MLB Overhauls Drug Policy

In late March, Major League Baseball and the MLB Player's Association reached an agreement to reform their Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program (full text of changes available here).  The new agreement enforces stiffer penalties for violators as well as increased testing of all types.  I will briefly outline the old policy here; more in-depth coverage can be found in an earlier post.

New Penalties

Under the old policy, a first time violation of the PED policy (the agreement as different penalties for "stimulants") led a 50 game suspension, a second time violation a 100 game suspension, and the third strike resulted in lifetime banishment from the game.  Under the new agreement, players will be suspended for 80 games for one positive test, 162 games (= one season) for a second, and lifetime banishment for a third.  Additionally, an in-season violation will bar a player from postseason participation, even if his suspension has been completed before the start of the postseason.  A first time violation includes the loss of pay for the duration of the suspension.  A second time suspension also includes the loss of an entire year's worth of pay, as opposed to 162 game's worth of pay (this is important in the case of postseason play; under the former agreement, a player with a 162 game suspension, e.g. Alex Rodriguez, would only lose 162/183ths of his pay).

Increased Testing

The new agreement ups the number of in-seasons urine samples collected from 1,400 to 3,200 (a 128% increase).  HGH testing increases as well with 400 blood samples collected in season on top of the 1,200 collected during Spring Training.  The new agreement also calls for something called Carbon Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry, which can be used to detect PED use in the two weeks leading up to the test (PubMed article).  This mass spec technique is approved by WADA for the monitoring of HGH and testosterone usage.

First time offenders will be subjected to increased future testing: six unannounced urine tests and three unannounced blood tests per year for the remainder of that player's career.

Etc.

Avoid tainted meat, too

The MLB is allowing (mandating?) teams to supply certified supplements to their players year-round.  This is to prevent the "tainted" supplement excuse whereby a player either "didn't read" the label of a supplement, the label did not list a particular compound, or a banned substance snuck its way into the otherwise legal supplement during manufacturing.

Reaction

The most important facet to this story is that, from my understanding, the push for change came from the players and the Players' Association.  The players want stiffer testing and want the game to be cleaner.  Baseball--perhaps more than any other sport--is obsessed with the "integrity of the game" and any reasonable sports fan can agree that PEDs hurt the integrity of any sport and the spirit of competition.  It is refreshing to see a group of players take this sentiment to heart and do something about it.

This reform still leaves something to be desired.  Eighty games for a player making $20 million a year for six years is a drop in the pail.  If that player got his fat contract in part due to his doping regime, he won't have any regret about his drug use.  The first time penalty is certainly stiffer, but it is not a massive deterrent to doping.

The IAAF recently returned to a four year ban from competition for a first time "serious" (their words, not mine) doping offenses.  For a runner, a four year banishment could span the entire prime of a career and I would argue is roughly half of an athlete's competitive career (Lagat is an exception to this).  Returning to high level performance is no small feat: maintaining training for four years with
only distant goals in sight is an immense mental battle compounded with the emergence of younger competitors looking to replace the old guard.  Dwain Chambers and Justin Gatlin are unique in their returns to competition, especially as sprinters.  The point I'm trying to drive home here is 80 games for a first time offense does not in any way derail the career of a baseball player in the same way that it might for a runner.  Baseball careers are longer than running careers yet the penalty for a first time offense is only half a season.  If I'm a AAAA player trying to make my break or a borderline star trying to get to the next level and cash-in, I'd think long and hard about the benefits to of starting a doping regime compared to the relatively few costs.

This leads to my next point: annulment of contracts upon a positive test.  As I've argued before, drug-inflated numbers leading to a fat new contract is equivalent to lying on one's resume.  If I lie on
my resume and get caught, I get fired.  In baseball (and other sports), if a player lies on his resume, his pay gets suspended for half a season but the team is still on the hook for the rest of his contract, which they might have offered under essentially falsified numbers.  The ultimate deterrent to doping--especially in baseball--would be to allow teams to void a player's contract if he tests positive for PEDs.  The annulment does not have to be compulsory, but the team should have the option.  Unfortunately, the Players Association would never agree to such a provision, but in the world of contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars, such a clause would be devastatingly effective in fighting doping.

There was also no mention of increased off-season testing.  A truly comprehensive doping code has stringent out-of-season testing in addition to in-season testing.  Relaxed off-season doping control means guys can go crazy with their workouts, recover with PEDs, and reap the benefits in-season (I've talked about this previously).  Additionally, injured players could dope up to hasten their recovery process.

In all, a good step forward by baseball by tightening their policy into what is likely the strictest doping code in the four major American sports.  That said, there is still work to be done.