The problem with the PGA Tour's transparency problem

PA-PLAYA

Interesting article from the NY Times. A snippet below...

***Johnson’s history illustrates the inherent flaw in the tour’s policy. If the punishment is a dish served up for public consumption, the general appetite is sated when the fine is announced or the suspension is served. But when nothing is made public, rumors rush to fill the vacuum, trapping players in a kind of character purgatory, their names never publicly sullied but not exactly pristine.

“In Dustin’s case, he’s created some skepticism,” said Robert Garrigus, who abused alcohol and recreational drugs when he was younger, before the tour instituted testing, and is transparent about his past in the hope of helping others. “So,” he added, “any time he does something, it’s ‘Hey, is this real or not?’”***

(Personal conduct matters off the course are one thing... but what happens on the course is an entirely different situation imo.)

***Just last month, the five-time major winner Phil Mickelson suggested that players on the regular tour are getting away with mismarking their balls on the greens for their own gain. If the tour identifies the offenders, shouldn’t the other players know who they are?

Lee Westwood thinks so.

“They’ve clearly done something wrong, you know, and maybe gained an edge on their fellow competitors,” he said, “so it’s only right their fellow competitors should find out what it is they’ve done.”

With golf well represented in social media and fantasy leagues, it’s increasingly likely that a protracted absence by any player would attract attention. Long gone are the days when any player could disappear for a time — a few weeks or even months — without setting off a hailstorm of hashtags on Twitter.

“This is an area where you’re likely to see us making adjustments as we go forward,” Monahan said in the interview. “It’s not because we think it’s a big problem. It’s because the world’s changed.”***

It's worth nothing that not everything that has changed over the years is necessarily a bad thing. I'm reminded of the CCTV footage release of of Ray Rice assaulting his (then) fiancee in an elevator back in 2014, which created an absolute social media shitstorm for Goodell to have to deal with. Had this occurred 20 years ago, it would've likely gone unmentioned.

Given how much money the tournament sponsors are forking over, let alone the individual players' sponsors who expect their clients to represent their companies in a professional manner - there should be some means of checks and balances to protect both those interests.

Without some means of transparency, this becomes virtually impossible. I mean, if the NFL, with warts and all, feel compelled to publicly disclose player misconduct (on or off the playing field) then what makes pro golf feel entitled to be the exception?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/sports/golf/pga-tour-punishments-player-secrecy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

accufitgolf

The PGA Tour is "owned/operated" by its PGA Tour Players so they can change the rules as they see fit. The PGA Tour in not beholden to the USGA, nor the R&A, nor for that matter to the PGA.

The USGA has no drug policy. Feel free to play stoned, drunk, etc.

Always take a Xanax or two before a big match.......LOL

ode

I personally feel golf gets it right as it relates to this issue.....absent a crime, ie an actual charge, not an allegation, imo it is no one else's business. Drug addiction and mental health issues have a lot of stigma attached....and people can be really cruel towards people struggling with one or both....and let's face it, lots of folks who simply don't understand either issue and what actually works for people to get better. Pro sports teams and organizations shouldn't be trusted to care for there athletes that suffer in these ways as they also have to deal with the bottom line, $/revenue/image, etc. (Take for instance the Ray Rice incident and The NFL didn't come down hard on Rice until video footage of the incident surfaced=image). Kudos to the PGA for having the balls to protect the players and in DJ,s case, going to rehab and getting treatment to get better in lieu of a suspension....that's the way it ought to be, while at the same time having confidentiality....IMo this is a critical aspect of people getting help, so they don't have to be publicly shamed. It can work the other way too, but this depends on the athlete and the organization....still remember Brett Favre going away for treatment for addiction for pain meds do to the pounding/s he took...they held a brief press conference and announced what was happening, Brett made a tearful statement and that was it. I thought the Packers and Favre handled it with class and it was more about him getting help then anything!

Rules violations are a different thing....ie mismarking your ball on purpose.....if guys like Phil don't want to blow the whistle, that's on them, no room to complain after the fact if you don't report it. IMO there is no comparing cheating to MH/addiction.

PA-PLAYA

ode

Very good post with some excellent points.

For me, this all goes back to Doug Barron back in 2009, the first and only PGA Tour player who has been suspended by the tour for violating their PED policy, via (then) the WADA guidelines. It had been medically established that Barron had a heart condition, and was taking beta blockers to relieve anxiety, which has been clinically proven to be an associated condition that exacerbates a heart disease condition. As a result, his testosterone levels (according to independent medical experts not affiliated with the tour) were likewise lower than normal, which naturally can and often does impact sexual drive.

So you've got a guy who has a verifiable heart condition. Check.
You've got a guy who has been prescribed medication (beta blockers) for said heart condition. Check.
You've got a guy, 40-years old at the time, who (for the lack of a better word) wants to maintain an intimate relationship with his wife. Check.
You've got a guy whose personal physicians prescribed him supplemental testosterone, to help with his intimacy issues with his wife. Check.

Two drugs. Two drugs that were prescribed by medical experts, not in an effort to elevate his performance on the golf course, but to address medical conditions and improve his overall quality of life off the golf course.

Here are a couple of quotes that were made by two of his peers who knew him fairly well.

"I don't believe it," Rod Pampling said. "Doug Barron? Look at the man. Tell him to take his shirt off and ask anyone, 'Do you believe he's on performance-enhancing drugs?"

"My big question is whether he was doing something to make himself feel better and did not get the therapeutic use exemption," (Jerry) Kelly said. "I mean, this guy had health problems. I was shocked when I heard, but I also understand knowing that he was trying to feel better."

Doug Barron. A guy who had the physique more befitting of a professional bowler as opposed to an Olympian. A guy who was simply trying to prevent a health condition from deteriorating, and improving the quality of his personal intimate life with his wife, because of the associated health conditions. Medical experts testified and begged for understanding on his behalf in the appeal. The tour still didn't care, because they needed to make an example out of someone to prove that they were serious about PED violations, especially since an upcoming vote to include golf in future Olympic events was nearing.

In the end, the tour's suspension was upheld, and Doug Barron's situation was disclosed publicly for everyone to see/hear/read about. And given the nature of what was required of him during the appeals process, his privacy regarding his medical conditions (not to mention his shortcomings in his private life) was likewise made public.

So if you're asking if a guy who comes up hot because of recreational drug use, which is forbidden by the PGA Tour's drug policy (whether it's marijuana, cocaine or whatever), deserves more privacy than was granted Doug Barron back in 2009?

It's hard for me to rationalize that.

That essentially ended Doug Barron's career. And although I sincerely hope that Dustin Johnson continues to take full advantage of a rather lenient, under-the-rug behind-closed-doors come-to-jesus moment with Finchem a few years ago, I still can't help but note the disparity with how those two situations were dealt.

But on a related note... Vijay Singh's lawsuit against the PGA Tour has been reviewed and allowed to move forward, the issue with the Deer Antler Spray (as most will recall). Vijay is moving forward with the lawsuit because he claims it has damaged his reputation. This is not good news for the PGA Tour brass, namely former commissioner Tim Finchem.

If Vijay doesn't settle, which is precisely what the PGA Tour is aiming for - an out of court settlement so they don't have to open the books and all of their drug-testing procedures and results over the past several years - we might find a little more than just a few skeletons in their closet.

I'm not a fan of Vijay Singh, but I hope he declines the settlement. What might be revealed could blow the lid off of what has otherwise been perceived as a clean, gentleman's sport that claims it has absolutely no bias toward its' star players.

ode

PA-PLAYA I did not know about Barron.... interesting story....I suppose the pga needed to take a hard line to prevent those who would take advantage of the situation if they allowed it....on the face if it, certainly seems wrong....too bad he couldn't figure out a different way to deal with his health and other issues.

Par4QC

While I do agree it was bullshit, (iirc) it was Doug who brought this to the attention of the PGA; they did not discover it thru testing, initially. He told them what he was taking & why, they told him it was illegal, he told them he didn't care and would continue to take it and play. Next tourney, they tested him and got the positive. HE was the one that made it all public, not the PGA. They won't/didn't disclose anything about suspensions/bans of players, as we've witnessed with DJ. And no one is even sure about him as it's never been disclosed by him or the PGA.

The suspension should have been upheld. He was using a banned substance and knew it, they knew it. Kind of like daring your employer to fire you. They made an example of him. Whether they liked doing it or not, they had to.
Rock and a hard place, as far as trying to make a living and still live well. The rules are set.

PA-PLAYA

Par4QC

Thank you for bothering with the details that I left out. Yeah, Barron approached the tour about his medical situation ahead of time, providing the reasoning behind his eventual drug testing violation. I feel safe in assuming, in retrospect, that he felt the tour would grant him the "therapeutic use" exemption, which given the medical evidence supporting his health history should've more than sufficed. So yes, while technically it was Barron himself who disclosed this private information to the tour - ultimately the tour's decision to instead give him an ultimatum between maintaining his health condition/quality of life versus maintaining his tour privileges via the tour's drug-testing standards - in the end, the tour (because of their desire for the Olympic committee to include the sport in future Olympic games and wanting to make an example out of how serious they were regarding the PEDs issue) ultimately created the need for Barron to appeal, thereby bringing legal action... and obviously everything becomes public information at that point forward.

Back in April of this year, DJ missed nearly a month because of an "alleged" back injury on the heels of the first major of the season. On the face of things - I really do want to give him the benefit of the doubt... just started a family, seems to be enjoying a more stable private life, etc... But given his history, and given the secretive nature in which the tour has dealt with his substance-abuse issues in the past - it just reinforces the point that Robert Garrigus made in the article... that as long as the policy of nondisclosure continues to be the Tour's MO in dealing with players with a known history of off-the-course issues - fans and media alike are certainly at liberty to connect the dots and draw their own conclusions. Remember that it was a "jet ski" accident that prompted the prolonged layoff a few years back, when in fact it became fairly well known that he was instructed to take some time off to deal with his personal problems. But since he was one of the tour's darlings - the details weren't formally disclosed.

I don't know what exactly will come of the Singh lawsuit... but if the tour offers him an enormous out-of-court settlement, then (I think) it becomes even more apparent that they have something to hide. And if Vijay doesn't settle, then it will be very interesting to see just how much the tour's policy of non-disclosure comes back to bite them in the ass.

And, in particular, how they proceeded with their drug-testing procedures involving their most popular players. This could end up involving some very interesting details involving Tiger Woods, too.

So wait for the out-of-court settlement offer!

darpar

Look at John Daly,the dude's an open book,seems like the PGA didn't hide much of what he's gone
through in the past.
Just my opinion,but I think the PGA plays favorites BIG TIME,and they go out of their way to protect
certain marquee players,while others (mainly the regular/habitual Friday afternoon trunk slammers)
don't always get the same treatment.
Pro golf is no different than any other pro sport,if your a player who can get more butts in the seats or through
the gates,you're a more valuable commodity and worth more to the promoting franchise or sponsor etc.
It's just not the level playing field that the PGA wants you to believe it is!

Par4QC

PA-PLAYA "therapeutic use"

I think if the T had not been in use, he would have been allowed to play. No way could they give him the OK to use that though. Everyone would have to be able to use it then, without punishment. I think the "hardness" factor was very much secondary in his use of it. He was in a weakened state of health and needed it for rebuilding muscle/strength, and therein lies the reason it is banned. For anyone. Like I said, he was really caught between a rock and a hard place, having to choose a (somewhat)normal life or his normal livelihood.

In this case, he had been warned, but got a shot of T anyway, in order to improve his performance, in general, which also would carry over to his playing abilities. Others(or at least 1) were given the OK for use of a cream with T as an ingredient.

"Barron tested positive for both substances on June 11, when he was in the process of complying with the Tour's October 2008 order to wean himself off Propranolol, his suit contends. He was still taking the beta blocker, but at a much lower dosage than he had previously. He also claims he was getting off testosterone, as the Tour told him to do in January after denying his final TUE application. He had stopped taking monthly injections in October 2008 but had a one-time shot last June. That was his second mistake.

"I knew I was going to fail it," he said of the drug test. "But I hadn't had a testosterone shot in seven months and was feeling like I felt when I couldn't get out of bed."

Young said on Friday: "He was told very clearly, 'You are not to use testosterone.' To get ready for the St. Jude Classic, he got a shot." "

PA-PLAYA

Par4QC

"Everyone would have to be able to use it then, without punishment."

I think that's a rather broad statement. And for the sake of argument (not that it really matters) I don't entirely agree, providing that there's 100% factual evidence suggesting that a testosterone supplement is needed for people with serious underlying health conditions.

So, I guess, the questions that need to be asked is 1) did the tour have a "therapeutic use" exemption back in 2009, and if so, 2) why was Barron not considered? If the answer to the first question is "yes" - then the answer to the second question (imo) related to the upcoming vote to include golf in the Olympic games. They needed someone to make an example out of, and a pudgy, 40-something non-athlete with a fairly serious underlying medical condition, who wasn't a big name and someone that nobody would miss if he was suspended, landed smack dab in their lap at the perfect time.

Of course, I also understand how the medical standard could be manipulated to such a manner in which some could, in theory, use their personal physicians to gain access to testosterone supplements for performance enhancement, under the guise of a fabricated, non-existent health condition. But in that situation, imo, the physicians have an obligation to uphold the law and honor a certain professional medical standard. I think the credentials and history of said physicians could easily be meted out and scrutinized fully before a committee of legitimate, independent medical professionals. See Dr. Anthony Galea as case-study number 1, who has since been banned from practicing medicine in the US.

And too, I also understand that the tour reserves the right to uphold certain standards with regard to its players, as was also indicated with the Casey Martin issue. It is worth nothing obviously that there is a slight difference with the ADA and predetermined health conditions and how those things are dealt with regarding tour membership.

So although I can personally understand why the tour felt obligated to punish Barron, particularly with the looming vote to consider including the sport in future Olympic games and wanting to set an example, it doesn't necessarily meet the smell-test with regards to the course of action that they took against him.

And I have my suspicions that should Vijay's trial go forward without settlement, they open themselves up to some serious legal issues if it is discovered that they held their star players to a different standard regarding drug testing.

These are all just my opinions on the matter.

Par4QC

PA-PLAYA did the tour have a "therapeutic use" exemption back in 2009,

Yes. Shaun Micheel was OK'd for using the cream on his bad shoulder(2008 iirc), and was 1 of those baffled by the PGAs actions toward Barron. The topical application would have far less concentration than that of an injected dose though. I've seen what an injection of T does in a racehorse, and it would have made a world of difference in Barron's performance.

Not sticking up for the PGA, but I think they were/are correct in laying down the law about this substance. It is a lot bigger deal than pot!