Go to home page

TESTIMONY at a congressional hearing on the National Football League's steroid-testing policy suggests that a combination of court intervention and NFL responsibility-shirking are detouring progress toward a very achievable goal.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has commendably led the charge to halt pro athletes' use of performance-enhancing substances by exposing a pattern of abuse and pushing league officials to set their own strict guidelines. Recently, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell came before a Waxman-led subcommittee to seek legislation to keep state courts from interfering with the league's drug-curbing efforts.

So why is a policy affecting the employees of a private enterprise involving so much government? Some background: The NFL's steroid-testing program includes on its banned list a diuretic called bumetanide. The substance is not in itself a steroid, but players have used it to mask steroids' presence when their urine is tested.

The NFL players' union took legal action over the suspension of two Minnesota Vikings who tested positive for bumetanide. The players claim it was an unlisted ingredient in a weight-loss supplement they had taken. As the case meanders through federal and state courts, the league is prevented from enforcing its penalties on the players. Thus, Mr. Goodell's plea to Congress to kick the courts out of the game.

Let's start from this premise: The NFL should enforce its policies sensibly, case-by-case. It's one thing for a player who tests positive to say he unknowingly took steroids, an invitation to hyena-class laughter. But if players are unaware that a supplement they took contained a banned diuretic whose only performance-enhancing aspect is that it helps them shed a few pounds, then the suspensions are unwarranted.

Nonetheless, the courts should hesitate to involve themselves in a framework established by a private enterprise such as the NFL. They should have directed the players' union back to the league to appeal, with judicial commentary, if justified, on the inanity of zero-tolerance policies that ignore relevant evidence and beget injustice.

Finally, Mr. Waxman should refrain from pushing onto this crowded field. The only example of heavy governmental intervention in pro sports is Major League Baseball's antitrust exemption, an issue debated hotly now for 87 years. That anomaly doesn't need company.

Cleaning up drug abuse is something all sports leagues should do--fairly, deliberatively, and free, almost always, of government's involvement.

Back to top