Manfred: MLB wouldn't hide positive drug tests

Congress will take its shot at the three biggest suits representing Major League Baseball next week when commissioner Bud Selig, Player's Association chief Donald Fehr and former Sen. George Mitchell testify Tuesday.

But another key figure behind the scenes is Rob Manfred, the MLB executive vice president who has helped oversee the development of the drug-testing program. Manfred agreed to address some of the questions that congressmen Henry Waxman, Tom Davis and others on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee might pose.

The Q&A-style exchange begins below, but first some background:

Congress likely will expect greater detail about how the Mitchell Report recommendations would strengthen the drug-testing program and close loopholes. Baseball would prefer the focus to be on increasing drug testing during the offseason because that is a problem easily corrected. The current agreement between the owners and players allows only for 60 tests to be conducted on players on 40-man rosters (1,200 players in all) between the last out of the World Series and the start of spring training in mid-February.

But Congress is interested in shoring up more than the woeful offseason testing. Removing the entire testing program from the purview of MLB and enlisting an independent body to administer it is at the top of the agenda, according to congressional sources. Questions about selective enforcement might also come up because Selig makes all the decisions when it comes to meting out discipline.

Members of the anti-doping community helped Yahoo! Sports identify trouble spots in the current agreement. And so did someone whose association with performance-enhancing drugs is less noble.

"A player could drive a Mack truck through the loopholes in the current MLB anti-doping program,'' said Victor Conte, who exploited his share of loopholes in the drug-testing programs of several sports as the co-founder of BALCO and as a supplier of steroids.

Manfred's vantage point, of course, is far removed from Conte's. Yet he also acknowledges problems with the current program and realizes that changes are in store.

Our questions and observations appear in bold. Manfred's answers follow.

1. Based on the following language in baseball's Joint Drug and Prevention Treatment Program, it appears Selig could arbitrarily – and secretly – overturn the suspension of a player who has tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug: "The Independent Program Administrator shall have no authority to discipline Players for violations of this Program. All such authority shall repose in the Office of the Commissioner.''

Said Manfred: "The agreement requires that in the event of a positive test, a particular penalty is going to be imposed. If the commissioner were to not impose that penalty, it literally would be a breach of the agreement.''

Manfred added that language in the agreement that states the commissioner has sole power to impose discipline is meant to establish that neither the program's independent administrator nor anyone else has such authority and is not meant to grant the commissioner power to overturn a suspension or cover up a positive drug test.

2. It is unclear whether safeguards exist that would prevent officials from ignoring positive drug tests. Has that occurred?

"Given the level of press and congressional oversight of our program, failing to disclose positive tests is not a possibility," Manfred said.

3. Greater transparency might be impossible unless the confidentiality clause in the current agreement is changed. For example, how many positive tests have been reported from the lab but have not resulted in suspensions? And how many times has the program granted therapeutic use exemptions, which allows players to use banned substances to treat a medical condition?

Citing a confidentiality clause in the current agreement with the player's union, Manfred said that he could not disclose information about therapeutic use exemptions or the number of positive test results that have failed to result in disciplinary action.

A positive drug test would not result in disciplinary action if the player had obtained a therapeutic use exemption for a banned substance prior to the test. An example would be a player who has been prescribed Ritalin for attention-deficit disorder. An MLB spokesman said a therapeutic use exemption has never been give for HGH, but baseball refuses to release a complete list of substances for which a player can gain an exemption.

4. Dozens of players named in the Mitchell Report were implicated based solely on documents or testimony that indicated they ordered, received or used performance-enhancing drugs. That's commonly referred to as a "non-analytical" positive in the anti-doping community but is not mentioned explicitly anywhere in the program rules spelling out discipline. This suggests the union could challenge suspensions based on "non-analytical'' positives rather than positive drug tests.

It's a non-issue, according to Manfred. Various changes made to the program include the addition of non-analytical positives and that soon will be added to updated language in the agreement.

"We always believed we had the right to discipline for non-analytical positives," he said. "Frankly I don't believe the union disagrees with that. We've actually agreed on specific language. It just hasn't been published.''

5. A player has great flexibility in challenging a steroid-related suspension, including the ability to be retested by the lab of his choice and providing supplements he contends were contaminated and caused the positive test.

Manfred said MLB has prevailed in every grievance filed involving a positive test for performance-enhancing drugs. That's seven grievances and seven losses for the aggrieved players.

6. Metabolites, routinely used as the basis for a positive drug test by the Olympic drug testing program, are not specifically mentioned in baseball's program. If positive tests were based exclusively on the presence of the parent drug rather than metabolized particles, that policy would render negative drug tests that the Olympic program considers positive.

"There is no specific reference in the agreement to metabolites," Manfred said. "That is a scientific issue handled by the expert. Essentially, the metabolites are traceable as a scientific matter to parent substances."

7. Insulin and IGF1 – an insulin-like protein that promotes muscle growth – are not on the list of banned substances even though anti-doping experts say they are routinely taken with human growth hormone (HGH). Major League Baseball has identified HGH as a drug that's gained popularity because it's undetectable with current testing methods. Why allow players to use insulin and IGF1 without penalty?

Manfred called the two substances "not core performance-enhancers'' but added, "We would be interested in adding them. We've been unable to negotiate an agreement (with the player's union)."

8. Why is EPO not on the banned list considering it is widely abused in cycling and is on the banned list of substances for Olympic athletes?

Manfred said EPO is treated differently than other drugs because testing for it is difficult and expensive, and also because the substance wouldn't seem to enhance performance in baseball since its primary benefit is to improve endurance.

"Honestly, EPO was a very difficult substance," he said. " … Nobody believes it really has a lot to do with what goes on in baseball. (Also), EPO testing is expensive and it is different than the testing for steroids. It's not, 'Is it present or is it not present?' It's distinguishing natural from unnatural. (It is) a very difficult form of testing, that's really why it's been treated differently.''