I wasn’t going to write on the subject of swimmer Nick D’Arcy for two reasons.

Firstly, because I don’t know enough about what happened in Sydney (I don’t think anyone does) and, secondly, because I know his coach and his father.

But a few things have been said and written in the past couple of weeks that made me rethink the situation.

To be clear, I do not condone any type of violence, which may come as a surprise when you look at me.

But fighting proves nothing.

And I have seen the irony in some comments and events during the past few weeks.

One that stood out was the naming of the rugby league team of the century, with one A Johns listed as halfback.

Now, was it Arthur or Allen? No, in fact it was Andrew, the guy who, less than a year before, had been caught with a recreational drug in his pocket and then revealed to the world that he had been taking drugs for a number of years during his career.

Shock, horror, the game’s pin-up boy was disgraced – for six months anyway – until they named that mighty team the other night and he was there and, in his words, forgiven by the game and the people.

I don’t know whether he is actually forgiven, but it seems the selectors and administration managed to differentiate between his on-field performances and his personal ones.

I actually had the opportunity to discuss this with another member of the team of greats and he told me he thought it was the right decision with Johns, as they were not performance-enhancing drugs.

To add to that, imagine if a background check had been done into all the nominees for that side: the 100 who made the short list and the hundreds considered.

If personal, off-field incidents were part of the criteria, the list may have looked a whole lot different.

The team was picked on ability on the field, the best performances in rugby league, and had little to do with behaviour off the field.

And that, with due respect, should be the case with Nick D’Arcy.

Let the police and the criminal court sort out what happened in that bar, and that is something that Nick will have to live with if proven guilty.

On the other hand, by taking away his chance to represent his country when the case hasn’t even been heard, there is potential there for injustice.

Alcohol, testosterone and late nights seem to be the cocktail for these types of disasters, and worse, and most parties involved are trying to do something about it.

The state government is looking at late-night hours and trying to reel them in, while Mr Rudd is focused on putting up the price of drinks so young people can’t afford to get drunk.

Wouldn’t it be better to have a long, hard look at the proliferation of bottle shops and how they price things?

Now, a guy mentioned a solution to the D’Arcy thing the other day – which I thought might be a chance from turning a negative to a positive: send the swimmer to the Olympics but make a few conditions.

Make him do an ad campaign about alcohol and violence, how it endangered his chances of a lifelong dream, how it affected his alleged victim – if that is what is proven – and how it affects families who have lost love ones because of one senseless act.

Surely a candid, national campaign funded by the liquor companies and the government would be the biggest chance of making a difference.

It is clear that something has to be done to curb violence.

What is not clear is how to do it. Maybe part of the solution is right there in front of us.