Loading Nothing within AFL football is more misunderstood than the illicit drugs code and the unwelcome fact that a proportion of footballers use those illegal substances in their spare time. The highly brand-protective AFL is not blameless in this confusion, either. The first points to make are that the AFL testing is voluntary by the players - they don't have to do this - and that it is completely separate from the WADA code, which tests and polices athletes to stamp out cheating with performance-enhancing drugs. The confusion of PEDs with illicit drugs is a genuine epidemic. Players who take illicit drugs are not cheating, unless they test positive to using the likes of cocaine, ecstasy or methamphetamines (stimulants) on game day, or if - as with Collingwood's Josh Thomas and Lachie Keeffe - they take some coke contaminated with a steroid or alike. But some of you, for whatever reason, have conflated "cheating" drugs with the substances that merely cause harm to an individual. There was always a risk this perception would take hold when the AFL set up their own, still far from perfect, drugs code in 2004.

Loading The players did not have to sign up for this testing regime, under which they can supposedly be rubbed out on the second strike. But this never happens, because of the way the policy is designed, which is to prevent players reaching that stage. There are mental health exemptions and players can be stood down from playing by the AFL medicos if they're not responding to their treatment. To many of you, the AFL's policy - the results of which are no longer published - doesn't pass the sniff test, so to speak. The AFL's role in the confusion is this: their policy is mainly about the welfare of the player, about treating him, making sure he stops taking drugs (and doesn't test positive on game day), but they also present the regime - one strike, two strikes etc - as punitive, when the record shows otherwise. Gerard Whateley took calls throughout Tuesday morning on the drugs topic on his SEN program, and found a mix of views, with the most vehement voices being the hardliners. Whateley reckoned equal anger was also directed at the AFL, not just players, "for not being up-front" about what's going on, via their secretive policy.

Contrary to what some suggest on social media, most employees aren't drug-tested in the workplace regularly. If they are, there are usually practical reasons - they drive trucks, fly planes, operate dangerous machinery etc. In any case, why do some of you care so much about what footballers get up to? They chase an inflated ball around on weekends and only pose a public menace during the bye weeks at nightclubs. Yes, the same question can be asked of journalists - part of it is voyeurism. Moreover, have you really considered what would happen, One-Strikers, if you were given your wish and the players were rubbed out at the first positive? It's round one, your team is playing before 70,000 people. In addition to the two or three injured players from your best side, there's another couple of midfielders or forwards absent because they've been rubbed out for inhaling a line - or, for the truly draconian fan - for taking a pill at a music festival in November, leading to a positive hair test. My guess is that you don't really want to see your gun forward sitting at home - he'd be too worried about the TV cameras to even attend the game.