Draftee drug testing not so far-fetched

Working through the Mitchell Report, the section entitled "Recommendations" (Section IX, to be exact) begins on page 285. Head to Section B for "Additional Actions to Address Performance Enhancing Substance Violations."

Number four in that section is titled, "The Top Draft Prospects Should Be Tested Prior to the Major League Draft." It reads as follows:

The Major League Baseball Scouting Bureau identifies the top 100 draft eligible prospects annually. The scouting bureau has proposed that those prospects be subjected to drug tests before the draft each year. It has had preliminary contacts with the National Collegiate Athlete Association to discuss the feasibility of this proposal.

As with the Minor League testing program, unannounced tests will discourage the use of performance enhancing substances from the very beginning of a player's professional career. The testing of draft prospects could be administered as an adjunct of the Minor League testing program.

The release of the report and the ensuing reaction from the big names mentioned has been dominating headlines for the past two days, but to many, this is just a footnote. To those whose job it is to deal with the draft, it is much more than that. If baseball is truly to move past this era and create a drug-free game, getting to the players before they turn pro is crucial.

"The problem is we can't test them before we sign them [under the current system]," one American League scouting director said, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity surrounding this issue. "After we sign them, we can test them. That's after the fact, but we've always been proactive in dealing with those issues. It's a step in the right direction. I don't know if we'd be able to do it, but I'm in favor of it. That's where it starts."

To this scouting director, it's analogous to someone interviewing for a job in the corporate world. Many employers these days require a prospective employee to submit to a drug test as part of the agreement for employment. This is no different, with a player in effect applying for a job with a Major League Baseball organization.

"You have rights for every individual to accept doing it or not, but if I go get a job at a hospital or as a driver at UPS, you have to take a drug test before being accepted for employment," the scouting director said. "I would love to see baseball go in that direction. These players are potential employees for all 30 clubs. I don't see where there's a big difference. Maybe there are legal aspects we don't know about, but I think it's a legitimate comparison. If you fail that drug test, you wouldn't get hired."

Not everyone sees it in quite the same way. Arizona-based sports lawyer and agent Jim Kuzmich, who has represented recent first-round picks like Mark Rogers in the past, isn't against drug testing in theory, but questions the timing of when it should take place. "Do I think these kids should be taking steroids? No, of course not," Kuzmich said. "But I don't know that I agree with that concept. Yes, employers require drug tests, but it's usually after an agreement to hire."

To put it in a baseball context, that means after a team has drafted a player, but before he signs on the dotted line. Kuzmich points out that normally an agreement on bonus structure and things of that nature are hammered out, pending a physical. He sees no problem with making it pending a physical and drug test. That would allow teams the ability to opt out if a draftee fails the test. Doing it prior to the draft, he maintains, wouldn't be fair because unlike "normal" job seekers, amateur players aren't actively pursuing an employer in the same way.

"These kids don't declare themselves eligible for the draft. They just are," Kuzmich said. "They make no affirmative steps toward doing what they have the right to do. They can't opt out of the draft. But teams can take them and have their rights until the following August.

"Now they want them to subject themselves to drug testing before the draft? After the draft, maybe. As an agreement to signing. Are they trying to institute an election to be eligible for the draft? Are they going to not draft guys who don't agree to take the test? Are we going to change the very nature of the draft?"

"I think it would work if they did it after the draft as a condition of employment," Kuzmich continued. "If you want to play Major League Baseball, MLB is an employer, just like anyone else. If you want to work for them, you have to agree with their rules. But I don't agree that it should be before the draft. It should be after the draft, once an agreement for employment is in place."

As it stands right now, teams have to rely on the due diligence of their scouts, who visit with the player and his family prior to the draft. There's been more and more emphasis on character and makeup in recent years and that has included bring up the subject of performance-enhancing drugs during the draft process.

"You can ask tough questions," the scouting director said. "It's no different than interviewing. We're interviewing this player for a job. Do we want this player to play for us? We have a choice to say we don't want this player for our organization. It is a process. We are the employer. We are interviewing potential clients for [our company].

"That's always been my approach, when trying to find out about a player and his makeup. We can all watch physical ability on the field. It's the other aspect that's become increasingly more difficult. They go hand-in-hand. Character is very important."

Adding some kind of drug testing, whether it be before or after the draft, could go a long way toward the ultimate goal everyone involved in the game would presumably like to see -- a game without this stain on it.

"One thing I'd be consistent with is our approach," the scouting director said. "Our hope is that this is a thing of the past and that us, as an industry, have learned from it. It's time to move on and have a drug-free game again."