As a "Broady" boy, successful journalist, one of Melbourne's most connected people and for that matter, the TV executive credited with giving the original "Underbelly" series the green light, Collingwood president Eddie McGuire is the last person who could be described as "wet behind the ears" when it comes to some of society's challenges.

Yet his differing attitudes between gambling and illicit drug taking in AFL football is typical of the "reject and protect" differences that the sport takes on the two topics.

For some strange reason, the AFL is happy to listen to the advice of experts when it comes to the formation and maintenance of their illicit drug policy, complete with the controversial yet confidential testing procedures which protect the privacy of any player found to have tested positive away from match-day to a non-performance enhancing drug, yet was happy to publicly humiliate coaches and officials recently found to have had a couple of oh-so-minor "interest" bets on games.

Yes, The Australian's Patrick Smith pointed out at the time the elephant-smashing-the-walnut analogy well before this writer has, but as someone who follows horse racing - a sport that wouldn't exist without the punt - seeing the AFL "come-the-heavy" on gambling lightweights, leaves one question:

Just what the hell were they trying to achieve? Because when it comes to probity - as a leading trainer said to me when this blew up - the different level between racing and the AFL is currently laughable.

Is there/was there actually a genuine concern that insider trading was occurring that needed to be halted? Well if so, then to use the Underbelly analogy, they sent the squad cars wailing en masse to hand out a couple of parking tickets, and any actual "bad guys" would still be sipping lattes unscathed.

Or did they feel a need to publicize the smart, important and intelligent product-fee and information-sharing agreement that they have with all significant betting organizations?

Well if that's the case, then the AFL needs to talk to some of the pork-pie hat wearing stewards out Flemington way, as the current rules are at best naïve. And they need a fair deal of improvement before being genuinely feared and respected by those that they really want to keep away from the sport.

This brings us back to McGuire and his recent column, which served to highlight how far off you can be when you think you're across a seemingly simple issue, which actually has several layers to it.

For example, his second and third paragraph stated: "Put simply, if you are involved at any level of a football club or the AFL, you are prohibited from betting in any way on any AFL match. Full stop, end of story."

Umm, except it isn't the end of the story and umm... you can actually legally bet on football if you ARE involved in the AFL at a level far closer than the suspended non-officiating goal umpire or the trainee time-keeper were.

Consider this: The AFL has previously trumpeted that there are more media accredited to cover the game than covering federal politics in Canberra.

Well any or all of those media - accredited = licensed - can place a bet at any time.

So as we speak, there is not only nothing in the rules preventing an accredited media representative from betting on the sport that they clearly regularly receive privileged inside information on in the course of doing their job, as McGuire the former leading news-breaker in the game would well know from his journo days, but - and stand by for this - there is actually nothing in the rules that prevents a journalist who is sitting with the team on the interchange bench or reporting from inside the rooms, getting on his phone and placing a bet.

Now if it was found that a racing scribe had placed a bet from the jockey's room, then the unemployment queue would instantly grow by one. And rightly so!

McGuire's swipe at other sports was interesting and followed up by a basic factual error:

Boxing, snooker, cricket, horse racing and so on have a catalogue of "fixes" as thick as the phone book.

My information is that the majority of the big bets with the regulated betting companies are either in cash or anonymous.

Well I'm not sure about his "information" given that the only "anonymous" bets that can be placed is actually in cash - after all how can you "anonymously" bet in a registered account? - and any wager that is placed or winnings that are received at your local TAB that are over $10,000 in value, must be accompanied by a "statutory declaration" due to strict anti-money laundering laws.

So any big cash bets and/or collects are not anonymous.

As for his crack at other sports, it's worth noting that two weeks prior to the "zero tolerance" betting controversy, the AFL gave Hawthorn an official warning after it found it "did not act for tactical reasons" when it ran out on to the field minus their only ruckman Brent Renouf in round four.

This not only breached the AFL rule that states the final teams must be submitted 90 minutes prior to the start of the game, but infuriated the opposing coach Brad Scott from the Kangaroos, who had to alter his tactics at the last minute.

What wasn't reported was that if you had backed the Hawks without knowing they were minus a ruckman at the odds-on price on offer, you would have been as angry as the North Melbourne coach, but more to the point, did the AFL investigate if anyone used the inside knowledge that Renouf wasn't going to be playing for betting purposes either by placing a bet or leaking the information?

If it did it certainly wasn't announced publicly.

I'm not sure how boxing, snooker or cricket would act, but if a country apprentice had suddenly walked into the mounting yard wearing Glen Boss's silks prior to Makybe Diva's three-peat effort in the Melbourne Cup, I reckon there's a fair chance chief stipe Des Gleeson wouldn't have let her out of the mounting yard.

This all brings us back to the illicit drugs comparison. A week after the gambling tub-thumping, as Tim Lane pointed out, Fremantle player Michael Johnson was hung out to dry in a similar fashion to the "Punting Six", yet his crime was being caught by the law, rather than actually ingesting an illicit substance. As has been well documented he would have been treated confidentially had he tested positive on a non-match-day.

Having first hand knowledge of McGuire's passion for his club, code and a fair go, there's no question that his attitude is typical of others in the game that dread the day that the AFL has to go through a drawn-out Danny Nikolic type enquiry into one of their biggest names.

As such, they're probably relieved that this lot of gambling-related headlines are in essence, total bulldust and due to the petty nature of the charges, devoid of any stigma to the individuals concerned.

But chest-beating hyperbole, making scapegoats of and humiliating a few who at absolute worst made a silly mistake, only proves you can make a headline.

As the complexities of the illicit drug situation proves, a real solution involves much more than that, but you can take long odds about anything being done about it.

"Racetrack" Ralphy Horowitz is a full-time racing analyst for private clients and media commentator for Sport 927. He is a former producer at The Footy Show, Sunday Footy Show, 3AW & SEN.