Also, today in the Chicago Tribune, there is a short piece regarding
how the Nat. Basketball Players Assoc. is "not satisfied" with the out-of-competition
Olympic drug testing program because it is not part of the NBA players
collective-bargaining agreement.
ghill wrote:
aha! But they HAVE learned from the mistakes of track & cycling. Institute a
program that really works and all you do is create the image of a dirty
sport. They've chosen the much smarter (in a PR sense, not a moral sense)
route taken by the NFL. Ensure that only the realllly stupid ever get
caught. And when you catch them, have penalties that aren't the equivalent
of death sentences. The public is satisfied that you're fighting drugs but
the sport doesn't fall into disreptue because of it. Sad but true.gh
> From: "edndana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: "edndana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:58:47 -0500
> To: "\"Athletics\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: t-and-f: NYTimes.com Article: New Ritual of Spring:
> SteroidTesting
>
> I have to agree - without random testing, it is pointless. This is one of
> the few cases where baseball could learn from the mistakes of track & field
> and cycling - if you try to hide it and perform ineffective testing long
> enough, eventually you get screwed by it. Baseball is lucky that they do a
> much better job of PR than we do, and they also may be lucky that the fans
> will not care as much about drugs in baseball as track fans care about it in
> track.
>
> BUT, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, a lot of the problem is
> perception, and chances are that sooner or later something will happen that
> causes the press to jump on the anti-drug bandwagon for baseball the way
> they did with Ben Johnson. If (when) that happens, there will be major
> fallout that even the best PR will not be able to prevent.
>
> - Ed
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ghill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "track list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 12:24 PM
> Subject: Re: t-and-f: NYTimes.com Article: New Ritual of Spring:
> SteroidTesting
>
>
>> What a sham! Let us know when you put some teeth in it with REAL
> unannounced
>> testing.
>>
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:57:31 -0500 (EST)
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Subject: t-and-f: NYTimes.com Article: New Ritual of Spring: Steroid
> Testing
>>> Resent-From: "e. garry hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Resent-To: ghill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Resent-Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 08:19:48 -0800
>>>
>>> This article from NYTimes.com
>>> has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>> BASEBALL IS DOING IT NOW!!
>>>
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>> New Ritual of Spring: Steroid Testing
>>>
>>> March 7, 2003
>>> By RAFAEL HERMOSO
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla., March 6 - Tom Glavine arrived in the
>>> Mets' clubhouse at 8:30 this morning, ready to prepare for
>>> his start in this afternoon's exhibition game. Twenty
>>> minutes later, Glavine learned his pregame routine would
>>> include submitting a urine sample as part of the first
>>> phase of steroid testing under the new collective
>>> bargaining agreement.
>>>
>>> Glavine, the National League player representative during
>>> negotiations last summer between the owners and the players
>>> association, shrugged his shoulders later today and joked
>>> that maybe he should make testing a habit since he had just
>>> thrown three shutout innings against the Detroit Tigers.
>>> Although mandatory drug testing in baseball is a new
>>> process and for now carries no penalties, Glavine said
>>> players are obligated to do it and perhaps have something
>>> to gain.
>>>
>>> "Theoretically, you hope it's going to stop guys from doing
>>> something once they've been tested, but, yeah, the P.R.
>>> part of it was an important part," Glavine said. "We're
>>> concerned with the image of the game, the image of
>>> ourselves. That's why you see guys ticked off when anybody
>>> says 60 percent of guys are using steroids, or 80 percent
>>> of guys are on amphetamines."
>>>
>>> The process the Mets underwent today is one that is being
>>> repeated throughout Arizona and Florida these days as the
>>> new testing procedures take hold. Twenty-six of the players
>>> on the Mets' 40-man roster were tested for steroids today
>>> by an independent testing firm, with the remaining 14
>>> players to be tested in the near future. A follow-up test
>>> of the same players will be conducted seven days after the
>>> first one, to rule out false positives.
>>>
>>> Players were not aware of when the tests would occur, only
>>> that the tests would come in March. And players are not
>>> being tested for drugs like marijuana and cocaine, which
>>> under the new agreement can only be done for reasonable
>>> cause. Additionally, amphetamines are not addressed by the
>>> new bargaining agreement and have not been a subject of
>>> negotiations between the players and the owners.
>>>
>>> Under the new testing system, 240 players selected randomly
>>> will be tested again during the course of the season as
>>> baseball seeks to compile a percentage of players who are
>>> using steroids. All of this year's test results will be
>>> anonymous, simply showing the number of players in both
>>> leagues who tested positive.
>>>
>>> If 5 percent or fewer of all the major league players test
>>> positive under survey testing, as this year's tests are
>>> being termed, players will again be subject to the same
>>> system of anonymous testing next year.
>>>
>>> But if this season's results show that more than 5 percent
>>> of the players tested positive for steroids, all players
>>> would be subject in 2004 to what would be called program
>>> testing. Like survey testing, it would be unannounced;
>>> unlike survey testing, the results would not be anonymous.
>>> And any player who tested positive for steroids during
>>> program testing would be subject to discipline for any
>>> further positive tests. If program testing were enacted in
>>> baseball, it would continue until fewer than 2.5 percent of
>>> players tested positive for two consecutive seasons
>>> combined.
>>>
>>> Among the Mets tested today - some Yankees were among those
>>> tested, too - was Mike Piazza.
>>>
>>> "What's the big deal?," Piazza said. Asked about the
>>> potential benefits of testing, Piazza said: "I think it'll
>>> continue to create an awareness for everybody, not just on
>>> that, but on anything - drugs alcohol, tobacco, any sort of
>>> substance in the game that needs to be brought into the
>>> forefront."
>>>
>>> Mets pitcher Al Leiter, who was also tested today, said he
>>> hoped baseball would publish the results of the testing
>>> when completed, including the total percentage of players
>>> testing positive for steroids and not just whether it was
>>> above or below 5 percent.
>>>
>>> "I think the number itself will have more of a bearing on
>>> the perception of the game," Leiter said. "If the number is
>>> as high as the rumors, then that could be viewed as a
>>> problem. If it's a relatively low number, I think that you
>>> could reason it's not a big problem."
>>>
>>> David Cone, the former American League representative for
>>> the players union, was out of baseball last year and not
>>> part of the negotiations over a new contract. He said he
>>> does not support any form of drug testing, but he hoped the
>>> results would prove baseball was essentially clean.
>>>
>>> "Like society, I'm sure there are some problems out there,"
>>> Cone said, "but I personally don't believe it's as
>>> widespread as some people think, and I'm hopeful that this
>>> test will prove that."
>>>
>>>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/sports/baseball/07DRUG.html?ex=1048041851&
> ei
>>> =1&en=2bf2722bd37ea9c2
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> HOW TO ADVERTISE
>>> ---------------------------------
>>> For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
>>> or other creative advertising opportunities with The
>>> New York Times on the Web, please contact
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our online media
>>> kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo
>>>
>>> For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
>>>
>>
>
>
