How this for transparency?

[Guiness]

The NFL has given their half-assed reasoning.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/05/19/nfl-explains-ban-on-players-recording-their-drug-tests/#comment-5060804

NFL explains ban on players recording their drug tests

Posted by Michael David Smith on May 19, 2016, 8:56 AM EDT
Pittsburgh Steelers v Cleveland Browns
Getty Images
The NFL says Steelers linebacker James Harrison — like all other players — is barred from recording a drug test because of an agreement between the league and the players’ union that recording tests could undermine the integrity of the testing process.

After Harrison wrote that he was told he wasn’t allowed to record the surprise performance-enhancing drug test he got on Tuesday, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told PFT via email that the ban on videotaping keeps cheaters from learning ways to manipulate the process.

“A player may not film a drug test,” McCarthy wrote. “Both the league and NFLPA recognize that the collection protocols and procedures are designed to ensure the accuracy and identification of the specimens to be tested. To maintain the integrity of the protocols and protect against the possibility of manipulation of the process at the time or during future tests, the policy prohibits devices and other objects in the collection area or taking photographs or video of specific collections. There are a number of protections in place for both the player and collector to ensure that the protocols are properly followed. In addition to the multi-step verification of identity and confirmations of specimen and bottle integrity, the protocols expressly allow both the player and collector to note and report for investigation any perceived irregularity or deviation in the collection process.”

That explanation makes sense in light of the recent news that Russia schemed to cheat at the 2014 Olympics by replacing urine collected in drug tests with clean urine. In order to pull off that cheating program, Russia had to know details such as the types of cups used in the collection process and the numbers on the cups. If the NFL allowed drug tests to be recorded, it would be easier for cheaters to get that information.

And so everyone who was eager to see James Harrison urinating on Instagram will have to go away disappointed: That’s not allowed under NFL rules.

TL;DR They're afraid putting the process out there would allow someone to study it and find holes.


Terribly counter-intuitive when you actually think about it. Their afraid the cheaters will see holes in the process and exploit them? Maybe they should be studying the videos themselves to find the holes first and plug them???

Because there are holes. And all ignoring them does is means those who have found them (I’ve no doubt there are a few) can exploit without concern. This reminds me of software companies who don’t want vulnerabilities in their products made public…we know how that ends.

[Patler]

The CBA only provided that a procedure would be agreed to for drug testing. The CBA itself did not define the procedure.
As such, it is likely that the procedure agreed to can be reopened at anytime for discussions.

I seriously doubt (but do not know) that the issue of videotaping was addressed in the procedure, or that insistance on videotaping would be treated as a failed test. At best, it would be the leagues interpretation of the procedure agreed to.

With the current belief that police bodycams protect everyone, the police, perpetrators and bystanders and the rapid acceptance of them, why wouldn't a player choosing to videotape the sample collection do the same, protect both the player and sample collector?

But, the even bigger question is the NFL punishment. The NFL has the sample and the results. A player's insistence on videotaping does not compromise the sample in any way. If anything, it enhances the authenticity of it. I can not think of any interest that the NFL has that is protected by denying videotaping, and videotaping could document in irregularities in the procedure, a players unwillingness, aggressiveness, etc.

I would like to see Harrison and others push the issue.

[Cheesehead Craig]

For those who enjoy this stuff, here's the current CBA, which does not mention anything specific on the testing, only refers to the Policy:

https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com...-2011-2020.pdf

Here's the policy on Policy and Program on Substances of Abuse:

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.n...of%20Abuse.pdf

Nowhere in it is there anything about videotaping the test.

However, there is this little caveat in Section 1.3.3:
Failure to Cooperate; Attempt to Manipulate: A Player who fails to cooperate fully in the Testing process as determined by the Medical Advisor or provides a dilute specimen will be treated as having a Positive Test Result.

That's a little catch-all where the Medical Advisor can make up the rules on the testing procedure as they seem fit as it's not really defined in the document. If he says no videotaping, no videotaping. He can always hide behind the "not fully cooperated" portion of the test as a threat.

[Guiness]

The CBA only provided that a procedure would be agreed to for drug testing. The CBA itself did not define the procedure.
As such, it is likely that the procedure agreed to can be reopened at anytime for discussions.

I seriously doubt (but do not know) that the issue of videotaping was addressed in the procedure, or that insistance on videotaping would be treated as a failed test. At best, it would be the leagues interpretation of the procedure agreed to.

With the current belief that police bodycams protect everyone, the police, perpetrators and bystanders and the rapid acceptance of them, why wouldn't a player choosing to videotape the sample collection do the same, protect both the player and sample collector?

But, the even bigger question is the NFL punishment. The NFL has the sample and the results. A player's insistence on videotaping does not compromise the sample in any way. If anything, it enhances the authenticity of it. I can not think of any interest that the NFL has that is protected by denying videotaping, and videotaping could document in irregularities in the procedure, a players unwillingness, aggressiveness, etc.

I would like to see Harrison and others push the issue.

So what is your opinion of the NFL's excuse that they don't want it recorded so cheaters can't find ways to beat the testing?

[Patler]

So what is your opinion of the NFL's excuse that they don't want it recorded so cheaters can't find ways to beat the testing?

It's a hollow excuse.

If the league is concerned about players knowing the type of cups, the procedures used, etc. they are too late. The players already know it from having been tested many times after just a few years in the league. Their team mates with longevity probably know specific collectors variations. There are no secrets about those.

The answer is easy, have details that change randomly, the style of cup, a color coded strip, a unique bar code on it. To substitute a sample, the player would have to have an inside collaborator, or be very lucky. They can do that now, videotaping doesn't change that.

The league denies videotaping to make challenges about the procedure more difficult. As the procedure was initiated, there probably was concern about consistency as the piss police went about their duties. The NFLPA leadership probably went along for the greater good, testing was what the league needed for publicity alone, if not for competitive fairness.

[mraynrand]

Just don't let Mark Fuhrman take your sample.

[pbmax]

I think the concern about details leaking (pun intended!) are a side concern.

The company that is testing and assuring the NFL about the procedure has thoroughly vetted (theoretically at least) a specific set of steps with documentation to attest to certify the agreed method has been followed. And certain promises made by the NFL in the CBA are dependent on those procedures (anonymity, certainty of accuracy) Its an entirely closed loop system. As soon as the player and collector sign the docs, the company can say the policy worked and was followed. Any deviation claimed later (Ryan Braun) has to get around that hermetically sealed procedure.

Video introduces an entire separate piece of evidence that, if it was to be allowed, would have to be reviewed by the company if it was going to attest to the NFL that the procedure was followed correctly. If video subsequently showed that corners were cut, the guarantee the testing company provided goes out the window and the NFL cannot rely on that claim within the CBA.

So to save time, money, legal attack points and embarrassment, no video allowed. I would be like the NFL agreeing to have an 8th ref in the sky box and then giving his testimony to the players or team to talk about after the game.

[Patler]

I think the concern about details leaking (pun intended!) are a side concern.

The company that is testing and assuring the NFL about the procedure has thoroughly vetted (theoretically at least) a specific set of steps with documentation to attest to certify the agreed method has been followed. And certain promises made by the NFL in the CBA are dependent on those procedures (anonymity, certainty of accuracy) Its an entirely closed loop system. As soon as the player and collector sign the docs, the company can say the policy worked and was followed. Any deviation claimed later (Ryan Braun) has to get around that hermetically sealed procedure.

Video introduces an entire separate piece of evidence that, if it was to be allowed, would have to be reviewed by the company if it was going to attest to the NFL that the procedure was followed correctly. If video subsequently showed that corners were cut, the guarantee the testing company provided goes out the window and the NFL cannot rely on that claim within the CBA.

So to save time, money, legal attack points and embarrassment, no video allowed. I would be like the NFL agreeing to have an 8th ref in the sky box and then giving his testimony to the players or team to talk about after the game.

Allowing the player to video tape it would in no way obligate the company to review it. In fact, they may not even have routine access to the player's recording. Even if the company videotaped it, I doubt they would have to review each one before certifying that procedures were followed. Routine conduct would not require it.

More than likely, they know the specimen collectors will not follow every rule and procedure in precise detail each and every time. They don't want players comparing details on video tape, and complaining about differences. Their goal in denying video taping by players is to take away a potential tool from the players. It has nothing to do with legitimacy or the concerns raised in their smokescreen excuse.

But again, the player penalty of a failed test can not be justified for the transgression.

[woodbuck27]

The NFL is a really bad parent.

[pbmax]

Allowing the player to video tape it would in no way obligate the company to review it. In fact, they may not even have routine access to the player's recording. Even if the company videotaped it, I doubt they would have to review each one before certifying that procedures were followed. Routine conduct would not require it.

More than likely, they know the specimen collectors will not follow every rule and procedure in precise detail each and every time. They don't want players comparing details on video tape, and complaining about differences. Their goal in denying video taping by players is to take away a potential tool from the players. It has nothing to do with legitimacy or the concerns raised in their smokescreen excuse.

But again, the player penalty of a failed test can not be justified for the transgression.

I think your second paragraphs refutes you opening argument. If they suspect the procedure isn't as lock down tight as the procedures and manual make it out to be, they fear the video tape. And they would have to account for it and any discrepancies it showed. Otherwise they get to have a fight in court.

So they outlaw the creation of a record they do not want.

[Patler]

I think your second paragraphs refutes you opening argument. If they suspect the procedure isn't as lock down tight as the procedures and manual make it out to be, they fear the video tape. And they would have to account for it and any discrepancies it showed. Otherwise they get to have a fight in court.

So they outlaw the creation of a record they do not want.

Doesn't refute it at all. For routine procedures, products and performances, etc. after intial certification of it continued certifications are done all the time by reviewing representative samples, 1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 10,000. If the player makes the video, the collecting company doesn't have it in their possession to review anyway. It's not theirs. They would have no obligation at all. If the company does the video, MAYBE they would have to review one now and then, but not all of them

They know with absolute certainty that not every procedure will be performed identically to every other one. They are done under differing circumstances by humans. They won't be identical in every way, and no reasonable person would expect them to be.

You last statement is exactly what I have been saying all along. They don't want a record. but not because the record negatively impacts the conduct of the procedure, but because it might expose differences that they know will exist, and then they will have to argue if the variation had impact on the test or not. Denying videotaping is simply to remove a tool the player might have with it, and for no other reason.

Sure doesn't justify the penalty to the player for videotaping.

[pbmax]

Doesn't refute it at all. For routine procedures, products and performances, etc. after intial certification of it continued certifications are done all the time by reviewing representative samples, 1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 10,000. If the player makes the video, the collecting company doesn't have it in their possession to review anyway. It's not theirs. They would have no obligation at all. If the company does the video, MAYBE they would have to review one now and then, but not all of them

They know with absolute certainty that not every procedure will be performed identically to every other one. They are done under differing circumstances by humans. They won't be identical in every way, and no reasonable person would expect them to be.

You last statement is exactly what I have been saying all along. They don't want a record. but not because the record negatively impacts the conduct of the procedure, but because it might expose differences that they know will exist, and then they will have to argue if the variation had impact on the test or not. Denying videotaping is simply to remove a tool the player might have with it, and for no other reason.

Sure doesn't justify the penalty to the player for videotaping.

I agree the tape runs counter to random sample testing (for procedures). That is why having access to a video tape is so dangerous. That representative sample will not stop irregularities that might show up in a video. If a company allowed it, it would present a hazard. One that should be prepared for, but is probably prohibitive in cost and time to review fully.

Depending on the error rate and the case law, reviewing the tape might be a business necessity.

I agree denying video taping is simply a way to pre-emptively shut down an avenue that might turn up if a player contested a sample's test results. The company who runs the testing wants to stand on tested procedure alone.

[Patler]

I agree the tape runs counter to random sample testing (for procedures). That is why having access to a video tape is so dangerous. That representative sample will not stop irregularities that might show up in a video. If a company allowed it, it would present a hazard. One that should be prepared for, but is probably prohibitive in cost and time to review fully.

I agree denying video taping is simply a way to pre-emptively shut down an avenue that might turn up if a player contested a sample's test results. The company who runs the testing wants to stand on tested procedure alone.

The tape in no way compromises the procedure, but could improve it; which is exactly why the league/company should not be able to prohibit it.

.....and the penalty to a player for using it most certainly should not be an automatic "fail" for a test on which they have actual results, results not compromised in any way by the videotaping.

[mraynrand]

The Harrison Helicopter:

[pbmax]

The tape in no way compromises the procedure, but could improve it; which is exactly why the league/company should not be able to prohibit it.

.....and the penalty to a player for using it most certainly should not be an automatic "fail" for a test on which they have actual results, results not compromised in any way by the videotaping.

It could improve it, I agree. But possibly before it will improve it, it will likely help exonerate a player who tested positive.

For that reason, they would rather ignore it. They are not interested in improvement, they are interested in 100% compliance. And they will get there whether the logic of their actions helps or hurts.

It will, of course, ultimately bite them in the behind. But everyone will get to say we followed procedures, but perhaps procedures need to be reviewed.