Steve Elling raises an essential question to the drug testing policy: will there be full or even partial disclosure?
Given how the testing issue relates to the PGA Tour, the most economically influential circuit in the history of the game, not to mention the most public-relations paranoid, here's something else to keep in mind.And...
Will they really be minding their pees and queues?
Make no mistake, the implementation of drug testing is mostly about maintaining appearances, not that there's anything wrong with that, per se. Thankfully, there has been zero evidence that any notable player has taken performance-enhancing substances over the years. Still, the tours decided to be "proactive," as they put it.
For years, Finchem has been prodded about revising the PGA Tour's absurd policy relating to the disclosure of fines, suspensions and player discipline. For example, Woods has been known to brag -- that probably isn't the right term, exactly -- that he has been fined more often than any other player in history for using four-letter words during TV broadcasts.
As the world tours study over the coming weeks how best to sanction players for potential performance-enhancing violations -- the sanctions darned well better be meaningful, starting with a first offense -- the folks in Paranoia Vedra might want to weigh this related issue as well.
If Finchem's emissaries are pointedly asked whether a player has been suspended because of a blood-doping violation, how will they answer? Forget player privacy issues. Finchem can't afford to be so fiercely protective of the integrity of the tour and its individual contestants.
Competitors, if not fans and sponsors, have the right to know who's playing by the rules. Without working myself into a 'roid rage here, the bottom line on this drug-testing beaker is as clear as the glass container itself.
In an individual sport like golf, protecting a cheater is the same as the act of cheating itself.
Use the juice, get cut loose. Then make sure everybody knows about it.