Bud Selig, Super Genius

What, did you read that right? The most maligned man in Baseball, getting praise on the pages of Off Wing Opinion?

No, not exactly, but stick with me here, and you'll understand where I'm coming from soon enough. First, digest this news that fronted the Sports section of this morning's Washington Post:

Major League Baseball is making preparations to invoke a provision that allows for drug testing of any player suspected of using steroids after a report that federal investigators were told that San Francisco Giants star Barry Bonds received performance-enhancing drugs from a nutritional supplements lab. . .

Baseball's drug policy allows for just one random test each year (plus a follow-up within five to seven days), and only during the season. But the "reasonable cause" provision, which has never been used, allows officials to seek immediate testing at any time based on evidence that a player has used steroids within the previous 12 months.

The provision is part of the collective bargaining agreement between MLB and the Major League Baseball Players Association. The MLBPA did not return calls for comment.

Major league officials have been gathering information in preparation for invoking the provision since several major league players, including Bonds and Giambi, were linked to the federal investigation into BALCO last fall, according to a baseball official with knowledge of the process.

The official declined to say who might be tested, but said baseball would decide soon on whether to take action. "I think it will be days, not weeks," the official said.

Any reasonable cause testing requires a vote of baseball's Health Policy Advisory Committee, which is made up of two representatives from the players union and two representatives from Major League Baseball. The committee appoints a fifth member in the case of a split vote.

Here's Harvey Araton over at the New York Times:

And on the issue of steroids, [players union officials Don] Fehr and [Gene] Orza were staggeringly clueless, still fighting the old recreational drug-privacy wars of a quarter century ago.

They didn't recognize how the sports drug landscape had changed, how destructive and divisive the new scourge of pharmacology would become when players were allowed to alter the terms of competition. They failed to grasp what other sports unions and organizations had. The others hadn't surrendered, as Marvin Miller would have argued. They embraced the idea that an athlete's decision to use performance-enhancing drugs affected the union brother who didn't want to share the risk.

Back in 2002, when Baseball's steroids testing policy was announced in tandem with the new collective bargaining agreement that prevented a work stoppage, I called it toothless. But as time has passed, it should be clear that the owners, led by Bud Selig, have outmanuvered the players on the issue.

How?

Because while union leadership might be united on testing, union membership is hopelessly divided. In a way, the situation is roughly analagous to national politics where the top dogs at the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters, and the UAW put their organizations to work for Democratic candidates, yet still see a significant number of blue collar employees cast their votes for Republicans (especially for President) on Election Day.

Return with me back to the Summer of 2002, as Baseball was counting down to Armageddon once more, and USA Today completed a survey that reported nearly 80 percent of all baseball players were in favor of the union position against testing (only 17 percent of players backed the union). Further, 44 percent of players acknowledged that there was pressure to use steroids in order to keep competing.

At the 11th hour, the union signed on to the current plan. What should be clear now, is that a number of players decided to take a chance and continue taking steroids for one more season, knowing that a positive result wouldn't result in a suspension or public disclosure the first time around. But there was already signs of dissension in the ranks.

In Chicago, 16 members of the White Sox were prepared to refuse testing outright, knowing that refusal would be marked down as a positive result in the eyes of the collective bargaining agreement, and that their numbers alone would wind up tripping the provision that provided for further testing.

This Spring, we've already seen Curt Schilling, Turk Wendell, and Jeff Kent speak out on the issue with a willingness to name names. Yesterday on Sporting News Radio, a former teammate of Barry Bonds in Pittsburgh, Andy Van Slyke, took on Bonds directly:

Now, I never saw him put it into his body, but look, Barry went to the bank with the robber, he drove the car, he got money in his pocket from the bag that came out of the bank. Come to your own conclusion. Did he spend the money?

You decide. I think he did.

In the meantime, owners also negotiated for rigorous testing in the minor leagues. Since then, they've put tighter controls on just who can get into the clubhouse, and gotten a federal investigation of the sport from an Administration that's headed by a former owner.

I know a number of other sports bloggers, Dave Pinto and Nick Schulz in particular, think that players ought to be able to obtain steroids legally with the help of a physician. But I think the fundamental difference of opinion here is in interpreting the situation through the lens of personal freedom, instead of through the prism of the workplace and collective bargaining.

Look at it this way: say you're a member of a union, and you discover that a number of your co-workers are taking a pill that greatly enhances their performance. While the benefits of the pill are clear, there may be potential dangers, and the dangers may vary depending on each person's individual body chemistry (as is the case with both over the counter and prescription medications).

Without even delving into the philosophical issues, can we really be surprised that the players are divided? And can we really be suprised that players who don't use steroids, would want to see their use driven from the game forever?

Which I think is what Selig was counting on in the first place. Amazing.

Over at Old Fishinghat, JC has his own doubts about the owners intentions, and I think he's right too. Why?

Because what we're seeing here my friends is the beginning of a crackdown, but one that still comes with a sunset provision. Remember, after a number of years, if the number of players testing positive for steroids drops below a certain threshold, testing is over and done with.

And what happens then?

Eric 12:16 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ericmcerlain.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3012

Comments

Posted by: at March 3, 2004 03:53 PM

Posted by: at March 3, 2004 04:25 PM

Posted by: at March 3, 2004 06:08 PM

Posted by: at March 3, 2004 08:14 PM

Post a comment