IN the steroids scandal that has turned baseball into chess, Commissioner Bud Selig made a daring move Saturday: a proposed 50-game suspension for a first positive test, a 100-game ban for a second and a permanent ban for a third. Selig also wants to add amphetamines to the major leagues' list of banned substances.þþAcross the chess board, Donald Fehr, baseball's union leader, is contemplating his next move as if he were Rodin's ÿThe Thinker.ÿþþJust as the representatives in the recent House hearings on steroids in baseball were figuratively looking over Selig's shoulder and nodding approvingly as he delivered his ÿthree-strikes-and-you're-outÿ proposal, they are now perched over Fehr's shoulder with a hammer: possible legislation for a uniform testing policy for all professional sports in the country.þþBut even though Fehr was as embarrassed as Selig and Major League Baseball were at the March 17 hearings, don't expect Fehr's unconditional surrender to Selig's plan.þþOut of habit, Fehr will resist it, as he has with almost every collective bargaining issue, but he can eventually be expected to negotiate down from Selig's numbers, to, say, a 25-game ban for a first positive test and a 50-game ban for a second. Selig could probably accept those two lesser bans, but he must remain firm on three strikes and you're out.þþÿSteroid users cheat the game,ÿ Selig wrote in a letter to Fehr and the owners of all the major league teams. ÿAfter three offenses, they have no place in it.ÿþþSelig cannot back off that commandment. Baseball's third strike for steroids is the ethical essence of the Congressional committee's pursuit of a policy that is tougher than baseball's current slap-on-the-wrist discipline: 10 games for a first positive test, 30 days for a second, 60 days for a third, one year for a fourth and the commissioner's decision for a fifth - whatever ÿthe commissioner's decisionÿ means.þþUnlike the National Football League, which adopted a steroids policy in 1987, Selig and Major League Baseball ignored steroids until Jose Canseco and Ken Caminiti talked about them publicly in 2002, prompting the union to accept a weak policy. Wincing from the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative investigation, which notably involved Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi, the union and baseball strengthened the policy somewhat last winter.þþFehr's expected response this week to Selig's latest proposal will most likely be much the same as his cautious answer in the Congressional hearings, when he was asked if he would support a tougher testing program. þþÿI believe my obligation with the players,ÿ Fehr replied, ÿis to consult with everyone in private, confidentially, in a situation in which they are not under the glare of TV cameras. That's first. Secondly, my personal view, this is not an institutional view I'm expressing now, my personal view is that our job with violations of substance abuse is not to destroy careers. Our job is to stop it.ÿþþFehr added that if ÿwe can put people on the right trackÿ and get them back playing, that is ÿmanifestly betterÿ than ending their careers.þþÿThat is the principle behind every employee assistance program in the country,ÿ he said. ÿIt worked with drugs and abuse with us. No question about that.þþÿAnd therefore, my suggestion is, and I believe this very strongly, we have to find out empirically if it works,ÿ he added, alluding to the current drug policy, ÿbefore you go back and do that. The evidence we have so far suggests that what we did, which is far short of the program we have now, far short of it, had not only a demonstrable, but a dramatic effect. The data is the data.ÿþþDuring the hearing, Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland, challenged Fehr's defense of progressive discipline for illegal drugs.þþÿYou talked about you didn't want to destroy the careers of these players, these multimillion-dollar players,ÿ Cummings said in a firm voice. ÿWell, Mr. Fehr, let me tell you something. I have people in my district that don't have a job. And if they get caught with a Schedule III drug, you know where they're going? To jail. And nobody cares about their careers.ÿþþWhen Fehr was asked later if he would accept a policy of zero tolerance for steroids, he sidestepped again.þþÿFrom my perspective,ÿ he said, ÿthere is in the agreement now penalties from Day 1, from the first one. And I believe, as I have previously indicated, that the data we have suggests that it will work. We will know if it doesn't.ÿþþThe latest data show that, under the current policy, four little-known players from 40-man major league rosters have been suspended this season, each for 10 games.þþEach player was surely embarrassed about having his name in the headlines, no matter how small the type. And each surely missed the 10 games' pay, no matter how minimal it might have been in the major league marketplace.þþBut would they have risked a positive steroids test if it had meant the loss of 50 games' pay? Or the prospect of losing 100 games' pay with another positive test?þþAnd would any player be dumb enough to risk a third positive test and a permanent ban?þþDonald Fehr shouldn't be afraid to let the data be the dataþ
Source: NY Times
