Less than a week after the league made plenty of noise about the efficacy of its drug testing regime, Fremantle defender Michael Johnson is at the centre of an investigation by West Australian police into drug possession.

The same Michael Johnson who was subject of a three-page feature in the AFL Record over the weekend and who took part in one of the most hyped-matches of the season to date, Fremantle's Friday night blockbuster against Collingwood.

The same Michael Johnson who in 2007, was equal runner-up in the AFL's community leadership award.

It comes in the same week as Mathew Stokes made a triumphant 22-touch return for Geelong after his club-imposed suspension for cocaine possession earlier in the year, and for good measure, in the same week the league hinted that it may consider a role for Ben Cousins once he retires in some sort of 'say no to drugs' type role. This after a revealing interview with Cousins on Fox Sports On The Couch last week in which he spoke at great length and with considerable candor about his drug addiction, but which left lingering questions about why he never returned a positive drug test.

Anyone out there with a time machine they're not currently using? Please freight it to the AFL, c/o Etihad Stadium.

The pros and cons of the league's drug policy will be debated ad nauseum once again this week. Should we learn the identity of players facing a first or second strike? Perhaps. But the AFL deserves credit for putting itself out there every year to talk in some detail about the results of its testing for illicit drugs.

If only other Australian sports bodies - particularly those whose athletes we fund through our taxes - were anywhere near as transparent.

But the AFL talked the talk, and now is going to have to batten down the hatches as this one plays itself out.

For Fremantle, which at 6-2 has enjoyed a dream start to the season, this comes at a difficult time. Injuries to David Mundy and Luke McPharlin have weakened the backline and now the Dockers appear set to be without Johnson for a considerable period of time.

Should Johnson be found to have been in possession, he should miss a minimum of seven weeks, as was the case with Stokes.

And then double it for stupidity.