quote:Athletes in the four major U.S. professional leagues would be subject to two-year bans for a first positive drug test under legislation proposed Tuesday that would put the sports' steroid policies under the White House drug czar.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., joined House Government Reform Committee chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., and ranking Democrat Henry Waxman of California in introducing the Clean Sports Act of 2005.
It's the second recent bill that would establish minimum steroids policies across the spectrum of American sports and align them with the Olympic standards for testing and punishment.
Rep. Cliff Stearns, a Florida Republican who chairs a House Commerce and Energy subcommittee, proposed the Drug Free Sports Act of 2005 last month, and his panel will write the formal legislation Wednesday.
A third committee, House Judiciary, sent a letter last week to various sports leagues and their unions asking for documents about their drug-testing policies.
"There's got to be some kind of legislation that will absolutely test and punish professional athletes that use performance-enhancing drugs," McCain said.
"There are a lot of issues we would much rather address," he added. "And if the professional leagues had taken action, we would not be here today. But they have not taken sufficient action."
While boosting strength, steroids can lead to heart attacks, strokes, cancer, sterility and mood swings. Using most steroids without a doctor's prescription for medical purposes has been illegal since 1991.
"Steroid use is a national public health crisis. This legislation is aimed at not only getting rid of performance enhancing drugs on the professional level, but also sends a message loud and clear to the young people of America: Steroids are illegal. Steroids are dangerous. They can be deadly. And there is no place for them in our sports leagues or our school grounds," Davis said.
His committee held three hearings about steroid use, with witnesses including players, doctors, parents of young athletes who committed suicide after using steroids, and management and union officials from Major League Baseball, the NFL and NBA. Those three leagues and the NHL would be governed by the Clean Sports Act of 2005, though the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy would have the power to add other leagues or NCAA Division I and II.
Stearns' bill, if enacted, would put sports' drug policies under control of the Commerce Secretary. There are other differences between the proposals. The legislation offered Tuesday, for example, requires players to be tested randomly at least five times per year: three during the season, two in the offseason. Stearns' bill requires one test.
Both bills call for testing by an independent agency. (Emphasis added)
Let's see: Drug tests required by federal law. No probable cause. Losing your job if you test positive. No public safety issue.
How on earth is this justified? If this can be justified for pro athletes, is there any job it can't be justified for?
Why is such a policy an absolute must? I don't get it at all.
Dagonee
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I'd rather see mandatory drug testing of the people who sell exercise equipment. When the guy says "I got this body and I'm 42. You have to be in great shape to play volleyball like this at my age. I owe it all to xxx" you have to wonder how much of that physique is due to steroids, not the body muncher 2010.
At least those tests would be seen as a "Truth in Advertising" issue.
Dag, I think we agree here.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*starts planning mandatory drug tests for politicians*
*intends to enact the bill himself, as that seems just as allowable*
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Not as a national law, but as a part of each professional league's own internal rules.
At least with football, the rules were established for the NFL as an agreement between the ownership and the players association. Such an agreement is legal to the best of my knowledge and is the appropriate way to do so. If both the owners and the employees both agree to the standards.
(In the NFL, a good portion of the push for testing came from the players as a bulwark against the teams from dictating to players to take performance-enhancing drugs. It has been alleged that steroid use was the unwritten policy of a number of teams in the 1970s and early 1980s -- particularly the Pittsburgh Steelers who dominated play in that time period).
But a national law? I think that would be against the Constitutional rights of citizens in the leagues.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not as a national law, but as a part of each professional league's own internal rules.
At least with football, the rules were established for the NFL as an agreement between the ownership and the players association. Such an agreement is legal to the best of my knowledge and is the appropriate way to do so. If both the owners and the employees both agree to the standards.
Exactly - then it's a contract matter. The players have exercised their collective bargaining to get concessions on things that matter. In fact, players that want to have a chance in the league without steroids might prefer the policy. If they consent to drug testing, that's fine with me.
quote:*starts planning mandatory drug tests for politicians*
*intends to enact the bill himself, as that seems just as allowable*
Do you want to stop them, or just find out what they're smoking so you can market it yourself?
quote:Dag, I think we agree here.
Checks Dan off my list. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am not sure, really. They could increase the fines/punishment for testing positive if you are an athelete, I guess, making the penalties worse to discourage use.
There IS a public safety issue though, if the sports world continues to pay lip service to the laws but secrectly encourages atheles to use and abuse steroids.
Kwea
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think I'd settle for blackmailing them, which I made legal in my case in the same bill I passed allowing the testing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What scares me Kwea is that I can't think of a search I couldn't justify on those grounds.
And fugu, I hope you remember to file your Form 5818 - Reporting of Proceeds from Legal Blackmailing and Paying 39% to Dagonee. It's a brand new regulation I just passed.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's not a public safety issue, Kwea, that's a sports athletes safeness issue. There's no one in particular being harmed beyond the sports athletes.
The only way athletes' drug usage would become a public safety issue is if an athlete's drug use was somehow inherently more harmful (and really, to other people) than another person's drug use.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Though the amount seems fine, I'll just pad the blackmail amounts.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I see the source of your confusion. I don't use the DA series of forms. I use the DAG series.
Oh, and don't take checks. At least not from House members.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, I'm planning to take my payment in the form of compressed carbon crystal made from the BS that some government officials generate in mass quantities -- diamonds.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I dunno. A better case can be made for mandatory drug testing in athletics than in eg retail sales ala HomeDepot. In fact, I can't think of any major employer which doesn't require drug testing as a condition of employment other than MajorLeague sports.
Not that I agree with such testing: saying that unreasonable search is alright by private contract is equivalent to saying that it's also alright for corporations to torture employees, or to demand involuntary servitude. Of course, the SupremeCourt has long held that involuntary servitude is okay despite the 13thAmendment.
The sports leagues are granted exemption from anti-monopoly laws by federal legislation. That being so, the feds have a duty to police the sports leagues for honesty in operating practices. And considering that the Majors have gone well out of their way to ignore cheating -- ie steroid abuse -- the public is definitely being defrauded.
[ May 25, 2005, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: In fact, I can't think of any major employer which doesn't require drug testing as a condition of employment other than MajorLeague sports.
Really? I've worked in the Fast Food Industry, Hotel Industry, Construction, and now work for a major credit card company. None of my employers (other than the USAF) instituted mandatory (or even voluntary) drug testing. None of my family has been mandatorily tested for drugs because of their job. I have a friend who works for the Naval Academy (in a civilian position) who regularly smokes pot without worry because her employer does not test for drug use. The MTA (Mass Transit Authority) in Baltimore has been taking a lot of flack for their lack of a regular mandatory drug testing policy (especially after a driver on crack ran the light-rail train into the airport terminal).
I'm not sure where you've been working, but I'd have to guess that most "major employers" don't enforce mandatory drug testing if they even have such testing as a matter of written policy.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Except for a stint in the military, I've always been self-employed. And I've never been drug-tested. Just repeating acquaintances' "I start the job as soon as I take their [pre-employment] drug test."
Admittedly, drug-testing seems to be an Eloi vs Morlocks humiliation thing: friends with college degrees have never been tested. Which is one of the reasons I dislike drug-testing without a criminal probable cause or a legally defensible need in general.
[ May 25, 2005, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Yeah, that's funny about the Eloi vs Morlock thing. Drug use is by far not an activity restricted to the blue collar crowd.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I think baseball is different because of some kind of other rule or some kind of monopoly thing. I know professional baseball is somehow connected to the government, maybe a non competing kind of ruling, or something like that, and that's why the government can step in
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
I believe that MLB is exempt from anti-trust laws. Not sure why that gives the government the right to interfere like this.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
"That being so, the feds have a duty to police the sports leagues for honesty in operating practices."
I think that is a fair argument. On the other hand, I think less drug use can also be achieved without government intervention. If the MLB cannot stop the rumors of steroid use, more and more baseball purists will stop following baseball. Eventually free market forces will make owners realize that strict testing procedures are good for business in the long run.
As for the public safety issue, perhaps the government has a special interest in professional sports because pro atheletes have tremendous influence over our youths?
Edited to add: Ah, sorry Adam, I see you already brought up the "what about the children!" argument. I know you're being sarcastic, but I think many people would support federal intervention on those grounds. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The biggest difference between Home Depot and Baseball is that Home Depot employees on drugs are less productive and hurt revenues. Baseball players on steroids improve productivity and have so far increased short term revenues. Where is the motivation for management to institute drug policies? Oh yeah, long term thinking. We all know that every corporation excells in long term thinking over short term profits.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: I've worked in the Fast Food Industry, Hotel Industry, Construction, and now work for a major credit card company.
Karl, you seriously worked in construction and weren't subject to drug testing. I can't think of any major companies around here that don't require it to get the job to begin with and also in the event of any worksite accident. I suppose the illegal aliens don't have to.
I'm an engineer and I'm subject to it. It's not directly from my employer but from our insurance company. I don't think they require it, but my company gets better rates if it's done.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I kinda like the idea of mandatory drug testing for politicians, with a mandatory suspension of their livelihood on a positive result.
If the politicos think that it's important to regulate the sports industry, maybe they should first take a gander at the medical and education "players" first. An absolute dedication to competence there doesn't appear to be terribly high on their list of things to regulate even though they present a very real and direct influence to the public. (Which is not to say that both industries don't have their superstars...it's just very difficult to get rid of the stinkers among them.)
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Almost everywhere I've worked in the last 10 years had mandatory pre-employment drug testing, but then never did any "random" drug tests afterward, though most reserved the right to.
--Enigmatic
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Doesn't a business have a right to have employees that don't do drugs? Nobody is forced to work for them, and nobody has drugs forced into their bodies.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)