Steroids Could Be Key Issue

While revenue sharing and the payroll tax have been considered the deal breakers in baseball’s bargaining negotiations, steroid testing might also fit that category, a sudden and surprising development with only six days to go until the union’s Friday strike date.

Rob Manfred, management’s lead labor lawyer, seemed to make that suggestion in his daily conference call with reporters after the sides devoted Friday to non-economic issues, including testing.

Manfred said that the union had made a new testing proposal that moved “modestly in our direction” on the elements of discipline and “how to deal with nutritional supplements and recreational drugs.” But he said it was still not a proposal on which he could reach an agreement, and in response to questions, he implied that the union would have to enhance its plan before getting a new labor agreement.

In other words, he was asked, would steroid testing stand in the way of an agreement even if the sides reached accord on revenue sharing and payroll tax?

“Not if they change their position,” he said, referring to the union’s testing position.

And if they don’t?

“I’m not going to comment on that issue in isolation,” he said. “It’s like a number of issues that have not yet closed. I simply do not have a proposal I can close on.”

A union lawyer said he did not want to get into a public debate with Manfred but added, “It’s too bad Rob feels the way he does because [the proposal] is not going to get any better than it is.”

Much of this could simply be rhetoric at a time when both sides can hear the clock ticking and the two core issues, revenue sharing and luxury tax, remain unresolved. Neither was discussed Friday, but Manfred said he expects the union to make new proposals on both today.

Less than 24 hours after negotiators agreed that they have plenty of time to resolve their remaining differences before Friday’s strike date, Manfred changed the tenor on that as well.

“We’re at a time when we need to get at the core issues and see if we can get them resolved,” he said. “The pace on those has to improve.”

Now, however, the testing issue seems to have become an impediment after it seemed to be just the opposite Aug. 7, when, to Manfred’s applause, the union amended years of resistance to random testing by proposing two years of unannounced survey testing to determine the level of use in baseball. If more than 5% tested positive in either year, the union would then agree to random testing in 2005 and 2006. If fewer than 5% tested positive, testing would be discontinued and done only for cause.

In its new proposal, the union addressed management’s desire to have a lower threshold by basically reducing the 5% survey number to 2.5%, with some exceptions. In addition, according to a person close to the process, the union made a series of adjustments allowing for a yearly continuation of testing, depending on survey results.

Manfred wasn’t specific in regard to his problems with the new proposal but said he would soon respond to it with one of his own and added, “The key thing from our perspective is that we want a program that applies throughout the agreement. No matter what the consequences are, we want some sort of testing for steroids and drugs throughout the agreement.”

The union lawyer, however, called that a “faulty foundation” on which to proceed.

“Their position is all about public relations,” he said. “They’re insisting on some form of testing, even if the survey testing demonstrates that all the fuss about this is unjustified and that it isn’t as widespread as people thought it was.”

As testing emerged as more of a major issue in the bargaining process than people thought it was, negotiators also spent considerable time Friday on important but more mundane issues such as scheduling, player discipline, medical care, licensing programs and the amateur draft. As Manfred put it: “We have multiple packages of issues that are in play. It’s fair to say that every open issue is involved in some package. The list of open things is narrowing as we reach agreement in some areas.”

He also said that he does not know one owner, let alone a segment of owners, who would prefer a work stoppage over a settlement and, in terms of ratification, “I am not concerned about getting anything that’s in the neighborhood of the proposals now on the table” ratified.