One in four members of the current Irish squad believe that a life ban should be imposed on players found guilty of serious drug offences, according to an Irish Times survey carried out this week. It also emerged that 15 of the 33 players who answered the survey had never been drug tested and that no squad member has ever been offered performance-enhancing drugs.

In the course of the survey, it also became evident that the majority of players believe that guilty offenders should not be protected by a `confidentiality clause'. The IRFU have pleaded confidentiality and so avoided naming the three Irish players who have tested positive for banned substances in the last year.

Thirty-eight members of the 46-strong Irish squad were contacted by The Irish Times this week and were asked a number of questions about drugs in rugby. Five players declined to participate despite a guarantee of anonymity.

Eight players, or 24 per cent of respondents, believe that life bans should be handed out to players who test positive for anabolic steroids and other serious performance-enhancing drugs. The remaining 76 per cent advocated suspensions ranging from one to five years.

On the issue of the confidentiality clause, it emerged that players believe it leads to whispering campaigns against the innocent. A prominent player, in what was representative of the majority of replies, said: "I think it's incumbent on the union to name anybody who is guilty of drug abuse. The case would have to be 100 per cent proven, but if a player is guilty there is no point in fudging the issue. It is unfair on other players for the whispering to continue when a guilty party is known."

The current guidelines on drugs in the sport are laid down by the International Rugby Board (IRB). The Board adheres to International Olympic Committee (IOC) directives with regard to bans for substance abuse. The IOC's most severe reprimand for a first, serious transgression is two years. This sanction is based on years of litigation involving the IOC and International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF) in civil courts around the world. Experience has shown that if a life ban is imposed the athlete is likely to take the case to a civil court and probably win.

"Without doubt there should be a ban along the lines of the IOC - one or two years minimum," said one player. "But one thing I would like to say is that there needs to be clarification. Different levels of bans should apply because I think at even this stage in the debate players are still naive."

"They should get severe punishment," said another. "The laws should be stiff. It has never come up before, but there should be a minimum of three years. The message should be sent out clearly that there is no place in rugby for cheating with drugs." "The rules are already in place and they are sufficient," said an experienced player who has been tested five times at international level. Another player, who had never been tested said: "Obviously I think it's a life ban. Look at the uproar it can cause when someone does get caught."

His colleague, who has been tested four times, twice at club level, once at provincial level and once at international level, called for less severity.

"You are looking at a ban of a couple of years, not a life ban straight away. I think if young players get caught, then maybe a year's ban for the first time is sufficient."

The players are frustrated by the common perception among the public that drugs are rife in rugby union. They resent being the butt of jokes both inside and out of the gym. One player fumed: "I'm tired of the snide comments in the gym," while another said: "it's guilt by association. Everyone is being tarred with the same brush."

A measured reply to the question of the length of ban may be gleaned from the following response. "I believe that if it is a young player - late teens, early twenties - who has been led astray then a ban of one to two years would be sufficient.

"However if the player was a little older, and by extension one presumes more mature, then I think a life ban would be appropriate." One advocate of the life ban made a salient point perhaps overlooked in the debate. "What if there were two players battling for a position on a team for five years?

"One, who is taking drugs enjoys an edge, making a better living during that period. The guy who has lost out retires and then suddenly it emerges that the other player has been taking drugs. How would you feel if you had lost out, been deprived of a decent livelihood for your family? I'd say most would be bitter and resentful. If you are willing to take drugs then you should risk a life ban."

The flip side is the danger of a miscarriage of justice which could end a player's career. One player cited the example of the case involving British athlete Diane Modahl.

There have been odd moments of light relief concerning the issue, most notably at last weekend's Bath-London Irish game at the Recreation Ground when one local ventured, after yet another Irish player went down with a knock requiring treatment, "ah, bring on the drugs."