Re: DRUG TESTING, ETC.

[Douglas342@aol.com]

   This thread has, it seems to me, split into two distinct points, each of
which is valid but which are inconsistent.
    One:  the contract between the players and the league ban drugs and allows
testing.  To play, you honor the contract.  That's the deal.  Can't argue with
that, can we?
     Two:  there is no justification for a testing clause, as it is violative
of personal rights.  If an owner suspects drugs, then the player is breaking
the law.  If his play suffers, then the player will find himself sliding down
the bench into oblivion.  If he wants to counter allegations of drug use, he
can test voluntarily, can't he?
     Bottom line to me is that the union gave up on the testing issue and now
that they want to play hardball on Bird, etc., that innocuous little provision
is gonna come back and bite 'em bad.  Betcha lots of guys are gonna find
themselves doing rehab over a joint.  (Remember "Reefer Madness?")
     BTW, I asked a pro-labor labor lawyer friend of mine about the legality
of testing.  His reply?  "There are hundreds of testing clauses in hundreds of
companies and government entities, being tested in state and federal courts
all over the US.  The answers so far are all over the place."