STOUDAMIRE A DOPE FOR TRYING TO `CLEAR' NAME

Voluntary Drug Test The Wrong Way To Go

With so much hysteria breaking out over the alleged use of
performance-enhancing and/or recreational drugs in sports these days,
this was bound to happen.

Damon Stoudamire went and got himself drug tested at the behest of a
Portland newspaper guy. The former Raptor said it was an attempt to
"clear" his own name after being busted last year for marijuana. Which
only suggests Damon's brain has been fried from all the dope. Or something.

The players' union, naturally, will go bananas over this. As well it
should. How and when and why players in any sport are drug tested is a
matter that was (or will be) bargained by the union with the employer.
The union should throw the book at Stoudamire for putting his own
self-interests ahead of the group that settled on a league-wide policy
in his behalf.

Since when, in our enlightened culture, does a person need to prove
his or her own innocence, regardless of the crime? That's not how it
works.

Whether it's about cheating on your taxes, illegally trading in stocks
(howdy, Martha), illicit drug use or any other allegedly widespread
crime, it's about a system that catches wrongdoers and proves
wrongdoing. It's not about everyone lining up and the innocent please
taking one step forward.

Stoudamire (or Gary Sheffield, another athlete talking about taking a
test to satisfy media queries) says he has nothing to hide. Fine.
Plenty of people say it and some truly mean it. Does this mean they
need to go out and "prove" it? What about those who buy the principle
that we're innocent until proved guilty? Do they immediately become
people with something to hide?

Where, too, does an individual's conscience fit into all this? Does
Damon Stoudamire need a drug test to know whether or not he smokes
dope? Whether he does or he doesn't - and who really cares? - if he's
at peace with himself, either way, why does he need a test? And if he
passes it - as he reportedly did this one - does it make his previous
drug charge go away and a clean reputation come back? Of course not.

Whether it's Stoudamire (or a thousand others) with a few spliffs or
Jason Giambi, Sheffield, Barry Bonds or any others allegedly with the
BALCO juice, let somebody go ahead and prove the rule-breaking.
Whether it's those dirty Russian cross-country skiers or even a
Canadian sprinter, it's about catching them in the act, not about
whispering and wringing hands and suggesting all sport is going to
hell in a handcart because there's rampant drug cheating. The onus of
proof is on the prosecution. Catch somebody - in any sport - and go
ahead and nail them. Punish the cheaters and move on.

The fact is, any decent lawyer can shoot down, or at least wing, a
drug test on technicalities. And with so many sporting bodies,
relatively little uniformity in what is and isn't allowed and various
degrees of intent in exposing cheaters, there are wild inconsistencies
in drug-use enforcement. Tightening that up is the place to start.

This is not a blanket endorsement of cheating through the needle in
sport. Instead, we need a better process than individual athletes
coming forward, here and there, to "clear their names." Because that
very act says the wrong thing about the vast majority who aren't
cheating, who don't feel the need to prove their innocence to anyone.

The right to drug test employees, in any business, is not
automatically conferred on an employer. It is bargained for. Unions,
including pro sports, have negotiated a groundwork for such tests. The
players should stick to them. No player would think of crossing the
union on matters of salary minimums or job security or any other item
negotiated in their behalf.

They shouldn't cross them on this one, either. There are other ways to
confront whatever problem exists.