CORNWELL SLAMS REPORTING OF POSITIVE DRUG TESTS

In some of our discussions yesterday with league insiders regarding the news of a rash of positive tests triggering violations of the policy regarding anabolic steroids AND RELATED SUBSTANCES, concerns were raised regarding the fact that news of suspensions not yet been resolved via appeal had been disclosed to the media. Then we saw quotes from attorney David Cornwell in Chris Mortensen’s story on ESPN.com, in which Cornwell raised those very same concerns. “The recent reports about pending appeals by players who are alleged to have used weight loss supplements reflect the most egregious violation of the NFL steroid policy,” Cornwell said in a statement obtained by Mortensen. “The foundation of the policy is both a player’s right to appeal and an absolute right to confidentiality. By leaking this story, the ‘source’ is clearly attempting to put their thumb on the scale of justice and harm these men.” Though some in the media think it’s uncool (actually, the technical journalism term is “douchey”) to speculate about the identity of a reporter’s sources, we’ve heard concerns from league insiders regarding the possibility that FOX 31’s Josina Anderson has a mole in the NFL Players Association. While (in our view) it’s not wrong for Anderson to use whatever she can get from wherever she can get it, it’s clearly wrong if someone in the NFLPA is blatantly violating the confidentiality of the league’s drug programs by leaking the names of players who have received notice of a suspension. Some league insiders believe that not even the player himself should be permitted to leak the news (as we presume Jags receiver Matt Jones recently did to Mort), but we think that the player has every right to talk if he wants, since he’s the one whom the confidentiality provision is aimed at protecting. In this case, Anderson’s report strongly implies that the players she named -- Saints running back Deuce McAllister and Saints defensive end Will Smith -- weren’t among her sources. So we contacted Cornwell and asked him to elaborate. Here’s what he told us, via e-mail: “The author of the first report should be denied credentials and access to NFL games and other league events until she discloses her source. Protecting players’ rights to confidentiality under the Policy is far more important than protecting the First Amendment rights of the coward who leaked confidential information or the competitive interest of a writer who is trying to scoop her colleagues. The source knew he/she was doing something wrong and the writer encouraged it by offerring anonymity. They have no legitimate interests to protect.” Cornwell compared the leakage of the names of the players who tested positive to other restrictions imposed on league insider. “The league restricts free speech everyday by fining and disciplining players who truthfully criticize game officials or truthfully acknowledge their illnesses or injuries,” he said. We then asked Cornwell to clarify his position that the reporter should face some consequence for disclosing the names of the players without revealing the source, since we still didn’t believe that there’s anything wrong with what Anderson did. “Everybody involved knows the confidentiality rules,” Cornwell said. “The right to confidentiality overrides a reporter’s desire to break a story. There is no public interest or public right to know. The confidentiality rule presumes that nobody has right to know while the process moves forward. Confidentiality is the cornerstone of every workplace testing program. It must be protected against any perceived competing interest -- especially an unrelated party’s interest.” Holy crap. We actually think we’re beginning to change our mind on this one. We’ll defer final judgment until the next time someone tries to leak to us news of a player who has tested positive, but whose appeal has not been finalized. And we’ll make up our mind right after we report the news.