Stoudamire Takes Drug Test

[sterlingice]

Guard fulfills promise; union to be miffed?

ESPN.com news services
<!-- template inline --><!-- insertinlineAd --> Portland Trail Blazers (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=por) point guard Damon Stoudamire (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=3009) took a drug test for a Portland newspaper columnist on Friday in an attempt to clear his name, the Oregonian reported Sunday.

<!-- BEGIN INLINE UNIT --> http://adsatt.espn.starwave.com/ad/sponsors/blank/blank-espn.gif (http://transfer.go.com/cgi/atransfer.pl?name=141468&srvc=sz&context=1331:63:141468:65&guid=D2796E41-A21B-4383-BA12-A444D4F99D15&goto=)<!-- InContent Blank -->
<!-- END INLINE UNIT --> As coach Maurice Cheeks held open the bathroom door, Stoudamire urinated in a cup, fulfilling an agreement he made five months ago with Oregonian columnist John Canzano. Last year, Stoudamire apologized to fans after being charged with possession of marijuana following a search at an airport.

"I did it because I have nothing to hide," Stoudamire told Canzano. "I didn't know you were going to test me [Friday]. You surprised me."

Stoudamire reportedly tested negative for five different drugs, including marijuana. According to the paper, marijuana can be detected if used up to 28 days prior to the test.

Stoudamire acknowledged that he expects to "catch hell" from the NBA Players Association over the unapproved test.

"If the [National Basketball Players Association] finds out that I took this test from someone other than their program, there is a likelihood that they'll be [ticked] off," Stoudamire told the paper. "If it comes to that point, I hope they understand that I wasn't trying to put a division between me and the players association. I did it because I had to do it for me."

It is unclear whether Stoudamire's action to voluntarily take a drug test risks a negative precedent with the NBA's union or those of other professional sports. In baseball, the issue of steroids has intensified amid hearings involving BALCO and star players Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi and Gary Sheffield. Sheffield recently told ESPN's Dan Patrick that he would agree to be tested, but the MLB Players Association would have to approve the test.

SI

[vex]

Good for him.

[Franklinnoble]

Any word on the results?

[QuikSand]

I don't know how likely this is to happen... but this sort of thing has the potential to become a landslide in the whole drug and steriod issue in sports. Look at baseball -- if fans really start to get ticked off and turnd off about the perception that baseball players are juiced... doesn't the incentive grow for a productive and clean player to step up and agree to something like this personally? Stop hiding behind the union, step up, fill the cup, and stake your claim as being above all this crap.

There's a lot of potential here as the way to really unravel the issue - especially in a union-dominated setting like MLB. It may not be all that likely to happen... but this could really shift the issue away from just backroom negotiations between the millionaires and the billionaires.

Ah...dream on.

[Samdari]

I don't know how likely this is to happen... but this sort of thing has the potential to become a landslide in the whole drug and steriod issue in sports. Look at baseball -- if fans really start to get ticked off and turnd off about the perception that baseball players are juiced... doesn't the incentive grow for a productive and clean player to step up and agree to something like this personally? Stop hiding behind the union, step up, fill the cup, and stake your claim as being above all this crap.

There's a lot of potential here as the way to really unravel the issue - especially in a union-dominated setting like MLB. It may not be all that likely to happen... but this could really shift the issue away from just backroom negotiations between the millionaires and the billionaires.

Ah...dream on.


I actually do not understand the union's stance on players unilaterally deciding to take a test for the public. I do understand (but don't agree with) their "invasion of privacy" stance in trying to keep management from forcing players to be drug tested. Why they would want to keep players from taking any medical tests and sharing those results with whom they chose escapes me. The union should be about preserving their member's choices. This union is replacing forced decisions made by the owners with those made by union leadership.

[rkmsuf]

That would be the idealistic view but unfortunately reality is much, much different...

[QuikSand]

But from the union's perspective - it's their job to protect their membership. If 20% then 40% then 60% of their members start taking "voluntary" tests (ushered by th media or others), and then the pressure builds and builds to do so... it then becomes a practical matter that a player must take the "voluntary" test or else he'll be labeled a cheater.

[miami_fan]

I don't know how likely this is to happen... but this sort of thing has the potential to become a landslide in the whole drug and steriod issue in sports. Look at baseball -- if fans really start to get ticked off and turnd off about the perception that baseball players are juiced... doesn't the incentive grow for a productive and clean player to step up and agree to something like this personally? Stop hiding behind the union, step up, fill the cup, and stake your claim as being above all this crap.

There's a lot of potential here as the way to really unravel the issue - especially in a union-dominated setting like MLB. It may not be all that likely to happen... but this could really shift the issue away from just backroom negotiations between the millionaires and the billionaires.

Ah...dream on.

This will happen right around the same time the owners open up the REAL books to prove how poor they are

[rkmsuf]

But from the union's perspective - it's their job to protect their membership. If 20% then 40% then 60% of their members start taking "voluntary" tests (ushered by th media or others), and then the pressure builds and builds to do so... it then becomes a practical matter that a player must take the "voluntary" test or else he'll be labeled a cheater.

Protecting their membership is a tricky deal though. I wouldn't say they are protecting the non-cheaters from the cheaters...

Cheaters benefit at the non-cheaters expense to some degree...

[Samdari]

Protecting their membership is a tricky deal though. I wouldn't say they are protecting the non-cheaters from the cheaters...

Cheaters benefit at the non-cheaters expense to some degree...

Well, one of the primary benefits that unions were formed to provide for their members were safe working conditions. In today's current baseball environment, players are almost forced to use steroids in order to keep their jobs - or it will be given to someone who is on them. This is an unsafe working condition, and the union should be doing everything in its power to eliminate it from their consituents workplace. Instead, you have Gene Orza denying that steroids are either a health risk, or performance enhancing.

[Ksyrup]

The explanation I read that Orza gave was very short-sighted. He basically suggested that the union shouldn't willingly participate in bargaining in a manner which would lead to increased penalties for the union's membership. I understand his point, of course, it's just that he's got other things to consider which, in my view, tips the scales the other way, like the integrity of the game his members are being paid to play and the harm that certain of his members are inflicting on themselves.

When you factor in the long-term damage to both the game and to the individuals, keeping druggies from being suspended a year vs. a month should be the least of the union's concerns. He's fighting a losing battle - one which will make Bud Selig look like the good guy - but I think the only way to change the union's stance is from within. The union won't change it's position based on MLB or the public's view of this situation. It will only be when enough players get fed up with being put on the spot, questioned, ridiculed, booed, etc., due to suspicions, that the majority of the membership will refuse to protect the small number of users in order to protect the innocent who are being questioned.

[sterlingice]

I don't know how likely this is to happen... but this sort of thing has the potential to become a landslide in the whole drug and steriod issue in sports. Look at baseball -- if fans really start to get ticked off and turnd off about the perception that baseball players are juiced... doesn't the incentive grow for a productive and clean player to step up and agree to something like this personally? Stop hiding behind the union, step up, fill the cup, and stake your claim as being above all this crap.

There's a lot of potential here as the way to really unravel the issue - especially in a union-dominated setting like MLB. It may not be all that likely to happen... but this could really shift the issue away from just backroom negotiations between the millionaires and the billionaires.

Ah...dream on. Well, the one that made me blink last week was when Smoltz called out the guys and said he wanted testing. He's usually a pretty staunch union guy and to see him say that he's tired guys breaking the rules are getting ahead of him, well that was refreshing to see. It's not like some scrub doing it, either. Then again, I haven't heard anything from him since so I'm sure the union got to him about it.

And, KSyrup, of course what Orza said is shortsighted and only for the gains of today, damning the good of the game. When was the last time the MLBPA actually did something for the good of the long term health of the game? Every time something gets brought up where they might have to make a sacrifice, they hide under the mantles of "but we earned this" and "you're trying to take away our rights".

SI