Anti-Doping Over

[Roadent]

Great,

Just posted this somewhere else, but a little PO'd about all of this, so here goes:

From today's NY Times:

A three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in Minneapolis, last week upheld a lower court ruling that prohibited the N.F.L. from suspending two Minnesota Vikings players who violated the league’s antidoping policy, saying they could contest their suspensions in state court. The ruling was a victory for the players because Minnesota state laws — and laws in about half of all states — are considered worker-friendly and say that an employee cannot be penalized for an initial positive drug test.

“Why should a football player not have the same rights that a person in Minnesota has?” said Mark S. Levinstein, a lawyer in Washington for the firm Williams & Connolly who has represented dozens of professional athletes, including Lance Armstrong. “The idea that the N.F.L. is more important than the views of state legislators is ridiculous. The N.F.L. is just confronting what most businesses have to deal with, which is different laws in different states. That is just how our country is set up.”

I realize that anti-doping efforts in NA pro sports are a joke, anyway, without this, but this seems to be the nail in the coffin: any surprise that "a lawyer...who has represented Lance Armstrong" in involved with this? Very convenient...

Players and their agents must be jumping for joy and owners and commissioners must be sighing with relief: if it's going to be this much trouble when someone tests positive, why even test anymore?

I'm giving up....

 

[Anonymous]

Great,

Just posted this somewhere else, but a little PO'd about all of this, so here goes:

From today's NY Times:


I realize that anti-doping efforts in NA pro sports are a joke, anyway, without this, but this seems to be the nail in the coffin: any surprise that "a lawyer...who has represented Lance Armstrong" in involved with this? Very convenient...

Players and their agents must be jumping for joy and owners and commissioners must be sighing with relief: if it's going to be this much trouble when someone tests positive, why even test anymore?

I'm giving up....

+1

It's officially over. Actually, it's been over for some years and the joke is on us. If clean cycling in the Olympic spirit is what you want you can forget it.

Pro Cycling is just entertainment. Just watchin' charoit races at the coliseum... All we need now is for the Lantern Rouge to be thrown to the lions.

 

[Bala Verde]

That is some funny stuff!

Did everyone read this the way I did, I still feel like I am hallucinating:

Worker protection rights are invoked to prevent drug addicts from being suspended, while stressing that the capitalist NFL is not beyond reproach and certainly not above the law, in a country that has initiated a war on drugs and is somewhat prejudiced if you will against 'Socialism'.

 

[usedtobefast]

That is some funny stuff!

Did everyone read this the way I did, I still feel like I am hallucinating:

Worker protection rights are invoked to prevent drug addicts from being suspended, while stressing that the capitalist NFL is not beyond reproach and certainly not above the law, in a country that has initiated a war on drugs and is somewhat prejudiced if you will against 'Socialism'.

are they high?

 

[180mmCrank]

What can I say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4tDP-yMwXI

 

[BikeCentric]

Federal law trumps State law in the USA, so it is up to Congress to step in now. They did step in during the baseball scandall and also with BALCO; however this is not really on the political radar right now with health care reform being a huge fight. So this lawyer is bringing the case at the right time when he knows Congress is distracted. LOL, pro sports are in a very bad place right now.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I hate to say this, as I used to be a huge NFL fan, but the league is dropping off, and Roger Goodell has become a joke, and is a terrible commissioner compared to Paul Tagliabue. Goodell came into the league with all of his talk about ethics and a high standard, and the opposite has happened, all on his watch. The NFL will excuse anything, and take anyone. Not just dopers, but wife beaters, gun shooters, DUII fools, dog killers, it's all okay to them.

Someone quipped that Rae Carruth will be paroled at the age of 43, and if he keeps himself fit in prison, the NFL will happily sign him with open arms upon his release. After all, he was a congenial guy, and will have repaid his debt to society by then.

 

[Ex-trackie]

So does this mean that all the european pro teams can move their official base to the US and hide under the protection of US law? What a "boon" for american cycling!

 

[pataphysician]

This is a case of the NFL losing the war in an attempt to win a small battle. The four linemen in this case were accused of taking a diuretic, that is banned because it can be used cover steroids, as an ingredient in Starcaps weight loss pills. According to to the players, as well as the league, the supplements were taken to lose weight quickly to meet contract weight goals that lead to either bonuses or penalties in salary. There was never any whiff of actual performance enhancing. Instead of working out a deal with the players, and perhaps instituting a more functional anti doping plan, the NFL lost in court and there is now a precedent that guts antidoping rules in all major sports in the US. I don't think this should affect cycling races because the penalties are not from employers. Teams could still have to pay riders on suspension but they wouldn't be able to ride.

 

[riobonito92]

According to to the players, as well as the league, the supplements were taken to lose weight quickly to meet contract weight goals that lead to either bonuses or penalties in salary. There was never any whiff of actual performance enhancing.

In sport, taking a drug to lose weight is performance enhancing. Or else why do they get bonnuses for doing so?

 

[pataphysician]

In sport, taking a drug to lose weight is performance enhancing. Or else why do they get bonnuses for doing so?

The NFL does not consider weight loss to be performance enhancement. This ingredient is banned by the NFL solely because it is a masking agent.

Linemen tend to be fat, particularly in the off season. it is frequently written into their contracts that they have to make weight during training camp. they took a popular supplement to try to lose a few pounds to meet their contract weight.

I was surprised that the NFL would risk such a sweeping precedent on a case that barely violates its PED policy. I would have thought the league attorneys would have looked at what could be lost and decided this case wasn't worth the risk. the players were suspended 4 games for a first time violation. if they had peed out pure steroids, their suspension would have been 4 games for a first time violation. the lack of penalty differentiation between what the league accepted as accidental exposure and intentional cheating led to the appeal.

Of course the other option is that the NFL figured they might lose, and then they could get the US congress to pass laws allowing their rules to supersede state law, basically a further extension of the antitrust exemption. It would probably apply to more than just PEDs and that would be pretty useful the next time the NFL is negotiating with the players union. Then the lawsuit would be less about controlling PEDs and more about controlling money, much more believable regarding the NFL.

 

[Izoard]

That is some funny stuff!

Did everyone read this the way I did, I still feel like I am hallucinating:

Worker protection rights are invoked to prevent drug addicts from being suspended, while stressing that the capitalist NFL is not beyond reproach and certainly not above the law, in a country that has initiated a war on drugs and is somewhat prejudiced if you will against 'Socialism'.

Yes, this was funny, both "ha ha" and "wtf". Is there some reason why all these major league sports don't get just HAMMERED for not even really pursuing doping, and yet cycling is always the dirty sport.

 

[egtalbot]

I agree this could be bad, but let's take a deep breath. This was a three judge panel, not the full court. In theory, it can now go to the full court and then on the the Supreme Court. They might not hear it, but if they do, I strongly suspect that the Supreme Court would either issue a narrow ruling on this specific case that didn't jeopardize most anti-doping, or actually overturn the decision. More likely the former, which might be tailored to get Kennedy for a 5-4 majority. In the Casey Martin ruling in 2001, which is not a horrible case to use for some level of guidance, Scalia and Thomas ruled against accommodating Casey Martin. Unless they consider this more of a states rights issue, it seems exceedingly likely that those two plus Roberts and Alito would vote to overturn. And I think it's possible that because this is drugs, not the ADA, Kennedy would join them. If so it would be the only time in history I would ever agree with a 5-4 ruling with those members in the majority

Anyway, even if the panel's ruling stands, it wouldn't be long before Congress would act. It might even be bipartisan for once. The U.S. could seriously be facing major problems with the Olympics in many sports. When a high profile Olympian or two test positive and get off, something will be done. There are all kinds of workplace tests that are acceptable because they directly relate to the ability to do the job. A single positive drug test legally means that someone took drugs once, and for a lot of jobs, it's hard to make the legal case that taking drugs once directly relates to the ability to do the job. In sports, however, it's pretty readily accepted that doping tests are part and parcel of the sport as it currently exists.

So as stupid as this is (and legally it may be a correct ruling depending on how Minnesota law is written and what kind of case the lawyers presented), I don't think we have to worry much in the long run about this undermining dope tests. People figuring out how to beat the tests - THAT'S what undermines dope tests

 

[rgmerk]

It sounds very much like a different type of law - the Law of Unintended Consequences - at work here.

It sounds like the law was written to protect non-athletes subjected to random drug tests by employers for recreational drugs being arbitrarily sacked or subjected to other harsh punishment.

I strongly support the intention behind such a policy, personally. As a wage slave, what you do in your own spare time is your business, not your employer's. It matters only in terms of whether you can do the job you're paid to do effectively. And call me a raging hippie, but provided you're not actually affected by the recreational drug while you're at work, I don't see what it's got to do with job performance.

Obviously, it's appropriate to be a lot less tolerant in jobs where there is a safety issue. But, even so, I don't think somebody should be sacked for a single failed drug test, in general.

The situation in professional sport is completely different. The whole point of using drugs in pro sport is to commit fraud. In virtually every profession, proven fraud is grounds for immediate dismissal (at the least), and the law should allow such in the case of drug cheats in pro sport.

By the sounds of it, Minnesota should amend its laws to treat PEDs in pro sports differently to other types of drug use.

 

[Bala Verde]

It sounds very much like a different type of law - the Law of Unintended Consequences - at work here.

It sounds like the law was written to protect non-athletes subjected to random drug tests by employers for recreational drugs being arbitrarily sacked or subjected to other harsh punishment.

I strongly support the intention behind such a policy, personally. As a wage slave, what you do in your own spare time is your business, not your employer's. It matters only in terms of whether you can do the job you're paid to do effectively. And call me a raging hippie, but provided you're not actually affected by the recreational drug while you're at work, I don't see what it's got to do with job performance.

Obviously, it's appropriate to be a lot less tolerant in jobs where there is a safety issue. But, even so, I don't think somebody should be sacked for a single failed drug test, in general.

The situation in professional sport is completely different. The whole point of using drugs in pro sport is to commit fraud. In virtually every profession, proven fraud is grounds for immediate dismissal (at the least), and the law should allow such in the case of drug cheats in pro sport.

By the sounds of it, Minnesota should amend its laws to treat PEDs in pro sports differently to other types of drug use.

+1. You took the words right out of my mouth.

If this is the case (law's intent: prevention of discrimination on the workfloor/access to the workfloor, based on matters related to the private sphere.) I can't fathom why the judges didn't declare this case inadmissible.

The spirit/intent of the law doesn't seem to have any relevance in this particular case.

I am wondering how many wall street bankers get the sack for testing positive for cocaine...