(Kim Crow is captain of the Australian women's rowing team)

Recent media surveys are displaying a disturbing trend: it seems large numbers in the community believe performance-enhancing and illicit drug use is rife in the sporting world.

These perceptions come despite announcements from both the AFL and NRL regarding revamped 'gold standard' doping detection programs, and the recent expansion of powers of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) to investigate and crack down on doping.

As an athlete with a long involvement in elite sport and exposure to drug testing, my experience has been that testing frequency and efficacy has increased exponentially over the years. The experiences of friends in the AFL, and across a wide range of other sports, mirror my own experiences. Indeed, most athletes now believe their sports are pretty much clean. This is a huge (and welcome) culture shift from even five years ago, when a large proportion of athletes openly doubted the ability of the testers to catch the cheats.

So why the growing faith among athletes, but not the public, in drug free sport? Certainly headlines like "human growth hormone a threat to AFL" and the all too frequent reports of footy players being linked to illicit drug use do not help, but I believe that much of the disparity in perception relates to what goes on out of the public eye.

Drug testing has become an omnipresent part of every elite athlete's life. International level athletes are required to provide their whereabouts to doping authorities for one hour every single day of the year. Back in 2001, when I was first drug tested, there was no such system and doping officials would simply call you to arrange a time and date of test. Even this happened rarely. Now, the testers can turn up unannounced at your stated location whenever they please. If you are not where you said you would be, you receive a strike. Three strikes, and you're out.

When the whereabouts system was first introduced, we rowers used to state that we would be at our homes between 4am-5am every day. The logic was simple - it was one of the few times we knew we would be in one predictable location and, yes, able to pee on demand. And yes, I (along with many others) did experience the pleasure of being greeted by a group of testers at my front door at 4.45am. Now the rules have changed, and we have to record whereabouts between 6am-10pm every day, including Christmas.

Updating and verifying whereabouts is certainly a rigour - I would be lying if, at times, the administrative burden is not the subject of much discontent. But the whereabouts system is also a key reason for our increased faith in the anti-doping regime.

Other changes to the regime include authorities' storing of testing samples for eight years. I can't think of many better deterrents than this. The lag between new drugs and new tests is increasingly being minimized, and no would-be cheat can safely assume they will not get caught. The result is that cheats will be faced with the very likely prospect of being found out and subsequently shamed (and stripped of prize money etc), even if not immediately.

Testers can also 'target test' suspect athletes, and liaise with customs officials as to the importation of any drugs. "Blood passports" in some sports are recorded by doping authorities, who can determine cheats by monitoring changes in blood profiles. German speedskater Claudia Pechstein recently received a ban for impossible blood variations, and was unsuccessful in the Court of Arbitration for Sport in her attempt to discredit the science behind the "blood passport" scheme.

The Australian government is investing smartly in a strict, effective anti-doping regime, and I honestly believe it is fair to equate an increased number of positive tests with an increased percentage of cheats getting caught, as opposed to an increased percentage of athletes taking drugs.

Even so, the ability of other countries to adopt the stringent doping standards required by the World Anti-Doping Code is an area of concern. Last year, seven Russian athletes were found guilty of anti-doping rule violations after each of their urine samples was found not to match their own DNA. Somehow, testing procedures had been violated to allow systematic cheating.

This situation, to put it simply, could not happen under proper testing protocol, as followed in Australia. Tests happen with no prior notice, whether at competition, in training, at home or at work. Upon being notified of "selection" for a test, each athlete is required to show identification and is "chaperoned" until they are able to pass a urine sample. Lightweight rowers, who often have to sweat to make weight limits, are renowned for spending hours upon hours in doping control waiting until they are able to pass the regulation 120mL of urine. Many have been forced to miss their planes home.

When the athlete is ready to pee, we select our tamper-proof doping kit and follow the doping escort into a toilet room where we are required to remove our top (to ensure we do not have any urine contraptions attached to us) and face the doping escort who watches the urine pass between body and beaker. There is nothing discrete about a doping test. It is no place for the modest.

We then pour the urine, under supervision, from our beaker into bottles which are sealed to be sent off to the labs. Our sample is tested on the spot for its pH and density. If the sample is outside the acceptable range, we are required to stay in doping control until we are able to produce another sample.

The urine test is often followed up by a blood test. A nurse pricks our arm and withdraws one or two vials of blood, which are sealed and sent off for testing.

We then complete an amazingly tedious paper train, including verification of absolutely any substance that we have taken in the previous week such as vitamins, protein products or medications. People have been known to test positive for contaminated supplements, food products and even hair re-growth substances. The statement of such consumption does not alleviate responsibility for the substance - liability - but may be taken into consideration in mitigation at the sentencing stage.

I would be tested somewhere between four and 10 times per year, which is common at this level of elite sport. Maybe I have too much faith in the testing regime, but I honestly believe that it would be pretty damn hard to cheat and get away with it. Someday I hope the public agrees with me.