With all the bashing of NBA officiating lately, I thought it to be a good time to pile some more food for thought on Commisioner Stern's plate. (He reads this site, right?) Beyond the FACT the the NBA and its officials can't figure out how to officiate Yao Ming, they also can't seem to get their act together when it comes to drug testing. Recently, David Harrison of the Indiana Pacers failed a drug test administered by the league, and subsequently failed his follow up test. The catch here is that the Pacers had no clue that he failed either test, because the league witholds the results. The Pacers found out while practicing in Phoenix the Harrison had been suspended for the next 5 games. As part of the collective barganing agreement, teams are not notified about a failed drug test until a player is suspended. Pacers CEO Donnie Walsh, "So its all guesswork on the part of the franchise if a player has an issue with alcohol or drugs or something like that." My question - If you made a multimillion dollar investement in someone, wouldn't you atleast want to be in the loop so you could offer assistance in terms of recovery / treatment? Another head scratcher is the fact that as per the policy: "Veteran players can be tested once during training camp, or, if a player reports during the season or with less than 15 days remaining in training camp, once during the first 15 days after he reports to his team. All such tests are at the discretion of the NBA." In other words, vets take one test a year, and the know when they are gonna take it. Not to mention the fact that the NBA didn't even test for POT until after the year 2000. Here is an article written in 2001 when Charles Oakley spoke out about this. www.infoimagination.org/ps/drug_war/articles/nba.html You'd think with David Sterns focus on cleaning up the image of his league with the dress code, rules changes for demostrative behavior, and large suspensions for policy violations, he would take a moment and re-visit this. Thoughts?
Maybe its just not that big of a deal. I wouldn't prioritize it. Steroids yes... Teams should be allowed to test and suspend on their own based on the owner/coaches morals and values. Isn't mar1juana legal in certain cities where NBA teams are based?
1. The league might not be able to tell the franchise about a positive test, but the player could. A team will not be able to help much with treatment if the player doesn't want help. And a player who actually wants help may just tell the team about the failed test and ask for help. I think the policy is sensible. Otherwise, the league is telling other people about a player's private business. I can understand why the union wouldn't like that, even if there is some impending risk for the franchises. 2. As far as the league's image, it'd probably be better for them to be able to say they test for drugs and not be able to find any due to their laxness than to either say they don't test, or that they do test and they find a bunch of violations. 3. Their policy on recreational drugs is probably above average in strigency in corporate America where a safety hazard does not result. My company tests once when you're hired and that is all. I think they're fine there and really should only be exemplary in policing performance-enhancing drugs.
It has to do with the contracts the league has with the players union I believe. Until a player is suspended they aren't allowed to disclose the results of drug testing. edit: rereading the quotes you have there its the CBA that doesn't allow the franchises to know. Very interesting info there.
