http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2811910If NFL players' names emerge from the online pharmacy steroid case, Gene Upshaw informed The Charlotte Observer that he won't endorse suspensions unless the players test positive for a banned substance.
"WADA can say whatever they like; the players in the NFL have both a union and a collective bargaining agreement."
-- Gene Upshaw in an e-mail to Charlotte Observer
"We are not going to get into a witch hunt," Upshaw, the NFLPA's executive director, wrote in an e-mail to the newspaper.
Upshaw was responding to World Anti-Doping Agency chairman Dick Pound's assertion that the NFL should "absolutely" discipline any players who are linked to the case if the evidence is reliable, regardless of test results.
"We will not let WADA determine how we operate our program," Upshaw wrote in the e-mail. "We discipline only for a positive test.
"WADA can say whatever they like; the players in the NFL have both a union and a collective bargaining agreement."
Pound fired back at Upshaw in an e-mail to the Observer.
"If he wanted his sport and the NFL to be drug-free, he would not say that," Pound wrote in the e-mail to the newspaper. "It's an either-or situation: Either he wants drug-free football or he does not."
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told The Observer that the NFL "will consider evidence outside of" test results for suspensions.
However, the league and the players' association would have to agree to changes to the drug policy before the league could discipline players without positive test results or convictions or admission of guilt of NFL players.
ESPN Conversation
35 comments on "Upshaw: Link to probe not enough for suspension"
sos2146 (3/25/2007 at 12:35 PM)
I applaud Gene Upshaw for doing the right thing. Just because somebody is linked to something does not mean they actually used it. Would we want to be disciplined in our workplaces for being around suspected drug users? That's what testing is there for, and I wouldn't mind if they did it more often. Dick Pound just doesn't like the fact that he doesn't have full autonomy over all testing standards.
andrewlt (3/25/2007 at 1:13 PM)
This isn't CSI. It's the real world. You don't need a smoking gun, i.e. positive drug test, to prove in a court of law that somebody took illegal steroids. You can convict purely based on circumstancial evidence.There's a reason these things are considered illegal steroids. They're illegal so the U.S. government can and will step in.The simple fact is, the CBA's of the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. have higher burden of proof than even criminal courts so obviously, people are skeptical of their claims that what they are doing is effective.
rperez02 (3/25/2007 at 1:28 PM)
What else would Upshaw say? He's the head of the players union, so it is natural for him to support players at any opportunity. I don't think the WADA point of view is acceptable, but neither is the NFL's approach. Steroids are obviously a major problem in football, yet there seems to be little movement from any interested party to really clean it up. Frankly, I wouldn't have a problem with pro players on juice except for the fact that the example they set would (and does) motivate college and high school athletes to take it, with disastrous effects. The longer the NFL (and MLB) take to really address the problem of steroids, the more they invite action from the government.
kbnhus (3/25/2007 at 8:13 PM)
Another thing to consider in football is these guys are hitting each other. This isn't baseball where we are talking about an ability to hit a ball. We're talking about the ablity to hit another human being. What if a player has his career ended cuz he hit unnaturally hard by some juiced up freak.
