At Home Plate
| Home | Main Archive | Fantasy Archive | Forums | Reviews |
|
|
At Home Plate |
||||
|
|
Four More Years!by Jonathan LeshanskiDecember 28, 2003 For more other/recent articles on steroids or drugs in baseball please follow this link No it is not the next campaign slogan of George W. (for which I am sure many of you are grateful) rather it is the amount of time before baseball has a shot at implementing an anti-drug policy of their own. Unless lawmakers step in and intercede, something that I am becoming more and more in favor of, the next collective bargaining agreement is due to come up in 2007. It is a year for which MLB had thought they were prepared for the big issue. The issue was not drugs but contraction. In the last Collective Bargaining Agreement the Players Union gave MLB a commitment not to oppose contraction of up to two teams for the 2007 season (say goodbye Minnesota and ? - those are just my guesses). In any event, that issue might change if MLB and the public presses the Players Union for a real drug policy - something that the union has been strongly opposed to. In the end we all lose if baseball needs to wait until 2007 for baseball to try to get a real drug policy into place. For years drugs have been baseball’s dirty little secret and MLB has been powerless to do a thing about it. However like fungus, drug use will dry up when exposed to sunlight or in this case the spotlight of exposure. The union is trying to hold the light at bay however as they have for years. Claiming, as so many previous groups have, that drug testing is a violation of the civil rights of the players being tested*. That argument has never held water at the Federal level of the court system when applied to contracts like the CBA which fall under Federal law. The problem of course is that baseball is not subject to many of the laws and customs of other businesses. Baseball does not have the right to make their own decisions on matters that pertain to their own business without dealing with the Players Union and working out the details through collective bargaining. A perfect example is not that of the thwarted contraction of last season, but the All-Star Game experiment of this past season and next year, which could not go through without the Union’s approval. Now how the decision by the owners as to if home field advantage should be determined by the All Star game, could have affected the players unfairly in any way is beyond me. Nonetheless because of the way baseball has had to share power with the union, both sides must agree to any change no matter how small if it affects the status quo of the game, its rules or customs. If the Players Union wanted to it could even intervene on uniform colors and design. Now I would hope that the union would come to its senses and propose a drug plan that is responsible and comparable to those used in other sports but I am not holding my breath on it. That is management’s fault too. The relations between owners and players have been strained over many different issues since the 1880’s, with the biggest issue being the reserve clause that was finally thrown out in the aftermath of the Curt Flood case. In the times before the reserve clause was thrown out the owners went to war and sometimes they played very dirty. It formed the basis for a relationship so adversarial that both sides are afraid to concede anything without getting something back - even when it is the right thing to do. Many of the players and their representatives understand that and have spoken out against steroids and some other drugs as well. Part of the problem of course is one of societal mores. Drug use in this country is fairly widespread and the use of recreational drugs even among professionals is far too common. According to the National Center for Health Statistics over 8.3% of the US population used some illegal drugs in 2002 - with the highest usage (20.2%)among 18-25 year olds and over 10% among 26-34 year olds. Those are the same demographics of most Major League players. I don’t think anyone would be terribly surprised to find that some players use recreational drugs. There have been plenty of players who have sought help or had drug problems in baseball over the last two decades; drug use was fairly rampant in the 60’s and 70’s and quite obviously in the game as can be read in many of the biographies of players. Even last year (2002) the New York Mets were involved in a scandal over marijuana where at least 7 players were suspected of using. A quote attributed to Bobby Valentine said that he had been worried about the issue as early as spring training that season. The same story also told of the use of ecstasy by some players. With this in mind it makes sense that the players oppose drug testing and only grudgingly want to accept steroid testing. They are afraid of drug testing and that it will open Pandora’s box. Once the testing occurs for one drug how soon might they be tested for another? Even if the tests were conducted illegally and results leaked to the media with no proof but an anonymous quote, how would the public respond to news that 20% of all major leaguers were smoking pot? It would lead to a policy that could cost players their jobs, get them suspended without pay, and even open the doors to lawsuits by fans and owners who claim to be defrauded by “enhanced” or stoned athletes who are not what they sold themselves to be. What owner of a business would not feel cheated if they paid for top of the line and were actually given average stuff with some enhancements to make it look like top of the line? Most businesses would sue for fraud. It’s an ugly situation and even if the players don’t recognize all of the issues, you can be sure that the union leader Donald Fehr does. Fehr’s job is to protect and represent the players - even if that protection seems contrary to their best interests from the public point of view. There is no doubt that change will happen, it is inevitable, and MLB will one day have a drug policy that seems rational – though it is just likely to take four more years. * (laws differ from state to state - however the collective bargaining agreement falls under federal not state laws - and permit drug testing if negociated as part of the contract. This overrides state laws which differ from state to state – and public sector vs. private sector - for example in California private sector employers may not perform random drug tests) If you have any opinions or comments to share on this topic- just click here |
|
| Copyright 2002-5 At Home Plate, Inc. • Contact us | Home • Archive • Fantasy • Forums • Reviews |