20sdad,
I think we are saying they can draft him, and then the testing process can start.
Testing before the draft ever occurs, and testing only a certain level of level/number of prospects, i.e., the top 200 prospects, raises more legal issues about the validity of the testing than anyone on this site would care to know.
quote:Originally posted by infielddad:
Your analysis ...
Yup. That's what we're talkin' 'bout.
Infidel_08!!!! 
infidel_08,
sorry you were offended.
sorry you were offended.
Well, I disagree with a lot of what has been written here. And much of the rest of it is irrelevant.
First, there is no point in trying to form an opinion about the legality of pre-draft drug testing based on what happens with "ordinary" employers. The mere existence of the draft system shows that ordinary rules and laws don't necessarily apply. Only in professional sports can a group of potential employers decide among themselves which of them has the sole right to your services for a period of several years.
Secondly, it is the draft system which motivates the desire to test before draft day. If an organization drafts a player in the first round, and he then becomes unavailable through, for example, permanent injury or public notoriety, they have lost a great deal, even if they don't pay a dime in salary. They've lost the opportunity to get a premier quality player, who has a much higher probability of success than a lower round player. So the organization would like to know before the draft if there is an issue with drugs, just like they want to know if there is an issue with signability. Similarly, it is perhaps an invasion of privacy to require potential draftees to take an intelligence test, but the NFL has provided the precedent.
Thirdly, there is no need to get hung up on the accuracy of the list of 200. Drug tests which accurately cover both recreational drugs and PEDs are expensive-- it's hundreds of dollars per test. So MLB wants to pre-draft test a small number. Let's say they are actually intent on ensuring that all the first rounders are clean. Instead of trying to guess who the top 40-50 players will be, they just test the top 200. Almost any legitimate list of the top 200 will include 98% of the eventual first rounders. So for $100K, spread over all the clubs, they minimize or eliminate the risk of a club losing its first round pick to drug issues.
Actually, the only risk to MLB that I can see here is the consequences of a repeat false positive (of course they'll run a confirmatory test following a postitive.) If that happens, and can be proven, the player will have suffered a real financial and probably emotional loss, and likely would be awarded substantial damages.
First, there is no point in trying to form an opinion about the legality of pre-draft drug testing based on what happens with "ordinary" employers. The mere existence of the draft system shows that ordinary rules and laws don't necessarily apply. Only in professional sports can a group of potential employers decide among themselves which of them has the sole right to your services for a period of several years.
Secondly, it is the draft system which motivates the desire to test before draft day. If an organization drafts a player in the first round, and he then becomes unavailable through, for example, permanent injury or public notoriety, they have lost a great deal, even if they don't pay a dime in salary. They've lost the opportunity to get a premier quality player, who has a much higher probability of success than a lower round player. So the organization would like to know before the draft if there is an issue with drugs, just like they want to know if there is an issue with signability. Similarly, it is perhaps an invasion of privacy to require potential draftees to take an intelligence test, but the NFL has provided the precedent.
Thirdly, there is no need to get hung up on the accuracy of the list of 200. Drug tests which accurately cover both recreational drugs and PEDs are expensive-- it's hundreds of dollars per test. So MLB wants to pre-draft test a small number. Let's say they are actually intent on ensuring that all the first rounders are clean. Instead of trying to guess who the top 40-50 players will be, they just test the top 200. Almost any legitimate list of the top 200 will include 98% of the eventual first rounders. So for $100K, spread over all the clubs, they minimize or eliminate the risk of a club losing its first round pick to drug issues.
Actually, the only risk to MLB that I can see here is the consequences of a repeat false positive (of course they'll run a confirmatory test following a postitive.) If that happens, and can be proven, the player will have suffered a real financial and probably emotional loss, and likely would be awarded substantial damages.
3FingeredGlove,
I was thinking pretty much the same thing regarding why 200. Your other comments make the most sense.
Of course, now you know why I never played in the NFL.
infielddad, no offense taken. I'm not sure why you thought I might have been. Maybe I missed something. Re-read my second paragraph in this post.
I was thinking pretty much the same thing regarding why 200. Your other comments make the most sense.
Of course, now you know why I never played in the NFL.
infielddad, no offense taken. I'm not sure why you thought I might have been. Maybe I missed something. Re-read my second paragraph in this post.
quote:quote:
Originally posted by infielddad:
Your analysis ...
Yup. That's what we're talkin' 'bout.
...I was laughing cause I thought you meant urinalysis
shortstopmom,
Has the slumber party already started? Looks like it was after 1AM in Kansas when you posted. And on a weeknight too!
Has the slumber party already started? Looks like it was after 1AM in Kansas when you posted. And on a weeknight too!
3FingeredGlove,
Its always a party in the great prairie land.
Its been very interesting reading everyone's take on this subject.
( even those that are posted in the weeee-early morning hours )
I think I have a better idea now of why there is so much controversey with the topic.
Its broadened my view, especially after a few cups of coffee this morning.
Thank you to those who took the time to enlighten those of us who were not as in tune with what was happening.
If the tests are already being sent out, I am assuming they have a deadline one must meet inorder to comply, which means there are some very serious decisions being made by those right now, who have received these tests.
To comply or not to comply? I wonder what most will do?
Its always a party in the great prairie land.
Its been very interesting reading everyone's take on this subject.
( even those that are posted in the weeee-early morning hours )
I think I have a better idea now of why there is so much controversey with the topic.
Its broadened my view, especially after a few cups of coffee this morning.
Thank you to those who took the time to enlighten those of us who were not as in tune with what was happening.
If the tests are already being sent out, I am assuming they have a deadline one must meet inorder to comply, which means there are some very serious decisions being made by those right now, who have received these tests.
To comply or not to comply? I wonder what most will do?
Perhaps the MLB realizes how the PED's they allowed their players to take has come back to bite them by filtering down into the HS level and is making it difficult to scout draft picks.
quote:weeee-early morning
Stop it, shortstopmom.
You're killing me.
FYI - The question as to who's list MLB uses to determine the 200 that will be tested... the letter states that the list is determined by the Major League Scouting Bureau.
quote:Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
Well, I disagree with a lot of what has been written here. And much of the rest of it is irrelevant.
First, there is no point in trying to form an opinion about the legality of pre-draft drug testing based on what happens with "ordinary" employers. The mere existence of the draft system shows that ordinary rules and laws don't necessarily apply. Only in professional sports can a group of potential employers decide among themselves which of them has the sole right to your services for a period of several years.
The fact that they have the sole right to services for 6 years does not exempt their compliance with a number of laws, including those governing employment. By your analogy, it seems MLB could state they are not going to provide workers' compensation benefits to injured employees so long as they provide other types of medical and disability benefits.
Such isn't the law and never will be.
There are hundreds of cases, if not more, through the various states, dealing with how and when MLB contracts become final, when the offer is made and when the acceptance occurs for applying appropriate state laws.
To my knowledge, there isn't a single case, and MLB has never taken the position, the offer is made at the time of the draft. In fact, MLB usually argues the contract isn't final until it is ultimately signed by the club or MLB itself.
By MLB using a draft to determine the pool of candidates to whom it's members may make an offer of employment to play baseball, it, in my view, subjects this pre-draft drug testing requirement to greater, rather than lesser federal and state law scrutiny.
Testing players prior to the draft will hopefully level the playing field more than it is now. Players not using PED's will have an opportunity to go higher in the draft with larger signing bonuses, than finding out at a later date they could have done better. If a number of players test positive after the draft, would everyone else move up in slot? As it stands now, the higher level picks are asked (recquired?!!) to complete the psych test, one more test for the clean player is no big deal.
quote:Actually, the only risk to MLB that I can see here is the consequences of a repeat false positive (of course they'll run a confirmatory test following a postitive.) If that happens, and can be proven, the player will have suffered a real financial and probably emotional loss, and likely would be awarded substantial damages.
3FG, I think you may have identified the potential exposure MLB has from this decision. I wonder if they have considered how many students are taking legally prescribed controlled substances. I recall reading that Adam LaRoche failed his drug tests because of the stimulants taken for ADHD. I would think there is potential for a number of high school and college athletes to be taking Ritalin. I have a nephew who was diagnosed with ADD after his first year in college. Not sure how the Ritalin has affected his performance on the football field, but it's helped in the classroom
I agree that it's good to see a move toward cleaning up the use of PEDs in prospects that want the "edge" that will move them up. I hope that MLB can make this work. There are too many kids out there that are willing to do whatever it takes, and making bad choices.
3fingeredglove,
As far as your post I disagree with your thinking.
The first 200, depending upon the compensation rounds, is the first 4-6 rounds, money drops significantly after that. They don't want to NOT draft you, they want to offer you LESS $$. And their concern is NOT the 200K guy, it's the millions guy and if you go back and research many big bonus players have had issues over the past few years. The number 200 hides what they are really looking for, the first few picks that get lots of money, IMO.
So here is the solution, in order for you to have those $$, before we hire you, you must submit to a test. Is that too difficult to accomplish?
I know my son had to have an MRI, with discussion if they found something he most likely would have to sign for less than slot or go back to school. He had to submit to a pee test when he arrived.
So I just don't get the 200.
As far as your post I disagree with your thinking.
The first 200, depending upon the compensation rounds, is the first 4-6 rounds, money drops significantly after that. They don't want to NOT draft you, they want to offer you LESS $$. And their concern is NOT the 200K guy, it's the millions guy and if you go back and research many big bonus players have had issues over the past few years. The number 200 hides what they are really looking for, the first few picks that get lots of money, IMO.
So here is the solution, in order for you to have those $$, before we hire you, you must submit to a test. Is that too difficult to accomplish?
I know my son had to have an MRI, with discussion if they found something he most likely would have to sign for less than slot or go back to school. He had to submit to a pee test when he arrived.
So I just don't get the 200.
quote:Originally posted by infielddad:
The fact that they have the sole right to services for 6 years does not exempt their compliance with a number of laws, including those governing employment. By your analogy, it seems MLB could state they are not going to provide workers' compensation benefits to injured employees so long as they provide other types of medical and disability benefits.
I wasn't trying to make an analogy, and in fact the point of that paragraph is that analogies with conventional employers aren't necessarily useful.
I gave an example (player restricted to a single employer) of where an analogy would break down. Conversely, your example (workers' compensation) shows that the peculiar circumstances of MLB doesn't stand labor law on its head. Taken together, the examples demonstrate that reasoning by analogy may or may not lead to a correct inference when considering MLB, NFL, or other professional leagues.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
To justify the ability to test for drugs, absent the player knowingly waiving their rights,there has to be a relationship of some type, usually post offer prehire.
The testing also needs to be uniform and job related.
Before the draft takes place, there is no relationship between a player and MLB that would permit testing on a mandatory basis, based on current laws, especially in CA.
By testing only 200, they will be hard pressed to argue that only the top 200 presented a statistically significant risk for the use of PED's, unless they have some pretty startling results from the first tests done through Milb in the past few years.
If a demonstrated business interest/ rational basis test is required, they will be hard pressed to justify the top 200 presented a risk that the other 1,300 did not, so they could rationally pick just those.
To justify the ability to test for drugs, absent the player knowingly waiving their rights,there has to be a relationship of some type, usually post offer prehire.
The testing also needs to be uniform and job related.
Before the draft takes place, there is no relationship between a player and MLB that would permit testing on a mandatory basis, based on current laws, especially in CA.
By testing only 200, they will be hard pressed to argue that only the top 200 presented a statistically significant risk for the use of PED's, unless they have some pretty startling results from the first tests done through Milb in the past few years.
If a demonstrated business interest/ rational basis test is required, they will be hard pressed to justify the top 200 presented a risk that the other 1,300 did not, so they could rationally pick just those.