Chapter[ III. The Governing Laws and Baseball Policies Regarding Possession or Use
of Performance Enhancing Substances ]
Section[ B. 4. The 1984 Joint Drug Program ]
4. The 1984 Joint Drug Program
As his term neared its end, Commissioner Kuhn pressed for stronger regulation of
drug use in baseball. Opinions were divided among the owners of the major league clubs,
however, over whether to require mandatory random drug testing as part of such a program. The
Players Association opposed mandatory random testing as “degrading” to players and a violation
of their privacy, according to a report of statements by Don Fehr, who was at the time its acting
executive director.109
In June 1984, the owners (through their Player Relations Committee) and the
Players Association agreed to a joint program that provided for treatment of players who were
found to use, or who had admitted using, certain drugs of abuse. Steroids and amphetamines
were not on the schedule of prohibited substances. The program provided for drug testing of
players who admitted drug use, and for players for whom there was “reason to believe” that they
were using drugs. “Reason to believe” testing was permitted if a three-member panel
unanimously determined that testing was warranted. There was no punishment under the
program for failed drug tests, but players could be subjected to discipline if they failed to
108 In another arbitration decision handed down during the tenure of Commissioner Peter
V. Ueberroth, arbitrators reduced Ueberroth’s one-year suspension of San Diego Padres pitcher
LaMarr Hoyt to sixty days based on Hoyt’s arrest for transporting hundreds of pills of valium
and propoxyphene, a muscle-relaxant/pain killer, across the border from Mexico. See
Arbitration between Major League Baseball Players Ass’n and San Diego Padres Baseball Club
and Comm’r of Baseball, Panel Decision No. 74 (LaMarr Hoyt), at 1-3, 45 (June 16, 1987).
Among other things, the arbitration panel reasoned that the incident did not involve cocaine, but
instead valium, which the arbitrators reasoned was “illegal only, as in this case, when it is
obtained without a prescription.” Id. at 26, 35.
109 See George Vecsey, Owners Split Over Testing, N.Y. Times, May 27, 1984, at E4. As
noted above, this discussion concerned drugs of abuse, such as cocaine, not performance
enhancing substances.
34
cooperate under the program, provided that any such discipline would be subject to the Players
Association’s right to file a grievance and pursue arbitration over whether it was supported by
“just cause.”110
In agreeing to the 1984 joint program, the Players Association opposed mandatory
random testing. In a letter to the Player Relations Committee, Fehr explained that the Players
Association was “skeptical of the value of such testing . . . and is concerned about infringement
of constitutional rights, and rights of privacy, etc., in any program of mandatory testing.” He
also asserted that under applicable law the clubs were not permitted to require players to submit
to urine or other testing as a condition of employment.111 In the memorandum of understanding
setting forth the terms of the joint program, the Players Association recited its views about
testing:
The Players Association does not object, in principle, to individual,
voluntary testing, on a case by case basis, provided that a player's
agreement to any such test is truly voluntary, and that such agreement is
not secured through coercion or pressure of any sort, and the
confidentiality and integrity of the testing process can be assured . . . .112
The Players Association reiterated its opposition to mandatory drug testing soon
thereafter. Two clubs, the Los Angeles Dodgers and the San Francisco Giants, attempted to
require drug testing as a term of new player contracts. Negotiations toward a new collective
bargaining agreement were suspended until the two clubs withdrew that request and all of the
110 Memorandum of Agreement between 26 Major League Clubs and the Major League
Baseball Players Association, dated May 24, 1984; Letter from Donald M. Fehr to Leland S.
MacPhail, dated May 24, 1984.
111 Letter from Donald M. Fehr to Leland S. MacPhail, dated May 24, 1984.
112 Memorandum of Agreement between 26 Major League Clubs and the Major League
Baseball Players Association, dated May 24, 1984, at 3.
35
clubs agreed that the joint drug program, without mandatory testing, would take the place of any
such unilateral contract provision.113
The joint program was criticized by some as insufficiently rigorous, and in any
event it was largely ignored. The program was terminated by the owners in October 1985, by
which time only three players had submitted to its treatment and rehabilitation provisions.114
While few players were subjected to “reason to believe” drug testing under the joint program, it
served as a precedent for the “reasonable cause” testing that was in effect informally thereafter
until the 2002 Basic Agreement added a mandatory random drug testing program to the
collective bargaining agreement.115
Contents
Prev
Next
Last
