Olney owes Fehr an apology
Buster Olney, of productive out fame, argues at ESPN that the MLBPA owes its players an apology for ignoring their pleas for steroid testing, which would have prevented the BALCO problems.
Ignore, for a second, the emotional side of the steroid issue. This article is so wrong it makes me angry. His thesis is that the two big men in the union, Fehr and Orza, by failing to agree to testing, led to players being “smeared, by association”.
THG was undetectable. Baseball could have agreed to Olympic-style drug-testing, no notice anytime testing, no matter if you were on a date or at the beach, and they wouldn’t have prvented the BALCO scandal. Baseball, as the Olympics have been when drug scandals have hit, would have been just as tainted.
Further, Olney argues that because a USA Today survey indicated that 79% of players said they’d agree to steroid testing, the union betrayed their desire.
First, there’s a huge difference between saying “I support testing” and “I support having to stand in a room naked with two dudes staring at me while I urinate into a cup repeatedly during a season” much less the kind of full-press testing operation that’s required to make a serious impact on abuse.
Second, the difference between surveys and the union is obvious. Just as a player can go out and say “I’d love to take a huge salary cut to come to your city name here” in front of the microphones and then let the union protect their contract, so it is with steroids.
Or just as a player can come out and say “I’d do anything to avoid a strike” to a rotton-vegetable-armed populace, so they are likely to answer a survey. What major league baseball player, knowing the feelings of the public, is going to turn in a survey that says “I don’t support drug testing”? They’ve seen off-the-record stuff come back to bite people before — even Bonds knew when they labeled his sample that the chances were good that someone, eventually, would be testing it for purposes besides baseball’s anonymous group-level survey.
It is true that some players have said their union meetings didn’t discuss the issue in detail. It’s also true that union representatives are not always chosen for the best available candidates, and some haven’t taken their duties seriously enough. And that may be part of the problem… but the players pick those dudes. If they thought these issues were serious enough to warrant the best of their number, they’d pick the best people that would open discussion and solicit opinions.
The union represents the compromise wishes of the players, and always has. If you want to argue that Fehr and Orza weren’t forward-thinking-enough, or should have set a moral example and dragged their constituents kicking and screaming towards testing that still wouldn’t have prevented this, you’re welcome to do so. But that argument concedes that you understand that that’s not what they are, and yet they were chosen to lead the players union.
They were chosen to consistently represent the wishes of members in negotiations. Long-term, short-term: they are the instrument of player desires. They’re tools. You don’t blame the tools for the job of the craftsman.
Fehr and Orza are convenient targets, but to blame them for something they couldn’t have prevented, even if they had acted on the behalf of a supposed majority of players Olney wants to believe exist, for purposes of writing this easy column, is ridiculous.
There is more than enough shame and disgust to go around, but to say that Fehr and Orza bear any kind of responsibility for this latest public scandal that they should be apologizing for is absurd.
Comments
32 Responses to “Olney owes Fehr an apology”
Exactly right, Derek.
As I see it, the blame for this public scandal lies with the felon who leaked the testimony.
I just insulted Olney in another comment section, but, I will do it again.
I honestly do not believe that Olney, has any idea of what “union lawyer” means.
Has Olney ever hired a lawyer who forced him to do things that he knew would not be in his own best interest? Someone should tell Olney that he can actually direct his laywer to do what he wants, and if his lawyer does not act in his best interest, Olney can fire that lawyer.
At least Olney did not accuse Fehr and Orza of refusing to stand for the National Anthem.
There’s a thin line between blind ignorance and willful malice.
I disagree, Derek. Though I don’t agree with Olney. The Players Union attempts to connect with the progressive interests of players and creates an “us or them” environment towards management. This is a different unique situation in comparison to most union environments.
Both sides are dependent on their product being entertainment, and while it is in the short-term best interests of the players to fight tooth and nail on some issues, the union (in my opinion) fails to see the symbiotic relationship it has not only with management, but also with its inherent best interests– fan support and admiration.
Because the union was so damn confrontational on so many issues, they took a stand here that they shouldn’t of. They brought shame and mockery on by their sport’s “supposed” drug testing program (which i’ve seen called many times an “intelligence test” not a drug test.)
And then they have the cajones to tell us that they are making strides towards solving the issue. Hogwash. Both sides are guilty. Both sides will suffer in some way or another, but neither will suffer as greatly as the fans they let down by creating an atmosphere where cheating not only was rampant, but it was essentially encouraged by the lack of structure to protect against it.
The management knew better. The players should have known better. And somebody with a law degree looking out for the best interests of the players should have damn well knew– and done– better.
Has anyone emailed this to Olney? He’s right up there with Joe Morgan and John Kruk on the Columnists I Can’t Stand list. I would love to hear his reaction to an objective evaluation of his ill-reasoned piece. Really. I hate Buster Olney.
Also, what Derek said.
I am sick of the blame-game that the media really wants to turn this into. Can’t we just accept that the “steroid problem” is basically the result of new technology and not bad people. Yes, we need to address the problem, but it isn’t about moral depravity – it’s about the difficulties of regulating new technology. The vast majority of the scum-bags in this story are not directly involved – they’re leakers and finger-pointers that are out to get people.
My experience with other unions has demonstrated that union leadership will sometimes choose fights that are not supported by the membership. One example: management fires incompetent employee who is slow, makes errors, makes customers mad, and makes job harder for other employees. Union files grievance, drags out process for months, employer gives up and lets employee keep job. Union touts triumph of collective action. Other union employees livid. Union claims they’re just doing their job, opposing management. I don’t think that the MLBPA was just trying score points against the owners in this case, but the notion in itself is not absurd, and I have seen it happen so many times that it is actually predictable. Yes, union leadership is elected, but then again so was George Bush, and how well-represented do you feel about that?
I agree with Kevin about tendencies in union management, and it’s based on my own experience. Regardless of what else Olney writes, the MLBPA leadership bears a significant portion of the responsibility for the actions that the union takes independent from the players’ own responsibility.
I argued two years ago that regardless of whether the players thought testing was a good idea, they should demand some sort of concession from the owners for allowing it.
The union should never just abandon leverage. It’s bad business.
So even if the union acted contrary to the majority will of the players, I think they made a good decision.
I’ve worked for and/or been a member of unions for a number of years. There is a huge difference between the example in #7 and the steriod testing issue. The union is legally obligated to defend its members in grievance cases, whether the leadership or the membership agrees with the grievant or not (its called duty of fair representation). But when it comes to larger issues, especially negotiations over such a hot-button issue as steroid testing is for the MLBPA, it is highly-unlikely that the union leadership would take a position contrary to that of the majority of its membership. At the very least, the issue was not important enough to the alleged silent majority of players to overrule the leadership and whatever vocal minority was against strict testing.
I’m sure Olney deserves at least most of the ire directed at him for writing such an ill-informed column, but to see it come from the same author (DMZ) who refused to throw stones at players on the juice on the grounds of journalistic integrity is a bit disappointing. If you can’t take it upon yourself to condemn the players for breaking the law, then condemning a writer for being a dumba** rings a bit hollow. Sorry.
What law?
Remember that there were no laws against THG while they were taking it.
“Baseball could have agreed to Olympic-style drug-testing… and they wouldn’t have prvented the BALCO scandal.”
Not necessarily, Derek. Testing of any form might’ve been a deterrent. If there was testing, then the player has to decide whether he trusts the information provided to him from his supplier as to whether or not the substance is detectible and/or harmful.
My opinion is skewed here because I generally oppose drug testing. I don’t like the arbitrary line we draw between acceptable chemistry and unacceptable chemistry.
And I’m a big fan of chemistry. It’s done wonderful things for the world.
#12, it’s not just TGH at issue here. Athletes were buying drugs off the black market from AIDS patients. hGH and other less specialized steroids were (and are) being used all the time. How about asking for an appology from Giambi? Even if we take Bonds’ and Sheffield’s explainations at face value, we know 5-7% of MLB players failed the “intelligence test” last year. Even if we don’t have very many names, isn’t it fair to ask for some apologies from the people who have been lying to us, not to mention any legal lines they crossed?
While we’re at it, I’m demanding an apology from jason Stark for implying that every fan had a part in this. BS. If enjoying the power display makes me culpable in the legal and ethical issues of players trying to put on that display, does that mean that because I like to watch auto racing I’m responsible when idiots try to emulate it in thier 4-door sedan and get somebody killed?
And Joe Morgan owes everybody who’s read one of his columns an apology…..just because.
“First, there’s a huge difference between saying “I support testing†and “I support having to stand in a room naked with two dudes staring at me while I urinate into a cup repeatedly during a season†much less the kind of full-press testing operation that’s required to make a serious impact on abuse.”
thats not exactly how pee tests work. while there are usually two people in the room, you are not naked, you stand at a urinal and pee in a cup…. Poor athletes, I used to have to do it weekly at 5 AM for my job in the military. i was also one of the NCOs who actually had to go to a class, with civilian testers, so i could be one of those “meat gazers”. Trust me, it sucks more for the people giving the test.
I demand that all owners be subjected to urine tests, as I believe they’ve been on something for many years now. Have you seen Selig lately? He just looks like he’s strung out! I mean, look at the differences in appearances between the Selig of yesteryear and today! Also, we should subject GM’s to these tests, too– Jim Bowden’s got to be hopped-up on something, and it is detrimental to the “integrity of the league” to have such competitive imbalances.
In all seriousness, there are two major concerns I have about this steroids “story” and the cultural frenzy it has created:
1. The public seems to be forgetting that the owners have at the very least made money on the players who have or have not been on steroids. Somehow, the labor, and particularly the union, gets turned into the bad guys here and the owners are made into saviors. If the Yankees succeed in voiding Giambi’s contract, do you think that one cent will go back to any New Yorker who paid for a ticket in the last 3 years, or that ticket prices will be cut in upcoming seasons?
2. If I’m a player, there’s no way I’m comfortable with my boss having access to all this information about me. This healthy fear of ownership is not limited to baseball; for decades, unions in the US have historically expressed anxieities that management had access to too much information, and thus control, over the lives their workers. Also, steroid-testing brings up serious ethical issues about being forced to incriminate/ testify against yourself.
Someone on a different thread blasted the union, saying it had lost it’s primary responsibility to look out for the well-being of its players. As president of an employee union at a major university, and a student of the history of unions in the US, a union’s job is to assure that the workers have *at least* a fair say in their conditions of employment. In this case, wouldn’t testing for steroids if done by MLB, give way too much power to the owners? Would you want your boss to know that much about you?
I won’t get into the “blame game”, and agree that these leaks from grand jury hearings long ago got old. The reason why the union leadership should have agreed to drug testing is a simple one: public relations. They are now in the position of being cast as the bad guys and approving of cheating, even though the union members and leadership were overwhelmingly opposed to drug use. At some point this insane war that pits the MLBPA and the owners has got to end, I realize that their enmity is well grounded, but it doesn’t mean it is rational anymore. There is a symbiotic relationship between a union and an employer and mutual suicide is usually not considered an answer. So in spite of their misgivings the union leadership should have compromised on this particular issue, after all millionaires warring with billionaires looks awfully stupid to most people. If folk earning $10 an hour are forced to pee in a cup to keep their job, I am not exactly sure why earning 100 times that amount allows one to forgo that privilege. It doesn’t mean people won’t cheat, but at least the organization can claim its’ own honesty.
Okay, to the different points here —
The MLBPA is antagonistic because the owners historically have engaged in massive, often illegal, conduct with the express end of destroying the MLBPA. I’ve argued, here and elsewhere, that both sides need to find common ground on the issues you cite, but to chide the union for being rightly suspicious of the owners at best ignores the history of the two sides.
Even in the example you cite, that’s a complicated issue — if they don’t fight for that one guy, where do they draw the line? Hold a vote? Should unpopular employees be allowed to be screwed around by management? And if the union doesn’t really represent the wishes of their members, they can elect new heads at the next elections, or file a complaint with the NLRB.
Okay, let’s assume you mean condemn them for taking steroids.
If that’s the case, first, I did do that. And if your complaint is I didn’t hurl stones early enough, we’ve dealt with that.
And my argument about Olney isn’t journalistic integrity, it’s that he’s wrong. He’s making bad arguments.
Counterpoints abound:
NFL drug testing, which is supposedly far more stringent than MLB/NBA’s, hasn’t prevented drug abuse in the NFL. NFL players are involved in the BALCO scandal.
Olympic drug testing, which is crazy-stringent, hasn’t prevented drug abuse. Olympic athletes are heavily involved in the BALCO scandal.
“NFL drug testing… hasn’t prevented drug abuse in the NFL.”
True, but the assumption you’re using in that argument on is that players in both sports will make the same decisions when faced with testing.
Player A, with testing: uses
Player B, with testing: doesn’t use
Player C, no testing: uses
Player D, no testing: doesn’t use
It sounds like you’re arguing that because the NFL has players “A,” that all players of type “C” are also of type “A.” That isn’t true, some of the “C’s” might become “B’s” when faced with testing.
It is impossible to say whether or not the individual players involved in BALCO would have been A’s or B’s, all we know is that they were not presented with the deterrent at all.
It’s a minor point, but I still contend that baseball’s involvement in BALCO might have been eliminated or minimized if players were incented in any way possible not to use these substances.
Again, though, I don’t disagree that when faced with a flimsy deterrant such as testing would always win out when going head to head with the incentive of fortune and fame.
But it comes down to the individual. S
If I’m a player, there’s no way I’m comfortable with my boss having access to all this information about me. This healthy fear of “…ownership is not limited to baseball; for decades, unions in the US have historically expressed anxieities that management had access to too much information, and thus control, over the lives their workers. Also, steroid-testing brings up serious ethical issues about being forced to incriminate/ testify against yourself.”
Sorry, but thats a complete crock, and a copout. First, the testing for an “illegal” substance should be preventitive…meaning if you know you are going to be tested, you won’t use it. second, for thos who have used it, it is a warning to get off of it. Third, employers who sign you to a contract/ hire you, have every right to know if you are using a banned substance, it isn’t just sports, this happens to reasl people in real life.
I think its absolutely incredible that people can throw garbage like this paragraph out there, people, do the right thing in life, and not just “everything you can get away with”…and people wonder why our society is in such a sorry state.
But again, there’s no incentive to the players to stop taking (say) THG: it’s legal, it’s undetectable, and if there’s testing, any comparitive advantage grows if general use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs declines.
Hmmm, I don’t know Derek. If you’re the last one walking around with macrocephaly and microgonads, you might find the going a bit rough as you tour the league.
But anyway, while I don’t waste time reading Olney, the MLBPA’s testing issue has always baffled me. The whole point of the venture is entertainment, particularly family entertainment. My little kid was crying because he thought he would be banned from the majors as a result of taking steroids (for croup). That’s not very family entertaining. Maybe fans don’t really care, when it comes to spending, but beyond the economics, is it really good for the MLBPA’s constituents to create a buffer for steroid use? Chronic use is not exactly therapeutic, and it would seem to create the risk of injury to nonusers — e.g., skinny pitchers. Now the union has to bargain from a position of weakness, probably not where it wants to be.
I don’t think the argument that players could get around steroid testing by inventing new, undetectable steroids is much of an argument to avoid the effort. All efforts to ban bad behavior, such as criminal law, fall short of success, yet the effort is not abandoned.
While steroid use has been banned for quite a while, enforcement has been nonexistent. The current “5 strikes your out” system essentially tolerates it. Less tolerance would lead to less use.
Hooo-boy. Derek . . .
Look. Olney is a jerk, we can agree, and one furthermore whose job it is to push hot-buttons in the audience to get a “He-said-WHAT?” response. Let’s step over the stiff, and face up to the issue. You put this one out there, D-Man, so I’m going to respond, because the issue itself is important.
It is obvious, just certain sure, that the Player’s Union staff have TOTALLY stonewalled on the issue of steroids in general and drug testing in particular. It is not ‘non-forward thinking’ here, or being blindsided by the issue. It’s been totally obvious that many, many baseball players have been abusing performance enhancing substances for the last ten years, and union staff have stonewalled. It is a matter of record that union staff have gone into player meetings and totally blown off serious questions on the issue by current, major league players, especially low seniority ones and non-stars. I’m not aware of the players union doing anything serious to protect individual players who opposed using the junk. It doesn’t matter a jot whether Fehr and Orza were stonewalling the issue because they were in cahoots with big stars on stuff, or as more likely they saw fat contracts coming to enhancement abusers as ‘good for the players’ and hence good for the union, regardless of whether it was good for the game, and etc. Fehr and Orza, to me, are two of the biggest enablers around, and as fully and totally ethically challenged as the guys with needles in their asses. Supposing that Olney really had anything to say about the conduct of these two guys, what he should have said (and is probably saying by implication) is that the union officials owe the game and the public at large a major, come clean, ‘we were wrong on this one’ apology for not just looking away from cheats and health-wreckers in the game but in creating a legal frame work that protected the misconduct of said dope(r)s. Of course, the gutless sports press has no taste for picking a fight with the baseball Association, to they’re pulling their punches here. Olney aside, there is, to me, no defense for the union’s conduct. It’s true that drug-testing is often abused by management as a way of singling out employees they dislike and generally keeping labor on a tight leash, yes. Steroids are a cancer on any organized sport, and need to be eliminated from this one; the players won’t do it themselves, so the only way is year-round on-demand testing, and major sanctions against abusers. Period.
And Derek and chris w, the ‘it’s not illegal’ it’s just better living through chemicals line is sooooo lame—and besides the point. The framing of the major league baseball player’s contract, to name the relevant governing agreement, specifically bans the use of performance enhancers in general and always has, without naming substances subject to specific sanctions by name; that contract now identifies most known sterioids, HGH, testosterone boosters, and many other substances abused as sanctionable. It is patently obvious that use of THG was completely _UNETHICAL_ by any standard, on any basis. Any one using that stuff, which is chemically identical to known and banned substances, was and is an ethical slimeball who was knowingly cheating and trying to beat existing drug tests. If somebody wants to grease themself with weasel words and squeeze through a loophole in the strict legal statements of the matter, we don’t have to join them in an obvious evasion of the ethical intent of the rules governing the sport they are, briefly, privileged to play for money. THG absolutely, positively would have been illegal to possess and sanctionable in any sport if used if it had been identifiable, and was so banned and made subject to sanctions as soon as it was identifiable. Get the picture?
This is not a matter of ‘better technology.’ It is most definitely a matter of bad people. Individuals who use banned performance enhancers in organized sports are deliberate cheats, by any standard. This is why said usage is banned and subject to sanctions, just like spiking the Gatorade on the other bench or kidney punching a guy running the bases is banned and subject to sanctions, or throwing a baseball on non-regulation size to gain an advantage. Whether or not the use of enhancers should be accepted is a longer, different discussion [short answer: abolutely not]. The fact remains that performance ehnancers are banned. Most current players in most sports that have such bans and the testing necessary to enforce them solidly endorse such bans, both for the sake of their own health and to weed out cheats who don’t give a damn about sportsmanship, personal health, and general sanity. Players who violate the letter and the _intent_ of such bans are, by definition, cheats, and by their behavior they directly support an orientation in their sports toward violation of the rules for the sake of personal gain. No sport needs such individuals in my view, period. I don’t care what such a person’s career has been, or might be: their sport, and sports period are better without them because of their inability to function with sportsmanship and abide by the rules. In essence, cheaters self-select themselves out by being jerks; chemistry just makes it easier, faster, and more damaging to themselves to do so. Nobody made said cheats take a needle or drop a tablet; it was their own choice. Blame cheats for violating the rules and damagaing their sports? They’re not the only ones, but sure, LET’S start with them.
We don’t need cheats in baseball. We don’t have to buy their excuses, or spread them around like they were, somehow, acceptable ‘explanations.’ We don’t need to wear their numbers on our backs, or tout their ‘records.’ If they can’t clean up, they can get out, and the sooner the better. That is what the rules say, for anybody who wants to go back and read them. That is my view on the matter as well.
Evan and DMZ
In the US taking steroids without a medical reason, and without medical supervision is not legal. THG is a steroid, and therefore it is probably illegal to take it in the way that Giambi and others did.
That THG was not prohibited by MLB does not mean it is legal under federal drug laws. That THG was undetectable changes nothing about the legality or morality of the issue. “I didn’t think I’d get caught” is not an valid defense against any sort of lawbreaking.
Its a very shifty piece of sophistry to advance these as arguments that baseball would have been wasting its time to push for stiffer drug testing.
Colm, you’re right, but for all the wrong reasons.
“Steroid” is a chemical term that includes corticosteroids, anabolic steroids, etc. … not all “steroids” are illegal. During the time all this went on, there was no law whatsoever against THG. There was also no law (except in certain states) against, for instance, newer derivatives of the stuff McGwire used (such as Androdiol, 1-AD, etc.).
You are right, however, in a sense; as of January, all testosterone derivatives (my wording — I don’t know the exact language) will be made illegal, and this is designed to subsume all the current “prohormones.” I presume this would include THG and most anabolic steroid derivatives.
Thus, although Derek is right in the technical sense, that THG isn’t illegal, by the time testing was in place, most “undetectable” steroids would be (I believe) — this would then support Colm’s arguments.
So basically, I’ve alienated myself from both of you, while saying you’re both right. I’m tired.
E, you’re right, I was loose in my wording. I meant anabolic steroids; I was just using the common shorthand (ya damn pedant). 1% cortisone is not and was not illegal. You can do whatever you like with your medicated jock itch cream.
I don’t know if the wording of the law prohibits the improper use of specific drugs, or of classes of drugs. However I do know that new drugs and medicines are not approved for use in this country without an FDA audit. I’m fairly sure that Balco and Conte didn’t clear this hurdle for THG, thus it was and is an illegal drug.
Human growth hormone was an FDA certified and controlled drug at the time this abuse is said to have taken place, thus its improper use was illegal. Not under baseball codes, but under the federal law.
Going back to Marvin Miller, the player union dynamics have consistently
been the Union leadership rides herd and drives the stances the Union takes. This player driven response is new and reflects a deep resentment amongst the rank and file players towards the ‘roid freaks.
Hank Aaron was quite eloquent last week when he said that the use of the substances was quite wrong. It really is not more complicated than that.
I don’t see why Olney would owe anyone an apology. If I’m reading correctly, you’re saying part of the union’s job is to be the bad guy. Players are able to pretend that they would completely allow drug testing if that evil union would let them.
Well then this column is helping Fehr do his job. If the anger gets directed towards him instead of Giambi or Sheffield or Bonds, that shows players why unions are important. My reaction isn’t wondering if an apology is in order, rather I wonder how much money the union paid for that column to exist.
Rich and Bela,
“First, the testing for an “illegal†substance should be preventative…meaning if you know you are going to be tested, you won’t use it. second, for those who have used it, it is a warning to get off of it.â€
Ok— but if this is the logic behind testing, you have to expect that rational adults are going to resent such a paternalistic implication. This is tantamount to saying “we, the owners, know what’s best for you, the players, better than you yourselves do.†(and, incidentally, if this is the logic behind testing, doesn’t it actually participate in what you yourself say is “wrong with society†by legislating what someone can and cannot “get away withâ€?)
“Third, employers who sign you to a contract/ hire you, have every right to know if you are using a banned substance.â€
Why? Or, put another way, where does an owner’s “rightsâ€â€”presumably rights of property ownership—supercede the “rights†of a worker—specifically I’d argue the more fundamentally human rights of privacy and dignity? Do our “rights†as fans/consumers supercede those rights? Is anyone really willing to argue that a baseball player is not entitled to those rights because baseball is such a public spectacle? That somehow baseball players don’t have those rights and are by implication “less humanâ€?
“It doesn’t matter a jot whether Fehr and Orza were stonewalling the issue because they were in cahoots with big stars on stuff, or as more likely they saw fat contracts coming to enhancement abusers as ‘good for the players’ and hence good for the union, regardless of whether it was good for the game, and etc. Fehr and Orza, to me, are two of the biggest enablers around, and as fully and totally ethically challenged as the guys with needles in their asses.â€
I’m assuming, Bela, that you are a member of MLBPA, and have evidence that this is the case? How was that meeting when it was decided that official policy would be saving the contracts of the wealthiest was “good for the players� Was it a close vote? Discussion must have been lively, and I’m sure that when Fehr and Ozra come up for election in the MLBPA again, if they chose to run, they’ll have some stiff competition. Better yet, don’t tell me, as I’m not a member of MLBPA, and really don’t have any rights to know what was decided amongst the players themselves.
Look, all I’m saying is that I think it’s disturbing that so much push for testing the players is coming from management and consumers. If there is to be testing done for steroids, it has to come from the players themselves. I’d even argue that any testing should be done by the union, as the bottom line is that players need only be accountable to each other, not from any “outside†group whose interest may be different than that of the labor.
Todd: What gives the owners the ‘right’ to test for abuse of performance enhancers among their employees is the collective baragaining agreement. It’s a simple matter of contract law: player’s under contract have agreed as a condition of employment not to use the junk, both do to specific bans and to general good conduct clauses governing issues like cheating and misrepresentation of their conditioning. Those that use have violated their contracts in multiple [dys]respects. Because not only can you not trust individuals to self-report usage, but also the players have a demonstrated history of being unable to confront or police the issue among themselves, the owners certainly have the option to insist upon testing. It’s not a matter of ‘paternalism,’ it’s a matter of a legally binding employment contract. With regard to a player’s ‘right to piracy,’ ahhh ‘_privacy_,’ such a right is superceded by his contract terms with his employer and also superceded by the governing regulations of the appropriate sports sanctioning body, in this case the overall rules and standards of conduct as defined by ML baseball out of the Commissioner’s office. If a player can’t accept that, he doesn’t have to play in the major leagues. Simple, no? To me, Tood, your position seems to imply that, somehow, these players _did not_ sign binding contract agreements with their employers governing these issues, but to the best of my knowledge that is not the case. I know that a significant portion of professional atheltes and celebrities generally do not seem to think that pervailing legal standards do not apply to their personal conduct, but they are mistaken, and we needn’t join them in that delusion.
The union has less than no credibility on the matter of testing, Todd, and it is completely unrealistic and unreasonable for them to administer any kind of testing. I, personally, find the idea farcical. But more than that, the MLBPA has absolutely no standing to test for abuse of performance enhancers since the contract governing the issue is between players _and management_. If the players of their own intitiative vote that members of the MLBPA are to submit to testing administered by their own union as a condition of union membership, that would be an interesting development—but I strongly suspect that such a vote wouldn’t hold up in court if an individual player claimed that this was an invasion of their privacy.
The push for testing coming from non-MLB players is due to the fact that numerous baseball players are trafficing in and using illegal performance enhancers, are defrauding their employers in doing so practically speaking, are cheating their opponents and fellow union members, are showing disrespect for their fans and their sport, and have shown absolutely no inclination on their own to clean up. If no one stole or committed rape, we wouldn’t need police or prisons, Todd—but we don’t live in that world, do we? Now, the primary function of criminal statutes, police, and prisons, if properly constrained and employed is ‘preventative,’ yes, to dissuade others with a plastic moral armature from bending the wrong way. Some individuals won’t be deterred by the _possibility_ of sanctions, regrettably, only by the actuality of enforcement. Rational adults do not knowlingly violate criminal statutes and binding contractual agreements; crooks do. That’s the problem, Todd.
Because enforcement of bans on performance enhancers has been nonexistent, cheats can just sit back in their Barcaloungers at those players-and-union-rep meetings, flex their muscles and their contracts, and tell the others to *wink, wink* get with the program or drag their lesser stats back to the minors. Baseball management in this case, and the court system in other cases—like, say, perjury, distribution, or fraud—have the right, the authority, and the frankly the obligation to squeeze the juice out of the players. What is new and different in all this is the incipient rebellion by the rank and file baseball players against their crony union bosses and the cabal of superrich, superfamous enhancer abusers who have grabbed control of the operating conditions in baseball in the last ten years. But that rank and file cannont test abusers; it cannot sanction them; it cannot void their contracts and kick them out. Labor unions get sidetracked by racketeers; it happens, yes. I’m not saying there is quite something at the organized level to imply that this is the case within the MLBPA, but functionally the situation is closer to that then I think you would like to admit, Todd.
Just for the record and for anyone who cares, I find it most arduous to ‘defend management’ on the issue of testing and sanctions. I happen to be a dues-paying member of a union which saved me from being fired by my roundly abusive and generally incompetent management a few years ago. My position on the criminalization of recreational drugs is, on quite different grounds, actually entirely different (although for the record I don’t use any of them either). Performance enhancement abuse has been a total cancer for every sport in which it has cropped up and gotten far out of hand, and baseball is very near the bottom of the list of such sports at this time in my view. I love baseball, and want to see it played right. That’s my goal.