Roids

Roids. As in Steroids, not Hemorrhoids, although the news of late has me thinking that the two words aren't that far apart . . .

What should be the response of league officials when an athlete tests positive for a banned substance? And should that response be any different if a confession is made?

The whole situation reminds me of Pete Rose.

Now wait a minute; hear me out. I'm a "rules are rules' kind of a guy. If the league has rules against the use of certain substances, or gambling, then the punishment must be carried out. And yet the Pete Rose situation has always bothered me. OK, the guy gambled on baseball, which is dumb. And yes, I get that the MLB is very sensitive to that particularly surrounding the Black Sox Scandal of 1919, but being Banned for Life from playing (especially after one has retired) and be kept from the Hall of Fame are two different things.

In the same regard, while I admire Alex Rodriguez for coming clean about his past steroid use, and think that his honesty merits a little leniency, something needs to be done. It's A-Rod's own words that trouble me the most, citing his reason for doping that he caved in to "pressure to perform".

What message does that send? What are kids supposed to take away from that?

Does anyone think that future Hall-of-Fame hopefuls aren't going to figure out that his "banned substance use" coincides with his move to the Texas Rangers, his record breaking seasons, and his $10-million-a-year deal?

Steroids will wreck your life (am I the only one that remembers Lyle Alzado?) and yet their use in professional sports is out of hand.

So what should be done?

In the case of Alex Rodriguez, I advocate fines. Fine him, fine the Rangers, and maybe even the Yankees. There's no question that A-Rod's income, and the income of both teams, is tied to his "enhanced" performance. What to do with the fines? A PR campaign? Maybe, but the bottom line is that kids need to hear "use the juice, and it's gonna cost ya".

Should A-Rod and other users be allowed to continue to play? I say "yes", so long as they submit to regular testing and stay clean. Hall of Fame? Maybe, but I strongly advocate erasing any statistics from any player's record that are the result of banned substances. Not just in baseball, but every sport. If we remove the batting averages and home runs from those Texas Rangers years will Alex still qualify for the Hall?

Not likely. But that's an appropriate response for irresponsible behavior. If Pete Rose can be kept out of the Hall for things he did outside of Baseball, Alex Rodriguez should have his induction influenced by the things he's done while playing.

And Hank Aaron should be re-crowned the rightful Home Run King.

Outside of Professional Sports, how much control should a company have over the off-time habits of it's employees?

None.

Unless those off-time exploits effect the workplace, as they are almost certainly bound to do.

Mangers and Owners need to first have rock-solid policies in place. Even in a small company you need a manual that clearly lays out a zero-tolerance while on-the-clock rule. While clocked in, you're liable for a lot of what they do, you've got to protect your business.

Habitual users of any drug are guaranteed to have their work performance and production effected. Suspecting someone of being under the influence and proving it are two wildly different things. They best tool you have may be regular performance reviews (which I recommend NOT tying to salary or wage increases), and by regular I mean "formal" and "at least quarterly". By focusing on an employee's performance, not your suspicions of drug use, you'll stay above any legal entanglements.