Banned?

Here is the thing I don't get: The NFL knew that a drug frequently used by players to make their team-dictated weights contained an ingredient that it a) had banned because it could be used to help mask steroid use and b) was not listed on the drug. They KNEW this, yet they did not issue any sort of directive to the Player's Association or the league doctors informing anyone of this fact.

Step in some players who, by all accounts, are pretty upstanding players. They have never tested positive for anything in the random and scheduled drug tests during their career to-date. By all accounts, they were simply trying to lose some water weight (the drug's primary use) and did everything right in doing so; they went to their team doctor and "verified" that the drug in question was okay to use. Since the ingredients list did not contain the banned drug and the NFL had not listed that drug on the suspect list, the team doctor said yes.

Those players then tested positive for that banned substance, can prove that they used it at the say-so of the league doctor as being okay, and, again, by all accounts, were only taking it to make their weight goals so they wouldn't be fined for being over weight (which is probably an entire other blog post). And the league wants to give them a four game automatic suspension for testing positive for a banned substance. The players, rightly so, have sued the league to clear their name and not be suspended (and lose four games worth of pay).

In my mind, this is an open and shut case in favor of the players. If the league knew something contained a banned substance and did nothing to alert players or league doctors (whom the players rely on for this sort of knowledge) to this substance, then the league is culpable for the misinformation. To me, this would be like if my company served poppy-seed muffins at a meeting, then made me take a urine test, which then tested positive for opiates, and then suspended me without pay. The business is definitely at fault for a) luring me into using/taking a banned substance, b) not taking that mitigating circumstance into account, and c) then compounding the issue by covering it up and suspending me without pay.

In this case, the NFL seems to be luring players into using a perfectly legitimate substance primarily used to lose water weight so players can make their team-designated weights so they don't get penalized/fined to catch the (hopefully) few who may be abusing steroids and are using the unmarked ingredient to mask that abuse. In essence, this is profiling; all those who want to lose weight are not necessarily steroid users. By not making any attempt to publish that this particular weight-loss drug has banned substances in it, they are catching the innocent along with the (potentially) guilty.

I'm not a big fan of the Minnesota Vikings, as they are in the same division as the Detroit Lions (my team). The Williams boys are also a big part of the Vikings front-line and, since the Lions play the Vikings within what would be the Williams boys four-game suspension, that loss would make it slightly more likely that Detroit would win that game. However, I think this case is unfair to the players (and one other whose name escapes me at the moment) who appear to be caught using a drug as intended and being duped by the league into testing positive for a banned substance. That is unfair to the players, is an unfair business practice, and we would not stand for this sort of behavior if it happened in any non-sports related business.

It is only because, at this point, all sports figures are presumed guilty until/unless proven innocent for steroid (and similar) abuse by most Americans that this case isn't getting a higher profile and greater outcry from the fan base. Again, how would you like if your boss/employer duped you into taking something that he/she knew would get you suspended or fired from your job?

The other question I have is why are they getting suspended for testing positive for a non-steroid/Performance Enhancing Drug (PED)? This drug is only used to mask potential use of PEDs, but has no performance enhancing abilities of its own. Shouldn't testing positive for a masking agent be a warning and immediate further tests, not a four-game suspension?

I'm all in favor of every league doing what it can to eliminate PED from sport. But, on the other hand, it must work WITH the players to educate them, provide all the data it can to the players, and should have various levels of response to alleged and confirmed abuse. This almost seems like if you are pulled over by the cops for erratic driving and they small Bubble Yum on your breath, they arrest you for drunk driving, because Bubble Yum is used to mask the smell of alcohol. Get real!

Hopefully, this case will make the NFL, and other sports league, reevaluate its PED policy and change it in ways that make sense. It can still be tough and no-nonsense about it, but not penalize players unduly. Common sense should always come into play in ruling on these matters.

We can hope.