Drug Testing in Professional Sports

Courts ar expect adhered to this line, displaying great reticence to become involved in such situations. Therefore, for the most part, the merely recourse for players is via their labor agreement's mandated professional personcedures, and the outcome, as determined by an arbitrator, is to the highest degree always final (Jefferson, 1997).

Second, and most important, the constitutional prohibition against " absurd search," which medicate hearing is, only applies to state actors. Thus, neither the federal official government nor the state governments can conduct random dose testing of pro athletes, or eachone else for that matter. However, private employers can test their employees for drugs. Many parts of federal law do don to private actors, such as Title VII's ban on discrimination by employers. In the case of drug testing, though, neither Congress nor the U.S. Supreme Court have extended any protection for those employed by private entities. Besides, pro athletes argon represented by unions, so even if Congress did air limits on private drug testing, such rules probably would non apply in the collective bargaining context.

Some states have broader protections for individuals. California's constitution, for example, includes a specific provision guaranteeing the right of privacy, and that right is guaranteed against all actors (state or private). Nonetheless, California p

pro sports tolerated and even revered alcohol abuse for decades. Heroes such as quarterback Bobby Layne and center fielder Mickey Mantle to a fault were alcoholics, and their antics achieving legendary status. Their antics also claimed their lives (Smith, 1995). Pitcher Doc Ellis admitted to playing during the seventies while under the influence of LSD. At one point, he became irrationally angry at another player and degenerate to kill him by throwing a ball at his head.

major(ip) League Baseball (MLB) became the first pro sports league to trailer truck the issue. Several cases during the 1980s, most notably pitcher Steve Howe, prompted Commissioner Bowie Kuhn to take slanted action.

Kuhn, citing the Commissioner's power to act in the "best interests of baseball," adopted a rule that subjected any player to discipline for involvement in the " dirty possession or use of drugs or illegal trafficking with drugs."

This system has often proven unworkable, as demonstrated by Howe's case. Howe first had admitted drug use in 1982. He relapsed in 1983, then sat out the 1984 season after world suspended by the Commissioner. He continued to be plagued by positive drug tests and arrests for possession of cocaine until Commissioner Fay Vincent finally verboten him for emotional state in 1993, Howe's seventh suspension. The union challenged the suspension and won reinstatement for Howe again. That outraged many, but it did not change baseball's procedures.

While the rest of society debates the privacy aspects of drug testing, pro sports has largely enumerate aside that issue. Drug tests are a part of life for today's pro athletes, and these programs seem to have reduced the incidence of drug abuse. For some leagues, performance enhancing drugs are a bigger issue. However, pro sports are not separate from society as a whole. Those ills that afflict the broader community will continue to affect pro sports, regardless of drug testing.

Jefferson, A. L. (1997). "The NFL and domestic viole
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.