THERE'S no doubt about the resolve of politicians. Last week, the Federal Government's position on illicit drugs in sport was zero tolerance. This week, it is approximately zero. It's core and non-core promises all over again.

Two weeks ago, the Government rejected the AFL's code. Yesterday, it endorsed the National Rugby League's code as a model for all. But neither code enforces zero tolerance.

The AFL punishes an offender after three positive tests, the NRL effectively after two, since it imposes a fine after the first positive test that is suspended until after the second.

Rhetoric is used like dry ice, to carefully cloud the issue. The AFL policy is referred to as "three strikes", the NRL's "one chance", implying a gulf. In fact, they are different by only one offence. Counting by strikes, it is NRL two, AFL three. Counting by chances, it is NRL one, AFL two. On neither scale is it zero.

The Government is splitting hairs, hoping to cover a bald argument. But it is dividing more than hairs. It is setting the AFL against the NRL, Olympic sport against non-Olympic, doctor against doctor. It is creating a divide among drug-free athletes. Some, because they have nothing to hide, have no objection to more stringent testing. Others have nothing to hide, but object because of the infringement of their civil liberties.

The AFL Players Association swallowed hard to accept such infringement, believing it to be pioneering. For its pains, it has been branded soft by the Government.

The ministers single out sportsfolk, but carefully exclude others with responsible positions in society, including themselves. They say sportsmen and women are role models, as to say they themselves are not. It's enormously convenient.

The role model argument necessarily is flawed anyway. Drug testing is discreet, unlike baring one's bum in a nightclub. The number and names of the AFL players who have tested positive remain undisclosed. All have a problem, but none is now a bad role model. Dealt with prudently, none ever need be.

The Government would have all offenders named and shamed immediately. It thinks this would make an example of them. In fact, it would advertise their problem. Worse, in some individual cases, it might worsen the problem instead of solving it.

It ought not to be forgotten how this whole bizarre debate began. Long before it occurred to the Government to get tough on drugs in sport, the AFL and Cricket Australia — for two — already had codes in place.

Two years ago, the Government suddenly came the heavy, saying those codes were not enough; only the World Anti-Doping Agency standard would do.

Reluctantly, the AFL introduced the WADA code on top of its own, making it more rigorous than any other. The players bravely — perhaps foolhardily — gave their assent. They would be within their rights now to say they will abide by WADA, but no more.

Two years ago, the WADA code was enough for the Government. But that was two years ago before an election was due, two years before disastrous polls.

Two weeks ago, the Government stepped up its crackdown on illicit drugs in sport. Last week, it mooted the worthiness of increasing corporal punishment in schools. If a cynic, one might imagine in this a whiff of law and order, a favourite election issue for conservatives.

We will give them the benefit of one doubt. But only one.