It’s Test for Drugs, or Else . . . : Dodgers, Angels Join Move to Add Tough Clause in Contracts

The Dodgers apparently will not be alone in their new attempt to include a drug-and-alcohol testing clause in player contracts.

The Angels, among others, intend to include a similar clause, adopting the recommendation of the Player Relations Committee, the owners’ bargaining group.

The committee has provided each of the 26 clubs with the legal language for a drug-and-alcohol clause and has recommended that no player be given a guaranteed salary unless he accepts the testing provision, PRC attorney Barry Rona said Wednesday.

New contracts do not have to be mailed until Dec. 20. It is uncertain how many clubs will include such a clause.

It can be expected, however, that the Major League Players Assn. will attempt to have any testing clause stricken, either by filing a grievance that would require arbitration or by amending the grievance it has already filed with the National Labor Relations Board.

That complaint was filed in the wake of the owners’ recent decision to dissolve the joint drug agreement, an action stemming from the union’s refusal to accept mandatory testing. The union, in seeking the labor board’s intervention, is charging that the joint agreement could not be terminated unilaterally.

Neither Donald Fehr, the union’s executive director, nor Eugene Orza, its legal counsel, could be reached for comment Thursday.

But attorney Dick Moss, a player agent who formerly served as legal counsel to Marvin Miller, Fehr’s predecessor, said he was certain that the union would again move to invalidate any testing clause.

Moss said: “The only covenants that can be added to the standard contract are those that benefit the player. All others are governed by the collective bargaining agreement. Any clause dealing with drug testing is inappropriate.”

Last year, responding to the Dodgers’ inclusion of a drug-testing clause in the contract signed by outfielder Mike Marshall, the union charged a violation of the joint agreement.

The Dodgers maintained that testing fell into a gray area not covered by the agreement, but ultimately decided to delete the clause rather than battle the union and jeopardize the agreement.

Now, with no joint agreement, the Dodgers have signed catcher Steve Yeager to a one-year contract that includes a similar clause. Agent Steve Kaller said Wednesday that he and Yeager will fight any attempt by the union to void the contract.

“We’re not attempting to destroy or dilute anything the association has done,” Kaller said. “It’s just that every player has to be treated differently. In Steve’s case, there were issues more important than the drug clause.

“We’re behind the Dodgers on this. We’ll go to court if the union tries to void the contract. I haven’t talked to Don Fehr yet, but I expect to tomorrow. I’ll tell him what I’m telling you.”

Fred Claire, the Dodgers’ executive vice president, said Wednesday that Yeager wasn’t being singled out and that the club would discuss a drug provision with every player up for a new contract.

Asked what the response would be if a player refused to sign with the clause included, Claire said: “I can’t answer that at this time. I do know our philosophy won’t change. We believe in testing. We’ve seen it work at the minor league level. We also think there are a lot of players who share our feeling.”

Will the Dodgers refuse to guarantee a salary unless a player agrees to testing?

Claire refused a definitive answer. “I don’t want to go into the details of our negotiations,” he said. “But you have the PRC’s position on that.”

The conservative Dodgers almost always follow the PRC’s philosophy, and most likely will do so on this, too.

So will the Angels, General Manager Mike Port said.

“We’ve had enough of all this,” Port said, alluding to the drug controversy and what it has done to the game’s image. “We don’t need it anymore. It’s taking too much time away from the things we should be doing and the positive things that the fans should be reading about.”

Port said that the Angels would include a testing provision in every new contract and would not guarantee salaries unless the clause is accepted. He said he would seek an explanation from any player who refuses to accept it and will expect more than “the trite invasion of privacy.”

“The Angel organization voted against the joint agreement because it wasn’t getting to the heart of the problem,” he said. “We believe in testing. We believe there are concerned players who are ready to stand up and say, ‘Count me in.’ I mean, if there’s no problem, then what’s the problem?’ ”

Port said he had discussed the subject with several players and heard no objections.

Did Yeager object to the Dodgers’ request for a three-line clause that gives them permission to ask for a urinalysis and blood test if they come to believe Yeager is using a chemical substance?

“Steve does not have a drug problem and does not have a problem with the drug clause,” agent Kaller said.

He said that Yeager’s overriding consideration was his desire to stay with the Dodgers. He cited the Dodgers’ responding to their 14-year veteran with good-faith discussions that began last summer and were consummated in a lucrative contract that Yeager, eligible for free agency, could not have matched elsewhere.

The Dodgers, it was learned, even scrubbed club policy to include deferred salary that will pay Yeager until the year 2000.

Asked if the Dodgers had threatened to withhold the guarantee on Yeager’s salary if he did not sign, Kaller said the subject was never mentioned.

Reached by phone at the PRC’s office in New York, attorney Rona was asked if the withholding of a salary guarantee didn’t represent coercion.

“Not at all,” he said. “Guaranteed salaries are already conditional. I mean, most contracts have clauses which say the guarantee is off if there’s a strike, if the player is hurt in another sport such as skiing or basketball, or if there’s a continued drug use. Now, we’re simply saying that there’s no guarantee if the player doesn’t agree to be tested. It really comes down to the fact that we have no obligation to guarantee a salary in the first place.”

Rona has said he expects the majority of clubs to support the committee’s position and a definite challenge by the union. He said he believes that the clubs are now on solid footing, that the subject of testing is not restricted to collective bargaining but that if it is, “we have already attempted to settle it that way with no support from the union. We have run that course. Now we feel we can proceed through the negotiation of individual contracts.”

The World Series champion Kansas City Royals, a team that has survived drug problems, will be among those including a testing clause in its new contracts.

“No one in this organization will be putting a gun to anyone’s head,” General Manager John Schuerholz said by phone, “but we feel strongly about the integrity and importance of the game. We feel that this will allow the player who cares, to demonstrate it, to make a statement of sorts.”

And if they decide against a statement. “We’ll deal with that when it happens,” Schuerholz said.