| |
| |
Drug Testing of Professional Athletes |
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
 |
| |

Drug abuse in professional sports became a hot-button issue in the early 1980s, as several celebrated cases helped focus attention on the topic. This coincided with society's changing attitudes about drugs as America moved from the lax 1970s to the more conservative 1980s. The major pro sports leagues in the United States responded by implementing drug control programs, which have largely succeeded in removing the topic from the headlines, or at least pushing it to the back pages. This paper will examine the drug testing of professional athletes, from the contentious first steps in the early 1980s until today, where concern over performance enhancing drugs has refocused the effort away from traditional illegal substances. Pro sports leagues derive their power to test athletes for drugs from collective bargaining agreements and the leagues' by-laws. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) requires an employer to bargain collectively with the representatives of the employees over mandatory subjects, which are "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment." Drug testing is a "term and condition of employment" (Jefferson, 1997). Thus, the player unions of each major sport have consented to drug testing, with such consent later ratified by a union-wide vote, though not in baseball. These agreements have rarely been the subject of litigation, for two seasons. First, the NLRA states a preference for grievance resolution by arbitration. Congress believed that

."
In 1983, Kuhn suspended four players from the Kansas City Royals for one year because of their convictions for cocaine possession. He cited his new rule as authority. The MLB Players Association immediately challenged Kuhn's action, and an arbitrator ruled in the players' favor. As a result, the suspended players were entitled to procedural due process according to the rules of the collective bargaining agreement. All four filed file grievances and had their suspensions reduced or eliminated (Stiglitz, 1995).
Baseball operated in this manner for more than a decade. The Commissioner adopted rules regarding drug use, then tried to enforce them. The MLB Players Association accepted some of the Commissioner's rulings and objected to others. When they disagreed, the matter went to arbitration. That trial and error produced the rough outlines of a drug policy. Baseball only tests those players who have admitted to a drug offense, or those players that MLB or the team reasonably suspect are using drugs. A second positive drug tests results in a 60-day suspension; a third positive test results in a one-year suspension.
This system has often proven unworkable, as demonstrated by Howe's case. Howe first had admitted dr
Category: Government - D
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
John Lucas, Act NLRA, Players Association, NFL Markus, , Nonetheless California, League NFL, Supreme Court, Tony Phillips, Fay Vincent, drug testing, pro sports, markus 1997, collective bargaining, positive test results, positive test, drug tests, test results, pro athletes, drug abuse, performance enhancing, performance enhancing drugs, drug testing pro, random drug testing, pro sports leagues,
= 2017
= 8 (250 words per page)
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
 |
|
 |
| |
Click Here
to Get Instant Access to over 32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
"Your site was very helpful and gave me the details I needed in order to complete my essay!!!"
|
Mike F. |
| |
|
"This site is an excellent vehicle for quick referrences. Thanks a bunch!"
|
Carla T. |
| |
|
"Great site, I got a lot of new ideas I would have never thought of before."
|
Nate A. |
| |
|
"I love this site!!!"
|
Marie H. |
| |
|
"Thank you for making such a high quality site! Your papers are the best I have seen around"
|
Debbie B. |
| |
|
| |
|
|