Players Agree To Steroid Testing, Or Do They? At least that's what ESPN is reporting, but like usual, the devil is in the details:
Under the proposal, which addresses one of the key issues in contract talks, players would be subjected to one or more unannounced tests in 2003 to determine the level of steroid use. If the survey showed "insignificant'' use, a second round of tests would be set up in 2004 to verify the results.
If more than 5 percent of the tests were positive in either survey, players would be randomly tested for two years.
The union did not say what penalties, if any, would be levied against players who test positive for steroids.
"We had an obligation to bargain on it. It was a serious issue,'' union head Donald Fehr said. "It took a lot of time and effort and thought.''
So what we're really looking at is simply a negotiating position for the union. Have to like the built-in "sunset provision" that's part of this proposal -- something that would essentially give players a season to drop steroid use, or utilize masking agents, to get the number of players exposed down to less than five percent. Then, bingo, no more steroid testing.
Earlier this year, the owners proposed that players be tested for steroids three times per year, as well as once per year for illegal drugs. In light of that, the players' proposal doesn't seem all that significant a concession.
