PEOPLE who value Australian football should look closely at the radical changes now bearing down upon it arising from the issue of player behaviour.

The Prime Minister was so moved by the latest tsunami of publicity surrounding Ben Cousins to say, among other things, that he wanted the distinction between performance-enhancing drugs and recreational drugs abolished; henceforth, in his world, all would be known as illicit drugs.

In a piece I wrote for Monday's opinion pages in this newspaper, I said this was as foolish as insisting that a dry martini and a glass of methylated spirits be known by the single word "alcohol". But his view is a lot more likely to prevail than mine.

Politically, this matter is going to play out at two levels. One is the Federal Government versus the AFL. The Howard Government is trying to induce the AFL to sign its zero-tolerance proposal. I'm against the zero-tolerance policy. The question is two strikes or three.

Kevin 07, meantime, appears to be saying he will impose zero tolerance whether the AFL wants it or not. This means Kevin 07 becomes an arbiter on the character of the game. At the risk of sounding like Dennis Cometti, I'm not sure I like it.

Beyond Howard lies Costello. He wants the AFL to hand over the names of players who test positive to banned drugs to the police. I see a big, indiscriminate political wave building.

People say the need for action on the issue of drugs in football is urgent — we have to move quickly.

I say, yes, but we ought to be clear about where we are going, about who is taking us and why. In any situation with conflicting principles, what is demanded is balance.

In this matter, as I see it, there are three key issues — the responsibility of players as role models, the rights of players as citizens (imagine what would happen if Costello tried to inflict his proposal on the legal profession) and, finally, the character of the game.

The second political level at which this thing will be played out is in the debate the AFL now has within its own ranks. Again, the decisions made at this level have tremendous potential to alter the game.

Already, it has been said that the issue of player behaviour might be linked to match points and player drafts. What this means, if you are an AFL president trying to steer your club through always difficult waters, is that you've been given the following message — choose badly with recruits and it will hurt you.

Let a bad one in the door and it's not only him who will end up being a loser. The club will. And in big and highly public ways that every supporter understands.

Suddenly, a new risk has entered the game as real as broken bones and torn hamstrings.

The loss of match points can ruin a season but the loss of draft picks is even more serious. That closes off the door to the future. The draft is the well of youth. Clubs need the draft now — it's one of the ways they sell hope to their people when the annual membership drive is on.

What's going to happen if draft picks and the issue of player behaviour are mixed is that the clubs will become a whole lot more conservative in their judgements of who they take.

I'm stating as a fact that after a few years of that process, the next Gary Ablett won't be given a chance. Nor will the next Jimmy Krakouer. Both had been in serious trouble before they started with their VFL/AFL clubs.

And the list doesn't end with them. Lots of our old champions weren't model citizens in all aspects of their behaviour. Would the game have been better off without them?

I used to work with young offenders. I want to ask those so intent on banishing people from the game, where do they think those young men will go once they're excluded?

They might not be the game's problem any more but it is socially naive to think that's the end of the matter. In all likelihood, they'll be a bigger problem somewhere else.

It's one thing to say certain behaviour is expected from AFL players and that if those expectations are breached, a player will be punished, even drummed out of the game.

But there's a world of difference between that and judging who these errant personalities are before they have even appeared on the AFL stage.

We are heading towards a different selection process here, one based on imagined behaviour, the imaginings being fed by factors such as stability of home life, school record, socially desirable behaviour.

One of the teams in this year's baseball World Series, the Colorado Rockies, have Bible prayer sessions before every game. Is that where we're headed?

What I can't forget is that, in so far as Australian football had a founder, he was a man who lay in an unmarked grave for 80 years because he offended the social mores of his day.

He was an alcoholic who stabbed himself in the heart but one of the things said about Tom Wills even by his enemies, of whom he had more than his share, is that he would play with anyone.

Amendments to that principle might have to be made from time to time by the administrators of the game but only, in my view, with great caution.