PANEL SAYS DRUG POLICY FAVORED TOP-TIER STARS

An investigation into the National Football League's drug policy by a
Senate caucus on drug control found indications that the league at one time
practiced a policy of allowing star players to escape punishment from
failed drug tests while lower-tier players did not.

But it also determined that such a double standard most likely no longer
exists.

The investigation, according to people familiar with it, concluded that
such a double standard may have been applied in at least several instances,
some within the past four or five years; evidence strongly indicated that
some of the league's best players failed drug tests, but were not punished,
because of their high profile status. Meanwhile, lower-level players were
readily punished.

However, there is no conclusive evidence such practices now exist, those
people said.

The inquiry, conducted by Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa,
and chairman of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, was begun
after an article in The New York Times last September reported on the
double standard. The article said that videotapes of a 1995 National
Football League Players Association meeting showed a high-ranking union
leader saying a number of players were not punished for violating the
league's substance abuse policy. The N.F.L. later confirmed that 16 players
fell into that category.

The league said the players were not suspended as a concession to the union
during negotiations for a stronger drug-testing policy, which was enacted
several years later.

A league official said that while the players "got a break," they were
still monitored and tested under the new, more comprehensive agreement. The
N.F.L.'s current policy is believed to be the toughest in sports.

Still, the impression was that the league was compromising its standards on
drug use in order to secure a new collective bargaining agreement with the
union. There were other questions: Who were the players who failed the
test? Did the league look the other way because some of the players who
failed the tests were high-profile ones?

Those were some of the questions the inquiry looked into, using three
Senate investigators, who first viewed the tapes in their entirety, and
then interviewed dozens of people, including N.F.L. officials, current and
former players, and others.

The investigation took more than six months, mainly because there were some
current N.F.L. players and officials who wanted to wait until the end of
the regular season before being interviewed.

"The Senate caucus has completed its look into whether or not there is an
informal practice that excuses some N.F.L. players from the league's
anti-drug policy," Grassley said in a statement. "I wanted to make sure
that we didn't ignore issues raised about double standards.

"While there are indications that a double standard may have existed in the
past, allegations that the drug testing policy today is biased have not
been substantiated."

The statement concluded: "The league, the players, and the players union
all recognize the value of a drug-free workplace. The drug testing policy
that the N.F.L. has in place today promotes and enforces this standard.
It's a good faith effort to have a standard that is tough and fair."

Grassley's examination should bring to an end what was an awkward period
for the N.F.L. and the union, in which accusations of a biased and flawed
drug testing program angered football officials.

The decision not to suspend the 16 players was a controversial one even
within professional football's inner circle.

Several owners said they voiced strong disapproval of any deal that would
have allowed players to go unpunished and recently reiterated those concerns.

One owner maintained that part of the reason the league allowed such a deal
to happen was that at least one of the players had a high profile. The
owner refused to name the player.