Orza: Steroids no worse than cigarettes!!!

[GotowarMissAgnes]

There are many jobs where you need to take tests as a condition of employment. Why wouldn't the player's union be defending the players that aren't taking steriods? There seems to be alot more of them then the ones that do take them. Football and Basketball have drug tests. They seem to be doing just fine. I'm not real strong with the law and all but I believe if the players you're trying to protect want to be tested then shouldn't you allow them to test? And who can you say there isn't enough evidence against them? Man, pull your head out of the sand. The constitution wasn't designed to protect criminals.

Also, this doesn't send a very good message to the kids trying to become baseball players. 'You better do steriods to get the edge. You know the other kids will be doing them.' What a joke. Are you a defence attorney? That would explain alot.

1. Yes, drug tests can be used widely as a condition of employment, but they generally cannot be used in a general, blanket, search of employees. Those are two different situations.

2. The union IS protecting players not taking steroids. They, too, have privacy rights, which are protected when the union insists upon narrow and limited body cavity searches, rather than allowing general, blanket, random searches.

3. The NFL and NBA are doing fine in what sense and for whom?

4. Who says that the players the union is protecting want to be tested? Some players have come forward saying they are in favor of it. Others say they are opposed. It's the union's job to sort through the various opinions and represent that to management.

5. I love your interpretation of the constitution. Rather than require that the state presume innocence and prove guilt, you'd prefer to start from "Who can say there isn't enough evidence against them?". Rather than recognize that major parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are specifically designed to protect the individual from excessive power of the state, especially when accused or suspected of a crime, you'd prefer the assumption of guilt until innocence is proven.

[Arlo]

You make some good points, GTWMA, and yes, the union is simply doing its job. I think cigarettes are a somewhat ill-chosen analogy, though.

In any case, with all respect for privacy (and we probably have too few laws protecting ours), some aspects of privacy end on the playing field. In everyday life, you can't inspect the contents of my pockets without invading my privacy; on the diamond, the umpire most certainly can.

[GotowarMissAgnes]

You make some good points, GTWMA, and yes, the union is simply doing its job. I think cigarettes are a somewhat ill-chosen analogy, though.

In any case, with all respect for privacy (and we probably have too few laws protecting ours), some aspects of privacy end on the playing field. In everyday life, you can't inspect the contents of my pockets without invading my privacy; on the diamond, the umpire most certainly can.

Again, I don't think it's a poor analogy in the context of what Orza was asked (that is, whether the union shouldn't allow testing because steroids pose a health risk). With respect to that issue, legality is not relevant. The level of health risk is.

I'd like to see an umpire try to enforce that in the courts. He can request that I empty my pockets. He can throw me out of the game if I fail to comply. But, if I don't comply, he cannot force me (i.e., use the power of the state) to empty my pockets.

[LBJackal]

Well yeah, if somebody refuses to take a mandatory drug test for banned substances, then they can't play baseball. But steroids are not a banned substance. Which they should be. If they don't want to take a piss test, send them to Japan and they can play juiced up over there for all I care. Unfortunately changing rules takes a hell of a long time.