http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/13/sports/baseball/13CHAS.html?8bl
If Grand Jury Exposes Players, Union May Squash Drug Testing Program
By MURRAY CHASS
Published: February 13, 2004
EW people in or out of baseball would be shocked if some of its better players suddenly threw themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion and admitted to having used illegal steroids or some derivative thereof.
In November, Major League Baseball disclosed that 5 percent to 7 percent of its players tested positive for steroid use. Some people were outraged, screaming that the results demonstrated just how rampant steroid use had become in baseball. Others, particularly people in baseball, believed otherwise. Given the population of the game, about 1,200 players, 75 or so users didn't seem to represent a large number.
Steroids do not necessarily improve the contact that good hitters make with the baseball, but once they make contact, users may propel the ball harder and faster through the infield, into the outfield gaps and over the fences.
In the first 15 years of his major league career, Barry Bonds did not hit more than 49 home runs in a season. Then, in 2001, in his 16th season, at age 37, Bonds shattered a major league record by slugging a remarkable total of 73 home runs.
In his first nine seasons, Sammy Sosa didn't hit more than 40 home runs. In three of his next four, he hit more than 60.
Coincidence? Natural development? Weight training? A result of speeding up their swing? Bat speed, after all, generates power. Who but the players and their closest cohorts (i.e., trainers, "nutritional experts") know for sure?
Now comes a grand jury in San Francisco that yesterday handed up indictments against four men, including Bonds's personal trainer. Neither Bonds nor any other athlete was named in the 42-count federal indictment, which includes charges of conspiracy to distribute steroids, possession of human growth hormone, misbranding drugs with intent to defraud and money laundering.
Government officials are treating the case as a cause célèbre. The news conference announcing the indictments, held at the Justice Department in Washington, was no routine event. It featured John Ashcroft, the United States attorney general, and other high-ranking government officials.
But the grand jury is not stopping with its indictments. It feels it has a right to know which baseball players tested positive last year. The grand jury, which has been probing a nutritional supplement company near San Francisco, has subpoenaed records of the two companies that conducted the tests for M.L.B.
Never mind that the players agreed to the testing program as part of the 2002 labor negotiations, with the critical provision being that the results would remain confidential and that players would not be identified in the first year of the testing. The grand jury has seemingly ignored that provision and seems prepared to ride roughshod over the collective bargaining and privacy rights of the players. The subpoena, said a lawyer familiar with it, also seeks records of after-care programs for players who have tested positive for use of other drugs.
But the grand jury may not get the records. The players association, which reluctantly agreed to the testing program, and Major League Baseball are engaged in discussions with the United States attorney's office in San Francisco in an effort to have the subpoena quashed, according to lawyers familiar with the effort.
If talking does not work, a court action will surely follow.
"Certainly, one of the tenets of the collective bargaining agreement was that this testing would be anonymous and confidential," Rob Manfred, Major League Baseball's executive vice president for labor relations, said yesterday without discussing continuing talks or any future lawsuit. "As an institution, we try to stand by the agreements we make."
Union lawyers did not return calls seeking comment. Manfred may wind up with a larger problem than the grand jury's desire to fish for steroid information. Having attained a start to steroid testing, Manfred and other M.L.B. officials look forward to expanding the testing program in the next round of collective bargaining before the 2007 season.
Their aim, Manfred said, is "zero tolerance." Despite outside criticism of the current testing program as being weak, baseball management feels good — and should feel good considering the strength and stance of the union — with its initial step.
But if the grand jury gets last year's test results, management has a stone wall to look forward to in 2006, when it negotiates the next labor agreement. Union lawyers might not have been talking about it yesterday, but if there's a sure thing here, it's that the union would never again agree to any kind of testing program if last year's results lose their confidentiality.
• The union, arguing the right to privacy, long opposed testing of any kind for any kind of drugs. It conceded on steroids in the current labor agreement because enough of its members were concerned with developments that created an unlevel playing field between users and nonusers and a collective taint on all players.
If the indicted defendants are brought to trial, some of the athletes who testified before the grand jury would almost certainly be called to testify in open court.
Similar appearances occurred in the Pittsburgh drug trials in 1985, when Dave Parker, Dale Berra, Keith Hernandez, John Milner, Lonnie Smith and Enos Cabell were among those who were summoned to testify.
Berra and Parker testified that they secured amphetamines from Willie Stargell; Parker said he also got them from Bill Madlock. Milner identified Willie Mays as a source of liquid amphetamines when they played for the Mets.
Those were not proud moments for baseball. Bonds on the witness stand testifying about steroids and his personal trainer would not be a glamorous moment, either. But such moments might be dwarfed by a collapse of the drug-testing agreement in future years if the grand jury gets those test results.
If Grand Jury Exposes Players, Union May Squash Drug Testing Program
By MURRAY CHASS
Published: February 13, 2004
EW people in or out of baseball would be shocked if some of its better players suddenly threw themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion and admitted to having used illegal steroids or some derivative thereof.
In November, Major League Baseball disclosed that 5 percent to 7 percent of its players tested positive for steroid use. Some people were outraged, screaming that the results demonstrated just how rampant steroid use had become in baseball. Others, particularly people in baseball, believed otherwise. Given the population of the game, about 1,200 players, 75 or so users didn't seem to represent a large number.
Steroids do not necessarily improve the contact that good hitters make with the baseball, but once they make contact, users may propel the ball harder and faster through the infield, into the outfield gaps and over the fences.
In the first 15 years of his major league career, Barry Bonds did not hit more than 49 home runs in a season. Then, in 2001, in his 16th season, at age 37, Bonds shattered a major league record by slugging a remarkable total of 73 home runs.
In his first nine seasons, Sammy Sosa didn't hit more than 40 home runs. In three of his next four, he hit more than 60.
Coincidence? Natural development? Weight training? A result of speeding up their swing? Bat speed, after all, generates power. Who but the players and their closest cohorts (i.e., trainers, "nutritional experts") know for sure?
Now comes a grand jury in San Francisco that yesterday handed up indictments against four men, including Bonds's personal trainer. Neither Bonds nor any other athlete was named in the 42-count federal indictment, which includes charges of conspiracy to distribute steroids, possession of human growth hormone, misbranding drugs with intent to defraud and money laundering.
Government officials are treating the case as a cause célèbre. The news conference announcing the indictments, held at the Justice Department in Washington, was no routine event. It featured John Ashcroft, the United States attorney general, and other high-ranking government officials.
But the grand jury is not stopping with its indictments. It feels it has a right to know which baseball players tested positive last year. The grand jury, which has been probing a nutritional supplement company near San Francisco, has subpoenaed records of the two companies that conducted the tests for M.L.B.
Never mind that the players agreed to the testing program as part of the 2002 labor negotiations, with the critical provision being that the results would remain confidential and that players would not be identified in the first year of the testing. The grand jury has seemingly ignored that provision and seems prepared to ride roughshod over the collective bargaining and privacy rights of the players. The subpoena, said a lawyer familiar with it, also seeks records of after-care programs for players who have tested positive for use of other drugs.
But the grand jury may not get the records. The players association, which reluctantly agreed to the testing program, and Major League Baseball are engaged in discussions with the United States attorney's office in San Francisco in an effort to have the subpoena quashed, according to lawyers familiar with the effort.
If talking does not work, a court action will surely follow.
"Certainly, one of the tenets of the collective bargaining agreement was that this testing would be anonymous and confidential," Rob Manfred, Major League Baseball's executive vice president for labor relations, said yesterday without discussing continuing talks or any future lawsuit. "As an institution, we try to stand by the agreements we make."
Union lawyers did not return calls seeking comment. Manfred may wind up with a larger problem than the grand jury's desire to fish for steroid information. Having attained a start to steroid testing, Manfred and other M.L.B. officials look forward to expanding the testing program in the next round of collective bargaining before the 2007 season.
Their aim, Manfred said, is "zero tolerance." Despite outside criticism of the current testing program as being weak, baseball management feels good — and should feel good considering the strength and stance of the union — with its initial step.
But if the grand jury gets last year's test results, management has a stone wall to look forward to in 2006, when it negotiates the next labor agreement. Union lawyers might not have been talking about it yesterday, but if there's a sure thing here, it's that the union would never again agree to any kind of testing program if last year's results lose their confidentiality.
• The union, arguing the right to privacy, long opposed testing of any kind for any kind of drugs. It conceded on steroids in the current labor agreement because enough of its members were concerned with developments that created an unlevel playing field between users and nonusers and a collective taint on all players.
If the indicted defendants are brought to trial, some of the athletes who testified before the grand jury would almost certainly be called to testify in open court.
Similar appearances occurred in the Pittsburgh drug trials in 1985, when Dave Parker, Dale Berra, Keith Hernandez, John Milner, Lonnie Smith and Enos Cabell were among those who were summoned to testify.
Berra and Parker testified that they secured amphetamines from Willie Stargell; Parker said he also got them from Bill Madlock. Milner identified Willie Mays as a source of liquid amphetamines when they played for the Mets.
Those were not proud moments for baseball. Bonds on the witness stand testifying about steroids and his personal trainer would not be a glamorous moment, either. But such moments might be dwarfed by a collapse of the drug-testing agreement in future years if the grand jury gets those test results.