NFL’s Rush to Develop a New Drug Plan Hits Old Owner-Labor Snag

When Commissioner Pete Rozelle of the National Football League held his annual media conference two days before Super Bowl XX in New Orleans, the subject of drug abuse was almost an afterthought.

Rozelle discussed several other subjects before saying that a stronger drug-testing program would have to be a part of the next collective bargaining agreement, due in the fall of 1987.

But only a few days later, from the Pro Bowl site in Hawaii, he was pitching for a quick arrangement with the NFL Players Assn. to clean up the game right now.

What got his attention was the revelation by Coach Raymond Berry the day after New England had been drubbed by the Chicago Bears in the Super Bowl that as many as 12 of the Patriots had “serious” drug problems. It was remarkable how a sense of urgency to solve an old problem was suddenly created by the contamination of the league’s showcase event.

Everybody in football agrees that drug abuse is a problem. They just don’t agree on how to deal with it, and any suggestion seems to get bogged down in labor-management relations. Both sides appear to be more concerned with style than substance--pardon the pun.

Joe Browne, the NFL’s director of communications, said: “Commissioner Rozelle feels that a drug program that includes additional testing should not be used as a bargaining chip by the union.”

Gene Upshaw, executive director of the players’ union, said: “We would never, ever remove the drug issue from collective bargaining. All I want is for them to follow the procedure we have in place (in the collective bargaining agreement of 1982), which gives them testing, which gives them ‘reasonable cause’ to get a player tested and treated.”

But the current agreement will not expire until August 31, 1987, and Rozelle does not want to wait that long and risk another embarrassment after another Super Bowl plus unknown horrors along the way. Every fumble, every dropped pass, every upset is suspect. The game’s integrity is on the line.

“Commissioner Rozelle is optimistic that something can be worked out and implemented prior to the start of the ’86 season,” Browne said.

Upshaw conceded, guardedly: “That’s possible.”

A year ago, Upshaw found the issue negotiable outside the agreement when the league first pressed him on the matter of postseason testing.

“We countered with, ‘Look, give us the 49-man roster and we’ll agree to postseason physicals,’ and they said no,” Upshaw said.

Instead, the owners kept the maximum active roster at 45, reducing payrolls and the work force. Apparently, they were more concerned with saving money than with fighting the drug problem--which, of course, also costs them money in drug treatment centers.

Upshaw said: “If they want testing that bad, we’re trying to find ways to do it. But the players feel that if we’re going to give (management) this type of right, we need some protection.

“My concern about testing has to do with the purpose of the tests, the validity of the tests and what they’re going to do with the results, and who has control of the results . . . the confidentiality. Are they going to use these tests to get rid of a player?”

Rozelle believes that the current agreement is inadequate in addressing drug abuse. The language concerning postseason drug testing, in particular, is so ambiguous that both sides have filed grievances, using as a test case the St. Louis Cardinals’ action in fining players $1,000 each if they failed to comply.

Article XXXI, Section 5 of the agreement reads: “Standard Minimum Preseason Physical: Beginning in 1983, each player will undergo a standardized minimum preseason physical examination, outlined in Appendix D, which will be conducted by the Club physician. If either the Club or the player requests a postseason physical examination, the Club will provide such an examination and player will cooperate in such examination.”

Appendix D details a “standard minimum preseason physical examination,” including a urinalysis. The union says that doesn’t apply to postseason physicals.

Jack Donlan, executive director of the NFL’s Management Council--Upshaw’s adversary across the bargaining table--disagrees.

“I’m absolutely persuaded that we have a right to have both pre- and postseason testing,” Donlan said. “There’s nothing in there about orthopedic exams in postseason, either, but they don’t contend (that).

“From a practical standpoint, at the end of a season, if you’ve got an orthopedic problem, we can give you an operation or whatever training is necessary for you to recondition yourself. I see this as no different.

“Say a guy has a dependency problem. You’ve got six whole months to rehabilitate him--one, when he’s not under the eye of the media; two, when he doesn’t lose any paychecks, and three, when the club doesn’t lose his services. That’s the optimum time. It makes the most sense.”

But both sides also realize that even preseason and postseason testing wouldn’t be enough. Traces of cocaine leave the body within a few days.

Donlan said: “If you have a preseason test and a postseason test, you’ve got to be pretty stupid not to get by those, if you know they’re coming up. How hard is it to lay off for a week and have a clean physical? But how does that help you?”

Donlan suggested that, because of the expansion of drug testing in the college ranks, the union is trying to delay the inevitable.

“About five years from now, every player who comes out (of college into the NFL) would expect to be tested,” Donlan said. “It’s coming. The question is, are you going to be leading it or get steamrollered by it?”

Donlan and Upshaw already are shadowboxing, practicing their moves before starting talks on a new agreement for ’87. In that context, to an outsider, the solution to the drug problem seems simple.

Q: What do the owners want?

A: Random drug testing.

Q: What have the players always wanted but never acquired in the NFL?

A: A practical system of free agency.

So, why not deal one for the other, across the table, man to man?

Donlan doesn’t see either side as willing to yield on that one.

“I don’t think (Upshaw) is going to trade anything for free agency, (and) my gut feeling is there are 28 owners who will come together pretty quickly on that issue. You’re not going to get much sympathy from the owners.”

Upshaw said: “(The owners) will never do that,” and he pointed out that the owners quickly withdrew their request for postseason testing when he countered with the suggestion for a 49-man roster a year ago.

Browne, speaking for Rozelle, holds out hope for additional discussions and meetings. “Our staff is working on ways to address the issue and studying ways other businesses address the issue,” he said. “This will be part of the information that Commissioner Rozelle presents to Donlan and Upshaw.”