ALAN Didak doesn't think he has a drinking problem. A wonderful decision-maker with the ball, he says he's just picked the wrong option on occasion with a glass in his hand.

"I don't think I do (have a problem)," he said yesterday. "I think some of the decisions that I've made, under the influence of alcohol, haven't been the best."

One bad decision costs a goal these days. This worst call of Didak's career, made at a strip club and in the subsequent ride with an accused murderer, has deprived him of a fair portion of his social liberty; henceforth, during seasons, he will be what you might call a stay-at-home forward.

He can't drink a drop of alcohol during the season. He's barred from nightclubs and he can't go out beyond 1am.

These were the conditions that Didak accepted, along with the all-purpose panacea of counselling, for seasons 2007 and 2008, the term of his contract. Not that he had much negotiating power.

The alternative was — and remains — to leave Collingwood if he didn't toe the club line. As during that fateful night/morning at the Spearmint Rhino, he didn't have a leg to stand on.

"Having accepted these conditions, I will remain a part of the Collingwood family," he said in his prepared statement. "I understand if I don't comply, it will be the end of my career at Collingwood."

The Collingwood reputation took many dents in the days following the revelation that Didak had been in the car with Christopher Wayne Hudson, the accused killer and Hell's Angel, when shots were fired in the vicinity of police. Didak was skewered for his initial failure to inform police and the club of what happened in the car.

Having been branded as soft for not suspending Didak, brand-conscious Collingwood was keen to portray itself as tougher on those who violate their code than the Angels themselves. "This is the most extreme measure that we've put in place, as a result of a player's behaviour, that this club has ever put in place," said Collingwood chief executive Gary Pert.

AFL boss Andrew Demetriou endorsed Collingwood's response, while suggesting that suspensions were what really counted and that Didak had been "stupid".

The Pies yesterday were more assertive than they had been last Thursday and Friday, when the story was breaking, like a large egg, over their collective faces. The tone was more Old Testament — Didak would be struck down if he stuffed up again.

Didak had been a wreck on the Thursday, struggling with his short, prepared statement. This time, he showed greater poise, expressed his contrition — his actions were "reckless, embarrassing and stupid" — and fielded some questions. He was keen to convey that he understood the outrage over his actions, or lack thereof.

"Well, I (have) finally come to terms with that, yeah, basically I need to pull my head in. If I want to be around at this club, I have to start leading by example and start making the right decisions, and that's what we're working to, and that's what I want to do … it's not going to happen overnight, but I assure (you) it will happen and I've given my word to Mick (Malthouse) and I want to be a part of the Collingwood footy club and play here as long as I can."

Pert said Didak had been required to face the entire playing group and to "eyeball Mick and convince him that Alan wanted to be part of the Collingwood Football Club".

If Didak is now a stay-at-home forward, Pert, the former champion full-back, remains a capable defender. He defended Didak on Thursday and Friday, and yesterday, he was "third man up" — cutting off questions from reporters that he deemed to be out of bounds: anything about the night in question, Didak's fears for his safety, or Hudson.

Pert's interceptions did the trick, and protected Didak from legal/police territory. But they also meant Didak did not get the opportunity to say, to the public, that he did not know Hudson until the night in question; Didak and the club insist he didn't know Hudson — and police say they believe him.

Didak said he had learned from "my mistakes" and wished to "get his career back on track".

"We'll have to work on situations where, if I (am) ever in that situation again, that I obviously think clearer and think about the consequences."

The career consequences, in the event of another poor decision, couldn't be clearer.