Blatter blunders while Wada walks the beat
I'm going to say this loud and proud: Fifa boss Sepp Blatter is completely right.
Unaccustomed as I am to being on the same side of an argument as world football's grand poobah - a man who has likened multi-millionaire Cristiano Ronaldo's life to "slavery" and believes female footballers should wear tighter shorts - I think he is spot on when he claims the World Anti-Doping Agency is acting like a "police" organisation.
The difference between us, however, is that I think this is a good thing.
So when I heard Wada president John Fahey say football will not be exempted from key parts of the anti-doping rulebook I was as pleased as Blatter will be peeved.
What Fahey actually said was that there would be "no Lex Fifa" but this sounded to most of us like a character from Dream Team so the former Australian politician had to spell it out more simply: there will be no concessions for football.
Fahey's "reiteration" of his organisation's position came during a media conference call on Monday that followed an eventful weekend at Wada Towers.
The occasion was the first meeting this year of Wada's executive committee and foundation board, and the agenda was, well... full.
Among the items on the Montreal menu were the patchy implementation of Wada's rules across the globe, its finances and major American team sports' refusal to join the anti-doping party.
But these were mere nibbles compared to the porterhouse steak that is the row about Wada's "whereabouts" rules.
Whereabouts is the tracking system that enables drug-testers to perform no-notice, out-of-competition dope tests - the kind of tests that really catch and deter.
The system calls for athletes to make themselves available to testers for one hour a day, between 0600 and 2300, 365 days a year and for three months in advance. They do this via the internet and their information can be updated by email or text message.
Whereabouts controversies have made headlines since the system was introduced in 2004 but, generally speaking, it is thought to have worked pretty well and most would agree it is an improvement on what went before.
But this year the consensus has fallen apart for two different but related reasons.
The first is that on 1 January Wada introduced a new version of its framework document, the World Anti-Doping Code, of which whereabouts is a key plank.
To you and me, the code is the anti-doping rulebook and it covers everything from the list of banned drugs, to how an athlete gets dispensation from these rules for genuine medical problems.
Wada would argue that, by and large, the changes it was introducing were a combination of tweaks based on the experience of the previous five years. So, for example, the maximum penalty for a really shocking doping violation was stretched from a career-inconveniencing two years to a career-threatening four years.
This was almost universally welcomed (some wanted a life ban) but that cannot be said for every change, particularly those to do with whereabouts.
I've written about these before, so I won't repeat myself, but suffice it to say these changes make life more complicated for the majority of athletes who were already on the programme.
I've also already written I think Wada should reconsider these changes, although I do have a degree of sympathy for its point that these reforms deserve a chance before U-turns are discussed.
Where I have enormous sympathy with Wada is on the second issue that has threatened the consensus this year, and that is bringing sports previously outside the system on board.
So whereas pre-2009 whereabouts mainly covered Olympic athletes, from 1 July the Premier League's finest would also be subject to the occasional surprise call from drug-testers.
Fair enough, say most footballers, we're against cheats as much as the next Olympian, but 365 days a year? Does that mean you could turn up for a sample when I'm in the Bahamas?
They (and their clubs) have also expressed concerns about being caught in the wrong place at the right time, or vice-versa, and finding themselves in the same predicament as Christine Ohuruogu.
The solution they have offered to the testers is come find us at the training ground: we're there most days, 48 weeks a year.
There is a slight problem, though: this isn't the same system everybody else is following and it isn't really no-notice, out-of-competition testing, which defeats the whole purpose of the exercise.
And Blatter's passionate defence of a footballer's right to four weeks of uninterrupted golf and jet-skiing has been weakened by his presence on Wada's board: why didn't he speak up earlier?
Wada's problem, however, is that it hasn't just been taking flak from football, which is, after all, still an Olympic sport. The forces lined up against it have ranged from some of the biggest names in tennis (another sport new to whereabouts), Russian pole vault queen Yelena Isinbayeva and the Article 29 working party of the European Commission.
Throw in a legal challenge to whereabouts on privacy grounds from a group of Belgian sports pros, and alarming reports from Spain about legislation that would effectively sink whereabouts, and it has seemed the entire global anti-doping movement was about to unravel.
So it is to Wada's credit that it has stuck to its guns.
The EU's data protection watchdogs have gained the assurances they needed in the form of a few small changes to one of the five standards that make up the code (hardly the embarrassing climbdown that some have claimed, or if it is it's far too dull for me to pick out - I like my embarrassing climbdowns to be a bit more bare-faced).
The Belgian challenge is going nowhere fast and the Spanish alarm was based largely on an inaccurate report of the government's intentions.
Which leaves only the assorted grumbles, some more valid than others, from the various sportsmen and women affected by whereabouts.
They will continue, no doubt, but Fahey has already demonstrated he doesn't seem to mind playing the "bad cop" when he thinks there's a principle worth policing.
And, to return to my opening point, I think he's right.
Because buried beneath all of Blatter's blathering, the EU's pen-rattling and whichever tennis player is bleating about their human rights this week, there are a few important recent milestones to note.
The first is that the five remaining Olympic sports to fully sign up to Wada's rules are now "code compliant", and the second is that the product of all this debate about whereabouts has been to reinforce its legal basis as a "proportionate response" to doping.
But my favourite milestone is the fact that 2008 was the first year Wada, which got started in 2000, ever received 100% of its promised budget, a budget that comes 50/50 from the International Olympic Committee and world governments.
That $25.3m seems a tiny sum when you consider the huge amount of money professional sport generates - and possibly lose if the general public stops believing in it - but an international institution that gets everybody to pay up on time must be doing something right.
Blatter might want to think about that next time he moans about sport's bobbies on the beat.