Hockey Coaching has on their website under ” Our Values” and under a sub-heading titled “Culture and Integrity” the following claim, “Zero tolerance for poor behaviours.” It would appear that they do not quite live up to that claim, and see forgiveness as being more important.

Some may judge them for their decision, and the company cannot complain for on the same section of their website they state that they “acknowledge and assume responsibility for our actions and decisions.”

As for the Working with Children situation, while obviously the NSW government department responsible for this could not advise us on an individual’s status, and we did not ask for such information, they were very clear in explaining the considerations that are made before such clearance is approved. These are shared here:

Working with Children Check

Schedule 2 of the WWC Act lists disqualifying records for Working with Children Check Applicants.

Schedule 1 lists records that trigger a risk assessment.

However, the Children’s Guardian is not limited by Schedule 1 risk assessment triggers if circumstances warrant a risk assessment to be conducted.

All Working with Children Check applications with relevant records are reviewed to determine if they should be disqualified, cleared, or referred for a risk assessment to determine the potential risk to children and young people.

Risk assessment factors include:

• the applicant’s conduct. The seriousness of any offence. How long ago they occurred
• The applicant’s age at the time of the offence, their age now and their conduct since
• age of the any victim, vulnerability, and their relationship to the applicant
• the likelihood of recurrence and impact on children.

Under 5C of the Act:

1)  A person’s criminal history includes—

(a)  convictions (including convictions that have been spent, quashed or set aside or for which a pardon has been granted), despite anything to the contrary in the Criminal Records Act 1991, and

(b) criminal charges, whether or not heard, proven, dismissed, withdrawn or discharged, and

(c)  convictions or findings to which section 579 of the Crimes Act 1900 applies (despite the provisions of that section).

What is sad is to hear so many people who clearly care about the game are frustrated at how the lack of leadership by Hockey Australia and it board has made Australia not only look bad in the world of hockey, but also in the sporting world. The announcement of a punishment which has then had little or no impact on the player is embarrassing. To have the national high performance program believe it is okay to have a player training while banned is truly astonishing.

As someone once said “nothing will kill a great employee faster than watching you tolerate a bad one.” What will be the fallout from all of this? As one feels that hockey is going to pay a heavy price for the poor handling of this unwanted situation.