PLAYERS are entitled to feel a little peeved.
In a bid to benefit the community as role models and protect player wellbeing, they agreed to be part of an illicit drugs policy that was designed in consultation with the best medical experts.
And they are smashed from pillar to post in the court of public opinion.
Worse, some critics question the players' commitment to supporting the health and wellbeing of their peers because they want to tread carefully when change is demanded.
Players sceptical on drugs policy changes
Many players agree the deterrents for breaching the policy should be stronger and come earlier.
But they also think counselling, which is prescribed after the first breach, should focus on assisting players to learn more about themselves and the reasons why they may have succumbed to temptation.
They have seen it work for their peers under the current policy and know the value of anonymity when they are dealing with personal issues as young men.
They also have some justification for questioning who within clubs should have the right to the testing results.
They need to be convinced that those who do receive the information have the expertise to deal with each situation.
Some have already raised questions about the extent of what was understood to be a comprehensive in-season hair testing program.
Those questions underline that the values and expertise of football managers, CEOs, player development managers and – it must be said – doctors, vary depending on the club.
Some clubs are better prepared to manage situations that arise than others.
Having said that, it's hard not to have sympathy for those such as Collingwood CEO Gary Pert who have a genuine desire to ensure everyone who joins their club enters an environment that is positive for their health and wellbeing.
They also know what deters players within their group from certain behaviour and there is some logic in the argument that a player would not take illicit drugs for fear a positive test would result in a club official other than the doctor knowing they had done drugs.
But it's also worth reminding people that CEOs are made aware of trends within their club in relation to illicit drugs and there remains significant uncertainty as to the value of them knowing about specific individuals.
In fact, does anyone want a club CEO trying to rehabilitate a player?
Surely the best people for such a role may be people new to the club environment who have expertise in drug issues but aren’t performance psychologists or sports doctors.
The best result will be achieved when the culture among the playing group self-regulates.
That will happen when players have ownership over the policy and leaders among the players have got their peers to buy in to its intent.
That won't happen while everyone shouts answers based on anecdotal evidence.
Calls for administrators to be tested as a show of support is laughable. Really? When, where, how often? What are the penalties? And how many 40-pluses are shaking in their boots about being tested, anyway?
Time for clubs to back the players and be with them every step of the way as their leaders try to find answers to a problem that challenges the best and brightest throughout society.
