NFL Players Association boss Gene Upshaw says no positive test, no steroid problem. Despite other evidence.
Upshaw responded to questions regarding the recent Operation Netroids busts, where players names link to Internet pharmacies, however without positive blood tests. Story in the Charlotte Observer.
As the NFL awaits information from law enforcement officials that could incriminate players as having illegally obtained steroids and human growth hormone over the Internet, players association executive director Gene Upshaw says he won't endorse suspending players unless they tested positive.
"We are not going to get into a witch hunt," he told the Observer in an e-mail.
Upshaw responded to inquires following comments by WADA's Dick Pound suggesting athletes linked to Netroids require consequences.
Pound questioned Upshaw's commitment to anti-doping.
"If he wanted his sport and the NFL to be drug-free, he would not say that," Pound said in an e-mail. "It's an either-or situation: Either he wants drug-free football or he does not."
Upshaw hammered back at Pound. We ain't listening to no WADA talk.
Upshaw rejected World Anti-Doping Agency chairman Richard Pound's suggestion that the league should "absolutely" be prepared to discipline any players linked to an Albany, N.Y.-based case if the evidence is reliable and credible, regardless of whether the players involved tested positive.
"We will not let WADA determine how we operate our program," Upshaw said. "We discipline only for a positive test...."WADA can say whatever they like; the players in the NFL have both a union and a collective bargaining agreement."
(more after the jump, but an editorial comment here). The reduction of steroid use (or sports doping) to simply catching a player with anabolic floating around his bloodstream at that point in time is reductionist to the point of ridiculousness. The fight against drug-cheating then becomes law enforcement, which is one dimensional and almost futile. The tests are incomplete for many anabolics, as well as predictable, and easily defeated. Tests currently detect anabolic steroids, amphetamines, clen, and some anti-estrogens, and diuretics. Tests do not detect HGH. IGF, insulin, and short acting steroids.
The NFL needs much broader thinking, and a broader effort to combat drug-cheating. A player should sign an honesty clause that states he recognizes consequences occur with a positive test, or a link to doping such as prescriptions, or eye-witness detailing. Then let due process occur.
Ultimately Upshaw's stance will lead to a pro-wrestling sort of NFL. An escalating drug race will cause greater use of anabolics. Players will suffer consequences, even as the physiques reach superhuman size. The NFL will take on a cartoonish look, which may attract fans to games, to see the behemoths colloid. Deaths and serious injuries at some point will bring the league back to earth.
Right now, Upshaw's stance is narrow-minded and obstructionist. If the players are honest, they have little to fear from a witch-hunt.
Continued:
WADA makes a good case that something other than positive doping tests should be used to hold player's to ethical standards. The doping tests are but a small window into a player's overall training habits.
WADA and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency endorse the use of what are called "non-analytical positives" in the war against performance-enhancing drugs. USADA banned five Olympic-caliber athletes, including sprinter Tim Montgomery, in 2004 and 2005 using evidence from the federal investigation of Bay Area Laboratories Co-Operative (BALCO). None of the athletes tested positive.
The NFL did not suspend any Carolina Panthers linked to the 2005-2006 federal case against Dr. James Shortt despite substantial information in court documents and testimony showing they received steroids and HGH from the West Columbia, S.C., physician. None of the players tested positive.
None are with the Panthers now and two remain active in the league -- St. Louis tackle Todd Steussie and New England punter Todd Sauerbrun.
The NFL's current policy:
The NFL's anti-doping policy doesn't appear to leave much of an opening for suspensions using non-analytical positives. It says players can be suspended for the following reasons:
• Testing positive.
• A conviction, or admission, of a law violation regarding steroids and related substances.
• Failure or refusal to take a test.
• Manipulation of test results.
As evidenced, players can be caught red-handed with prescriptions, then walk away without consequences. Is that really what NFL brass and Players Association brass want? A league of bloated muscles, and smirking cheaters?
Comments