Bryan Christopher writes:

Barry Bonds' appearance as a witness in the BALCO investigation led me to beat baseball's steroid controversy into the ground one more time before the winter.

   No one has ever told me exactly how the players are being tested. It seems as though most media outlets are assuming that justice is being served. I wanted more detail, and started looking around. I found a description in the MLB players association 2003-2006 basic agreement, and after reading it over, I'm more suspicious than before.

   If I interpreted it correctly, the agreement states that the Major League Baseball drug prevention and treatment program is headed by the Health Policy Advisory Committee(HPCA), made up of two representatives for the players association and two for the owners. They were to oversee this year's initial "program" testing of all players at a random time during the season, as well as a follow up test five to seven days later. Commissioner Bud Selig could then if he so chooses, test as many as 240 players again.

   If the results show that more than five percent of the players tested positive, the same procedures will take place in 2004, as a "survey" program and continue every year until the results show less than 2.5 percent of positive tests in two consecutive years combined. If less than five percent tests positive, the same "program" testing will also occur in future seasons. Ultimately, regardless of the results, the league-wide procedures will remain the same.

   Players that test positive, those exceeding the set limit (set by the HPCA), refusing to take a test, or caught tampering with samples, are placed on a "clinical track," which requires further testing. If the player tests positive again, he will be placed on an "administrative track." Players on the administrative track are monitored by the HPCA, their team's manager is notified, and they must take part in counseling, treatment, and commissioner-appointed follow up testing.  

   The agreement says patients will remain confidential, and their identity and test results will not be released to the public, the media or other teams.

   The degree of disciplinary action is left up to the commissioner. All offenses result in progressively longer suspensions or costlier fines, leading up to a minimum one year suspension or $100,000 fine for the fourth offense. Like all other disciplinary actions, players are allowed to appeal.

   What does all of this mean? The way I see it, testing will not change a thing. Whether this year's results show up 90 percent positive, or completely steroid-free, the steps taken bring no added responsibility. Theoretically, a player can test positive over and over again, receive counseling, fines and placement in rehabilitation programs, but never miss an at bat. Bud Selig holds the power to penalize players by handing out fines or making them sit out games, which means someone's career will be forever tainted and used as an example.

   The agreement was drawn up in a cowardly (or perhaps brilliant) fashion. It brings new integrity to the game without holding anyone truly accountable. If the test results came back and half the league was using banned substances, suspending hundreds of players would pose more serious problems than some skewed home run totals. The current regulations protect the commissioner from facing a catastrophe by giving him the option letting them continue to play. Bud Selig can follow the rules and still let them take their supplements. He can penalize players, and require them get treatment, but if they keep paying fines, they can keep playing. What if late in his career a player tests positive during each of his final five years, as he pads his hall of fame credentials and climbs towards the top of the record books? Or an up and coming superstar plays while using illegal substances for almost his entire career? Who is going to put the asterisk next to their stats? Not Selig, unless he thinks it would be in the game's best interest. Keep in mind this is the same commissioner who left the 2002 all star game a tie, and in my opinion threatens to implement programs (contraction) just to create leverage in negotiating with the players. He cannot be trusted, but that's a whole other story. Right now, using steroids does not put a player's career at legal risk, and until it does, nothing will change.

   Selig still has too many problems to mend before he can make time for another angry players union. Plus, the next three years of inadequate testing will perhaps allow for the games economics to improve. The offensive mindset many of today's teams embrace would suffer from suspensions. Sitting hitters for juicing would take away from the revenue gains made in the past few years, and erase the benefits that avoiding the work stoppage in 2002 appeared to create. How many fans are going to show up to watch a below .500 team if their leading power hitter sat games out for weeks? Would a small market team make the playoffs if their numbers three and four hitters had to miss time in September? These don't sound like profitable options, and perhaps that what these policies boil down to. The rules show that revenue can increase while integrity fades away.

   Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the fans will never find out. We won't know who is juicing, or if he quits after getting caught. We can't verify Ken Caminiti's allegations in Sports Illustrated, or the numbers in Jose Canseco's book. We will have no choice but to analyze every piece of information reported and decide for ourselves if it is true. Unless someone surprises baseball (like a BALCO investigation), Selig will keep worming his way out of difficult situations, and this debate might be left to be beaten into the ground, in hopes that fans will assume the players are getting tested, and the problem goes away on its own.
   You be the judge.

Source: MLBPA 2003-2006 Basic Agreement
   http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/spo/mlbpa/mlbpa_cba.pdf pgs
157-175