Stevo's Sting - The harsh reality of the AFL's drug problem

Twitter is too often the darky, dingy laneway of the mindless and spineless.

But it is also an avenue for unexpected wisdom.

As debate raged about the outing of the "Collingwood 11" and the weaknesses of the AFL's illicit drugs policy, one tweet cut to the core.

The fan, in a few short words, made four key points:
1. Illicit drug users support crime.
2. Illicit drug users encourage others.
3. Illicit drug users risk addiction.
4. And in doing so, illicit drug users risk consequent social issues we all have to bear.

It paints an illegal, evil picture.

There's no mention of "party", "recreational" or "social", the words that so often casually wander into this debate.

That tweet is brutal reality.

Some of the language around "illicit" drugs is too soft, warm, submissive and accepting.

EDDIE McGUIRE: Pies have been thrown under the bus

DAMAGE CONTROl: AFL defends drug code after Pies' report

How many times have we heard words along the line of "Illicit drug use in males between the age of 20 and 29 is prevalent and the group of AFL players mirrors society."

Well, it's a cop out. You've got to be better than that.

AFL players are professional athletes. They have to be considerably better than the Average Joe in that age group, surely.

They receive extra education. They are role models, like it or not. They have a responsibility and opportunity to lead the way on this issue. They are elite.

Some argue why they are any different to professionals of the same age. Doctors, lawyers etc.

There's a difference. Taking illicit drugs can ruin a player's career under the AFL's drug policy.

Everyone now knows after the Keeffe/Thomas saga at Collingwood that illicit substances can contain traces of performance enhancing drugs.

Test positive for that and you're facing a career threatening ban.

Lawyers and doctors may be able to safely dabble. Why, as an AFL player, would you take the risk?

The vast majority of AFL players are fine, upstanding men. Why, though, would a group continue to take stupid risks?

Had the players not agreed to testing, we wouldn't be talking about this.

And the AFL and the players must be congratulated for an off-season hair testing program, which was set up for research reasons only ....a fact that has been lost by some baying for "strikes".

Collingwood has every right to be filthy that somebody leaked a number to the media. Those recording positive tests in the off-season shouldn't be named and shamed. Really, they were just a willing part of an experiment.

Speaking to insiders, it appears some clubs are taking the experiment more seriously than others. If you assumed all players were hair tested, you were wrong.

The league pays for a minimum of 20 tests, and it is up to individual clubs if they want to pay for the rest. The mail is three clubs didn't pay for the full whack.

So if a hair testing ladder was ever published, we wouldn't be comparing apples with apples anyway.

Any form of testing for research reasons should be applauded, though. And congrats to the players for agreeing.

But it is difficult to accept the argument that players should be free to do as they please, like every Joe Average, on their own holidays and downtime.

Drugs are illegal. Drugs are evil.