Chapter[ X. Review of the Major League Baseball Joint Drug Prevention and
Treatment Program ]
Section[ B. 4. a. Collection Issues ]
a. Collection Issues
Sample collection is an integral part of the drug testing process. Dr. Green has
observed that “[t]he laboratory [that analyzes the urine sample] is only as good as the collection
process and the entire program can be compromised unless the protocols are well written and
adhered to.”537 There are a number of methods by which athletes with advance notice of a drug
test can manipulate their samples to avoid a positive test.538 The collection procedures under the
joint program address many of these potential methods of evasion by, for example, requiring that
a witness observe the player when he is providing a sample (to prevent substitution), requiring
players to wash their hands before providing a sample (to prevent adulteration of the sample),
and screening for specific gravity and pH (to detect attempts to dilute or mask a sample).
Since the beginning of testing in 2003, Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc. has
been responsible for collection of samples in Major League Baseball. When CDT was selected,
it already was providing similar services to the minor league testing program established by the
Commissioner. In 2005, however, after Dr. Green reviewed the minor league program and
reported several problems with CDT’s collection methods to the Commissioner’s Office, CDT
was replaced in that program by the National Center for Drug Free Sport.
CDT continues to serve as the sample collector for the Major League Baseball
joint program. Its representatives advised us that CDT now has separate workplace and sports
collection divisions and uses only independently contracted collectors trained in the sports
context for Major League Baseball, thereby addressing two of Dr. Green’s concerns about its
work under the minor league program. Rob Manfred told us that CDT has made other
537 Gary Green, M.D., Summary of Anabolic Steroids and Related Compounds, Prepared
for Major League Baseball, Mar. 23, 2006.
538 An account of the efforts of some violators to avoid detection can be found in Galabin
Boevski v. International Weightlifting Federation, CAS 2004/A/607.
270
improvements in performing its responsibilities under the Major League Baseball joint program,
and Dr. Bryan Smith also described improvements in collection procedures that have been made
since he became the program administrator.
In July 2005, CDT recommended that major league players remain under
observation by its personnel from the time they were advised that they would be tested until the
actual collection of the specimens. Effective supervision of players after test notification is
important for a number of reasons, among them to prevent players from diluting their samples
through a variety of means.539 The Commissioner’s Office and the Players Association agreed to
observation of players but directed that a club representative should be responsible for
monitoring players selected for testing rather than CDT.540
This practice was changed again early in the 2007 season, when CDT began
staffing its tests with a chaperone in addition to a collector. When the collector and chaperone
arrive at a clubhouse, they provide the team representative with a list of the players to be tested –
typically between four to eight players, although sometimes as many as ten. The chaperone
accompanies the team representative as he notifies the players who have been selected for
testing. Each player has up to thirty minutes following notification to check in with the collector.
539 Dr. Green advised that diluted samples (those with insufficient specific gravity)
usually result from attempts to mask prohibited substances in the player's body. In 2006, 4% of
major league drug testing samples were deemed to have been diluted at the testing site, compared
with 2% of the minor league testing samples that same year. See Letter from Robert D.
Manfred., Jr., to Sen. George J. Mitchell, dated Mar. 28, 2007, at 9; Letter from Robert D.
Manfred., Jr., to Charles P. Scheeler, dated Oct. 30, 2007. In a letter, Dr. Christianne Ayotte, the
director of the Montreal laboratory that analyzes samples under the program, said that “[w]e
have not observed any difference with regards to the proportion of dilute specimens between the
samples belonging to MLB and other Olympic sports sent to the INRS (“the Montreal
Laboratory”) for analysis.” Letter from Dr. Christianne Ayotte to Sen. George J. Mitchell, dated
Dec. 6, 2007.
540 Id.; see Jack Curry, To Tighten Drug Tests, Teams Are Secretly Monitoring Players,
N.Y. Times, Apr. 1, 2007, at Sports 1 (describing chaperoning by club officials in place prior to
mid-2007).
271
If the player states at check-in that he is unable to provide a sample at that time, he may “go
about his regular pre-game activities.” This procedure permits the players to provide samples
several hours after the initial notification. The chaperone is responsible for monitoring the
players until they provide samples.
One possible difficulty with the arrangement is that CDT chaperones are not
permitted to enter the dugout, field of play, or media room, where chaperoned players might go.
The Commissioner’s Office believes that minimal risk arises from these limitations because of
players’ inability to engage in masking activities in these public areas.
The problem of advance notice is even more challenging for off-season testing.
In 2006, 68 samples were collected from players in the off-season pursuant to the joint
program.541 Those players received advance notice of between 24 and 72 hours before the offseason
tests. While it is without question more difficult to schedule a test of a player in the offseason,
providing up to 72 hours notice could conceivably permit a player who is using banned
substances to take steps to avoid a positive test.542
Contents
Prev
Next
Last
