_2.gif "Time.com 50 Best Websites 2008")
There’s talk in league circles of at least one NFL team that has imposed on at least one free agent signee a private, non-sanctioned drug test.
We’ve been told of at least one situation in which a player tested positive, and the team then used the positive test to leverage the player into taking less money.
It’s blatantly inappropriate for any team to use its own drug-testing procedures. But players who want jobs might not be inclined to say anything about it, and thus the practice will go undetected — and unremedied.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
It is probably inappropriate because the CBA limits the amount of drug testing. However, with Commissioner Goodell threatening to punish teams when their players violate League policies, I can see a team trying to protect itself this way.
If the Union were serious about not putting up with bad players, they won’t argue this point in the next round of labor talks. But, they will.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
March 16th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I dont blame teams one bit for drug testing potential or actual players. The “league” may be the ultimate “employer”, but the teams cut the checks.
And in this case, the team sure got results.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.35 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
March 16th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Teams testing in Cycling is now commonplace. This is happening because the sport has realized this is the only way to eradicate doping and the embarassment that comes with it. I always wondered what would happen if anyone tried to do this in any of the major sports…now I know.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.65 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
March 16th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Is it “blatantly inappropriate for any team to use its own drug-testing procedures” because it violates NFL or union rules? If not, then I don’t see them doing anything different than many other employers. Besides, the only guy that’s taken less money that’s been published has been Randy Moss.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
March 16th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
31:1 odds the team in question is Denver.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
March 16th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I have an idea: How ’bout the players don’t take drugs?! If they aren’t, who cares how many drug tests they take. If they are, get them help, outahere or make it legal. What is this, MLB?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 16th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Blatantly inappropriate? I disagree. In fact, I think it is part of a team’s due diligence to do so. It may be against the CBA and I think it is morally reprehensible to test someone and then if they fail to negotiate a lower deal. If a team were to test and then not a sign a player based on those results, I’m OK with that as long as it is not against the CBA. If it was, then shame on the agent for allowing that to happen.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 16th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
I’m ok with it.
I have to take a drug test before I’m hired… and I only make 50k a year…
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 16th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
So long as the league is going to let Shanahan get away with using lie detector tests, why shouldn’t team use every method available for messing with a players income?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 17th, 2008 at 6:16 am
I agree with Dixon. This isn’t inappropriate at all. In fact it is almost stupid NOT to do this. A lot better than the alternative of a players signing for millions and then failing a league drug test and getting suspended for any period of time.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 17th, 2008 at 9:14 am
The point is, the union and management specifically negotiated drug testing into their labor agreement. For those of you that have to take drug tests prior to employment, or during employment, it’s probably part of the paper work you signed when applying for employment. If you’re represented by a union, odds are there are drug testing rules imposed by the union that management has to follow. In this case, management and the union have come to an agreement. Obviously management is required to follow the parameters set forth in the CBA regarding drug testing.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
March 17th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I’m sure the players union will be first to admit they helped prolong and feed steriods into the NFL when it becomes frontpage news when a government intervention happens. I understand that it is an issue of testing outside of the CBA. It is in my opinion however, that the limitations in testing which is provided by the players union’s protection is not helping this league long term. If or when the sh!t hits the fan in the NFL on steriods (if it ever will), in my opinion, the arrogance and ignorance of the players union will be to blame, not the owners/teams.
I myself don’t get worked up too much about the steriods, as I think there is much more going on than most of us know. However, it bothers me to see the players unions in the MLB and such shrug their shoulders when the topic becomes worthy of the “real” media to focus upon.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated