Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site h-sc1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!h-sc1!samuels
From: samuels@h-sc1.UUCP (ronald samuels)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Ueberroth's Folly
Message-ID: <358@h-sc1.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 19-May-85 12:25:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: h-sc1.358
Posted: Sun May 19 12:25:20 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 20-May-85 08:29:05 EDT
References: <5877@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center
Lines: 56

> I can *maybe* understand
> someone saying that the players should be tested (they can't be now
> because of their contract with the owners), but I draw the line
> there. 

One of the arguements that has been presented against testing is
that testing JUST the players would be selective search (also a wrong-o)
I CAN'T see the point of JUST testing the players (though testing the
front office without the players seems blatently to be a power play)


> rights. Image of a game or a business should not take precedence
> over the rights of the individual (this includes you and me, because
> I can see this as a dangerous precendent that is even now creeping
> into the private sector). 

I agree one hundred percent.  However, unfortunately our laws don't
say a whole lot about what a person can do in a private company in
hiring firing situations (with certain exceptions)


> I see this as an issue that transcends
> the world of sports and instead becomes a legal, moral and ethical
> question. Such a policy presumes a person guilty until he proves
> himself innocent and violates the individuals' right to privacy
> and protection from unlawful search.

Again, I agree, but unfortunately the courts don't.  However, I think
that it makes a lot of difference HOW the tests are used as to whether
or not it really is the problem that you present.  I'm unwilling to close
my eyes to the problem, but also unwilling to just punish people for what
is basically a disease.  IF 1) the testing is kept completely confidental 
and the only requirements are the a positive test requires a player to
check into a treatment program than I can't complain too much.  It's too
bad but the commisioner is right that drug problems leave the game open
to scandles (and not just like the kind we have now, but like the Black Sox
problem)

>  Boy, this issue really hits home with me. If I hear the argument
> "If you don't have anything to hide, why not take the test?" again,
> I think I'll scream....
> -- 

Scream, I just heard it on the tube AGAIN.

> Call-Me:   Pete Cottrell, Univ. of Md. Comp. Sci. Dept.
> UUCP:	   {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!pete
> CSNet:	   pete@umcp-cs
> ARPA:	   pete@maryland

-- 

Ron Samuels
Harvard University Science Center

...harvard!h-sc1!samuels (or better yet)  ...harvard!h-sc4!samuels_b