My first reaction to the news of Matt Stevens' suspension is one of incredulity that someone who had so much going for him should come to this – an admission of a serious drug problem.

Not performance-enhancing it is to be stressed, but almost certainly recreational and damaging, dangerous and stupid, nonetheless.

Stevens was widely respected for his rugby ability. Many thought him guaranteed a long England career and a probable place on the Lions tour to South Africa this summer.

The Bath prop is widely liked for his open, affable character and, of course, he's respected for his compassion, backed up by huge charitable donations to orphanages in South Africa, and admired for a singing voice that was good enough to reach the finals of a televised national competition.

But he knew the rules and he broke them. He's gambled with his rugby career and sacrificed all the respect he's built up.

He has a drug problem, which he now admits. Australian international Wendell Sailor got a two-year ban for a similar problem and Stevens should expect nothing less.

As for rugby, it's not a good headline. It's been a bad year for headlines but it does show the game is taking the drugs problem seriously and I think the authorities will be tough.

Lord Nelson may have been bang on the button when he declared that desperate affairs require desperate remedies but the hero of Trafalgar could never have imagined that they require forked tongues as well.

These are extraordinary times and, while there is no reason to suppose that even a healthy, growth sport like rugby could remain unaffected by the economic downturn, recent pronouncements from those that run the game suggest only that there is no interest that is not unvested.

Premier Rugby, the governing body for the professional end of the game, went into a meeting last week to discuss reducing the wage cap from £4 million a year to £3.5 million and, possibly simultaneously, to push through a compulsory reduction of squad sizes in the Premiership.

They came out with a proposal to leave wage bills and squad sizes unaltered, but to make up any shortfall in revenue with the addition of five extra Premiership fixtures for each club. And to make room for these fixtures they would quite happily ditch the Anglo-Welsh EDF Energy Cup.

They could not grow their product, the Premiership, and the individual businesses within it, the clubs, if they had to close down for large chunks of the season when other competitions and international matches took priority.

Even though clubs like Bristol and Newcastle were only attracting 5,000 spectators per match, the rest of the Premiership was reporting increased attendances despite a fixture list that at times left clubs a whole month without a home match to bring in revenue.

Adding five matches to the Premiership, taking the total played by each club to 27, might look lopsided – each club would under the proposed changes play five of their competitors three times a season and the other six only twice – but, it would retain the integrity of the competition and the validity of the play-off system.

The Professional Rugby Players Association, in effect the players' union, went into the meeting determined to safeguard salaries and to argue against the 100 or so redundancies that the proposed reduction in squad sizes would entail, and came out of it in broad support of the proposals, and happy to endorse an expanded fixture list even though one of their overriding concerns in recent seasons had been player burnout.

The Rugby Football Union, administrators of the game as a whole and paymasters of the England rugby team, were not so happy.

They felt that the increased number of Premiership fixtures would add to the pressure on players already squeezed between club and country by the agreement that was signed last July limiting England players to just 32 matches a season, and would inevitably lead to an increase in the number of ready-made foreign players being given contracts in place of promising Englishmen.

Richest irony of all, the RFU felt that adding extra games to the fixture list was counter- productive. Sure, they brought in increased revenue, but they placed increasing demands both on the players, who had to turn out in them, and the public who are being asked to stump up yet more money to attend them.

And this from a body that charges £85 a head for internationals at Twickenham, and doesn't hesitate to add a fourth international to the autumn schedule to keep its own cash-flow healthy!

By all accounts, the RFU and the clubs are once again on a collision course. The 32 game-rule seemed not only farsighted, fair and all embracing, but also detailed enough to cover every eventuality, is under threat when the two sides meet again next week.

Don't expect too much in the way of harmony but do expect a classic British compromise.

The new TV deal, guaranteeing much greater income to each club, kicks in in 2010, and both sides believe that as long as they get through till then, most of their pressures will ease. The devil will be in the detail.