CFL's new PED-related draft eligibility rules could cost some players a career

No one should be able to accuse the CFL of being soft on players who test positive for performance-enhancing drugs at the university level any more. The league's previous lack of punishment for violations from CIS or NCAA players before they entered the CFL prompted criticisms from drug-testing officials, a refusal to test CFL samples, and the league's parting of ways with the only Canadian drug-testing lab accredited by the World Anti-Doping Association last June, which led to no drug testing at all last season thanks to other labs' refusals to take their samples. Now, the CFL has reversed course rather drastically, announcing Thursday that it's changing its rules so that any not-in-the-league-yet player (in CIS, the NCAA, junior football, or anywhere else) who either tests positive for a substance banned under the CFL drug policy either has his draft eligibility pushed back a year or is prohibited from signing a free-agent contract (if he's not draft-eligible) with CFL teams for a year. That's certainly a strong punishment, and a major about-face from where the league had been. The question is if it's too strong.

For one thing, the CFL is now punishing positive drug tests by players not in the league much more harshly than the NFL and NCAA do. NCAA drug-testing policies vary by school, with some schools kicking a player off for an initial violation but many taking minimal action until multiple violations have been racked up, but the NFL's actual punishment for pre-draft violations appears to be only putting players in the Reasonable Cause Program, making them more subject to testing. That's essentially identical to the CFL's previous policy, which put players in Stage I of its program (which includes anonymity and counselling, but no suspension or fine). Neither league actually fines or suspends players with university-level violations, or violations caught at regional or national pre-draft combines (which has happened in both the CFL and the NFL). Yet, WADA hypocritically slammed the CFL for this while ignoring the NFL. It's understandable that the CFL wants to react to WADA's criticisms and get back on that organization's good side so its drug policy becomes enforceable again, but reacting to them to such a degree has made the CFL much harsher than the NFL, which is not necessarily a good look for the league.

How is keeping players out of the CFL for just a year so bad? Consider that these players have nowhere else to go in that time. CIS and the NCAA both typically suspend first-time PED violators for substantial periods of time, a year in the NCAA's case and two to four years in the case of Canadian university football. That means these guys are spending a year out of football, which usually means that their training is stagnating, and that may lead to them not being able to play professionally at all. A case in point is former Ohio State star RB Maurice Clarett, who spent almost two years out of football thanks to a NCAA eligibility scandal, tried to sue to get into the 2004 draft as a younger-than-normal player (unsuccessfully), saw his life go off the rails with drug and alcohol abuse, failed at the 2005 NFL combine, and saw his NFL career end when he was released by Denver after a month. He later served three-and-a-half years in prison for armed robbery.

Granted, the way Clarett's life turned out isn't all the fault of the NCAA and NFL for preventing him from playing football for a year, especially as the Broncos still drafted him in the third round. It's also not something that will happen to all players blocked by this policy. That time off arguably had a huge impact on Clarett's ability to play professional football, though, and it's likely to be the same for players kept out by this policy. Another thing to note is that this will prevent the CFL from grabbing NCAA-banned but not-yet-NFL-eligible players like Terrence Jeffers-Harris if those players' NCAA issues are about PED tests (Jeffers-Harris' NCAA issues don't appear to have been that way, but he is an example of a not-yet-NFL-eligible player who went to the CFL). While there aren't a ton of those players, there are some very talented ones, and the CFL can always use more talent and should always look to exploit gaps left by the NFL and NCAA. On the contrary, this seals one up.

There's no question that the CFL needed to toughen up its policies for university-level violations despite WADA's hypocrisy in ignoring the similar NFL-NCAA situation. There were previously no significant consequences for university-level PED violations, and that was problematic; players with positive tests were being drafted in the first round and facing no further punishment beyond increased random testing, incentivizing players to use PEDs until they got caught once, then go clean. However, this new policy feels like an overcorrection. There are all sorts of middle grounds the league could have found, from fines to suspensions. For example, a four-game suspension would slightly discourage teams from drafting a player caught with PEDs (as they could only contribute for 14 games instead of 18 in their rookie year), causing the player to lose money both from being drafted later and from four missed game cheques, but not keeping them out of football for a full year. The full-year suspension (which this essentially is) seems draconian, and the CFL Players' Association deserves criticism for agreeing to this. Of course, there's a simple realpolitik explanation of why they did; this may help them prevent major increases in drug testing for current players, who have a say in the running of the CFLPA right now, unlike future players who don't yet have any representation from that association.

It is notable that this change isn't as bad as it initially seemed. It will be limited either to positive tests for performance-enhancing drugs (all that's banned under the CFL policy) or rule violations around testing (such as attempts to avoid tests or provide fake samples). The wording of the league release made it appeared like this would punish positive tests for recreational drugs such as marijuana (which are not banned under the CFL drug-testing policy, and should not be) as well, as it said it would punish individuals "who incur[s] an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the Canadian Anti-Doping Program," and the CADP banned list is administered by the Canadian Centre For Ethics In Sports (CCES), which in turn takes its banned list from WADA, which prohibits both natural and synthetic cannabis.

However, league communications coordinator Lucas Barrett clarified to 55-Yard Line Thursday that the "rule violation" only refers to breaking a rule around a drug test, not to a positive test for recreational drugs. CCES can continue to test and ban players for recreational drug usage, as they have in the past, but the CFL will only step in if the positive test is for a substance banned by the CFL drug policy (which only applies to performance-enhancing drugs). That's very positive; the CFL should not even consider banning marijuana for any of its current or future players, given how many current players reportedly use the drug, the growing science that it may be more beneficial than conventional painkillers, and the growing movement towards decriminalization and possibly legalization. At least the league isn't trying to crack down on pot here, unlike the holier-than-thou people at WADA and CCES.

This still feels like far too strong of a reaction from the CFL, though. Going from essentially no punishment to a year-long ban for players who aren't even in the league yet is a huge escalation, and it feels like one that was brought on by demands from CCES and/or WADA. Those organizations should not be making the CFL's policies; the league should listen to what they have to say, and then determine their own policy after consideration of anti-doping rhetoric, other professional leagues' policies, and what's ultimately best for the CFL. At least this will theoretically help the CFL get back in CCES' good books and allow it to find an agreement to resume testing of veteran players. It's just a shame that some potentially-promising CFL careers could now be derailed for at least a year (and possibly permanently) over a single positive drug test, a measure far harsher than the vast majority of professional sports have adopted.