Sports Law Blog
All things legal relating
to the sports world...
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
More on Steroids....

Sarah Kellogg has an excellent piece in this month's issue of Washington Lawyer magazine, Juiced: Congress, Steroids, and the Law. Here are a few probing questions and comments from people she interviewed:

Washington Times sports columnist Tim Lemke:

“Most people look at sports simply as entertainment, and they don’t really get emotionally tied up in it. As long as sports leagues are doing something about the issue, I think fans are pretty content. Congress is sort of overreaching here with the Roger Clemens situation, which turned out to be over the top and not remotely connected to the original purpose here—protecting kids and public health.”

“Sports leagues can’t simply put in place policies as if it’s a dictatorship. Everything goes through collective bargaining. Most people understand that the steroids testing policies in place are pretty good, especially given the fact everything has to be approved by a union. The job of union leaders is to look out for their players and not to give too much away. They’ve had to walk a fine line there.”

“If baseball and sports are filled with people who are dishonest and cheating, is that affecting the public welfare? I’m not sure, but maybe it’s a question that’s worth asking.”

NFL Executive V.P., Harold Henderson:

“Why let steroid use be rampant down at Gold’s gym but legislate against it in sports leagues? If you want to do something about it, get it off the Internet. Ban the nonmedical use of it. Devote some resources to law enforcement and dry it up.”

Author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, John Lott Jr.:

“We go and watch sporting events because of the amazing feats these guys are able to perform. If they’re able to do a bit better job with performance-enhancing drugs, then these athletes should be able to make the choice. They take risks all the time. We pay to watch them take those risks. Why are we interested in legislating against these risks but not against others?”


Like I have said before, as far as I'm concerned, steroid legislation has been in place for a long time, they are illegal! period! there should not be a need for all this BS with congressional hearings and all this "outrage"... if the Government wants to police steroids, they should spend the resources to do so, however, should there really be a need for collectively bargaining the prohibition of an illegal activity?

Blogger Jimmy H -- 5/14/2008 12:48 PM  

@jimmy_h While there's something to said for enforcing existing laws, bad laws, namely the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990, are sorely in need of reform.

See legal analysis of legislation by Rick Collins at to see why this is a prescription for failure.

OpenID Millard Baker -- 5/14/2008 2:53 PM  

Mr. Baker,

Im well aware of Rick's movement against steroid charges. You can't pick up an issue MMI or Flex without seeing his ads or editorials. And while I do agree with him on some issues, it doesn't change my view on this issue.

There may be a need of legal reform, but for now, that is the law.

My points were merely that with the law already on the books, there is no need to hold hearings, simply enforce the existing law and stay out of the leagues businesses.

Blogger Jimmy H -- 5/14/2008 4:00 PM  

Most states have a statute regulating agents that is modeled after the Uniform Athlete Agents Act. The one in California is not based upon that model, but section 18897.6 of the California Business and Professions Code does seem to apply to the Mayo allegations:

“18897.6. No athlete agent or athlete agent's representative or employee shall, directly or indirectly, offer or provide money or any other thing of benefit or value to a student athlete.”

The USC Trojans website actually contains a link to the Miller-Ayala Act at

I wonder if anyone in the California Office of the Secretary of State is looking into this.

Ed Edmonds

Blogger Ed Edmonds -- 5/19/2008 4:54 PM  

Post a Comment