New policy could ease penalties on Adderall

Tom Pelissero | USA TODAY

Stimulants such as Adderall and diuretics could be considered substances of abuse, rather than performance-enhancing, in some cases under the terms of the proposal on a new drug policy between the NFL and its players union.

In a phone interview with USA TODAY Sports on Monday, Adolpho Birch, the NFL's senior vice president of labor policy and government affairs, laid out more than a dozen issues on which he said the league has given ground in hopes of having human-growth hormone testing this season.

The deal, however, remains hung up on the commissioner's role in the appeals process.

The NFL concessions include a change to the way the league would treat stimulants and diuretics – and potentially eliminating discipline in some cases, since first violations of the recreational drug policy are met with counseling and treatment, not suspensions.

"What we would do is reflect the understanding that those types of substances have both a performance-enhancing kind of component, but also a recreational (use) component," Birch said.

"It would provide for a different treatment depending on what we were able to understand about the use. A positive test in the offseason might be treated differently than a positive test during the season, because one suggests no competitive issue and one does."

Since the start of 2012, at least 14 NFL players have blamed suspensions on Adderall or Ritalin, drugs commonly used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The league does not release the substance for which a player tests positive, leaving it unclear how widespread the problem is.

The league is trying to ramp up pressure on the NFL Players' Association, which has won the battle for appeals of positive drug tests to go to third-party arbitrators, but also wants to take appeals of discipline not triggered by positive tests out of Commissioner Roger Goodell's hands -- such as a drug-related arrest.

The NFL has been steadfast in saying it does not want the commissioner to relinquish that power. On Monday, Birch said he could remember "probably one" case in which the appeals issue even came into play in Goodell's seven seasons as commissioner.

However, the NFLPA's 32 team representatives have twice voted unanimously to reject any proposal that keeps that power in Goodell's hands, and union leaders can't make a unilateral decision on any issue without the board's approval.

The league already gave in to the union's demand for third-party arbitrators on positive tests for the first time and for an HGH population study to determine the "proper limit" for NFL players – a study that remains on hold until an agreement on the appeals issue can be reached.

Birch wouldn't put a hard deadline on when the study would need to begin to have HGH testing in Week 1, but did stress "every hour matters" with the opener scheduled for Sept. 5.

"It would require testing of thousands of players, collection of thousands of specimens, in 32 separate locations, working around practices, workouts, games and the final cutdown," Birch said. "If that does not provide you with a sense of urgency, I don't know that putting a day or time stamp on it would make a difference."

Other concessions Birch said the league has made include:

* A more efficient appeals process, with provisions to ensure hearing officers are available on particular dates and a procedure specifically to address postponements and continuances in ways that make the policy more certain for all involved;

* Clarifications on burden of proof and the standard for reviewing cases;

* An improved discovery process that allows the exchange of documents in advance of hearings and clarifies what documents are relevant;

* Provisions for players to recoup lost salary in the event of an improper suspension and the ability to reverse discipline based on any new science that indicates a test wasn't reliable;

* Published collection procedures to make it easier for players to comply;

* The ability for a player to receive reduced discipline if he provides assistance in an investigation;

* Mandatory destruction of specimens after the conclusion of the testing process and any appeal;

* The right for a "B" sample test to be observed by a toxicologist; and

* The right to select and terminate administrators of the policy.

"When you look at the history of these discussions," Birch said, "you will see that the league has repeatedly made efforts to go toward the players' position, whether that be in withdrawing our demands for game-day testing for HGH, whether it be in third-party arbitrators generally, whether it's the population study, whether it's in how we agreed to the appeals procedures.

"We heard that if we had baseball's appeals procedures, then we'd have testing right now. Well, we offered them baseball's appeals procedures verbatim, and then they said they didn't want them. Then we said, 'OK, which of them do you want?' And they showed us, and those are some of the things that I mentioned earlier.

"We gave them exactly what they asked for."

Follow Tom Pelissero on Twitter @TomPelissero.