39–006

109TH CONGRESS REPT. 109–210 " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session Part 1

DRUG FREE SPORTS ACT 

JULY 27, 2005.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BARTON of Texas, from the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 3084] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 3084) to direct the Secretary of Commerce to issue 

regulations requiring testing for steroids and other performance-enhancing substances for certain sports associations engaged in interstate commerce, having considered the same, report favorably 

thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 

amended do pass.

CONTENTS 

Page 

Amendment .............................................................................................................. 1

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 4

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 5

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 6

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 7

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 7

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 9

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 9

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 9

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 9

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 9

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 12

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 12

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 12

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 12

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 12

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 15

AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

2 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Drug Free Sports Act’’. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

As used in this Act— 

(1) the term ‘‘Secretary’’ refers to the Secretary of Commerce; and 

(2) the term ‘‘professional sports associations’’ means Major League Baseball, 

the National Basketball Association, the National Football League, the National 

Hockey League, Major League Soccer, the Arena Football League, and any other 

league or association that organizes professional athletic competitions as the 

Secretary may determine. 

SEC. 3. RULES REQUIRING MANDATORY TESTING FOR ATHLETES. 

(a) RULEMAKING.—Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary shall issue regulations requiring professional sports associations operating in interstate commerce to adopt and enforce policies and procedures for testing 

athletes who participate in their respective associations for the use of performanceenhancing substances. Such policies and procedures shall, at minimum, include the 

following: 

(1) TIMING AND FREQUENCY OF RANDOM TESTING.—Each athlete shall be tested a minimum of 5 times each year that such athlete is participating in the activities organized by the professional sports association. Tests shall be conducted at random intervals throughout the entire year, during both the season 

of play and the off-season, and neither the athlete, nor any member of the 

coaching and training staffs shall be notified in advance of the test. 

(2) APPLICABLE SUBSTANCES.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, shall, by rule, prescribe the substances for which each athlete shall be tested, which shall include— 

(A) substances that— 

(i) are determined by the World Anti-Doping Agency to be prohibited 

substances; and 

(ii) the Secretary determines to be performance-enhancing substances 

for any particular sport, or substances whose purpose is to conceal the 

presence of performance-enhancing substances in the body, and for 

which testing is reasonable and practicable; and 

(B) such additional substances that the Secretary may determine to be 

performance-enhancing substances for any particular sport, or substances 

whose purpose is to conceal the presence of performance-enhancing substances in the body, and for which testing is reasonable and practicable. 

(3) THERAPEUTIC AND MEDICAL USE EXEMPTIONS.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, shall establish 

criteria by which professional sports associations, after consultation with the 

athletes who participate in the activities of such professional sports association 

(or the representatives of such athletes), may provide an athlete with an exemption for a particular substance, prior to or after any drug test, if such substance 

has a legitimate medical or therapeutic use, and if such use is for a documented 

medical condition of such athlete. 

(4) METHOD OF TESTING AND ANALYSIS.—The Secretary, in consultation with 

the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, shall establish criteria 

whereby tests shall be administered by an independent party not affiliated with 

the professional sports association. 

(5) PENALTIES.—Subject to the determination made pursuant to an appeal as 

described in paragraph (6), a positive test shall result in the following penalties: 

(A) SUSPENSION.— 

(i) An athlete who tests positive shall be suspended from participation in the professional sports association for a period not less than 1⁄2

of a season of play, including suspension from the number of games 

constituting 1⁄2 of a season of play. 

(ii) An athlete who tests positive, having once previously violated the 

policies concerning prohibited substances, shall be suspended from participation in the professional sports association for a period not less 

than an entire season of play, including suspension from the number 

of games constituting a full season of play. 

(iii) An athlete who tests positive, having twice previously violated 

the policies concerning prohibited substances, shall be permanently 

suspended from participation in the professional sports association. 

All suspensions shall include loss of pay for the period of suspension. 

(B) DISCLOSURE.—The name of any athlete having a positive test result 

resulting in suspension shall be disclosed to the public. 

3 

(C) EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.—The Secretary shall establish criteria 

by which professional sports associations may reduce the period of suspension for an athlete who has tested positive for a prohibited substance but 

who establishes that he or she bears no fault or negligence or no significant 

fault or negligence for the violation. In establishing such criteria, the Secretary shall consider the policies and practices of the World Anti-Doping 

Agency regarding reduced penalties for exceptional circumstances. Such criteria shall not require a professional sports association to adopt a policy 

providing for reductions in penalties for any circumstances. 

(6) APPEALS PROCESS.— 

(A) HEARING AND FINAL ADJUDICATION.—An athlete who tests positive 

and is subject to penalty under paragraph (5) shall be afforded an opportunity for a prompt hearing and a right to appeal. Such athlete shall file 

an appeal with the professional sports association within 5 business days 

after learning of the positive test. The association shall hold a hearing before an arbiter established under subparagraph (B) and such arbiter shall 

reach a final adjudication not later than 45 days after receiving notice of 

the appeal. The penalties specified in paragraph (5) shall be stayed pending 

an appeal and final adjudication. 

(B) ARBITER.—The arbiter of the appeals process described in subparagraph (A) shall be agreed upon mutually by the professional sports association and the athletes who participate in the activities of such professional 

sports association (or the representatives of such athletes), and shall be approved by the Secretary, and such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 

(b) CONSULTATION.—In prescribing regulations under this section, the Secretary 

may consult with anti-doping authorities, medical experts, and professional sports 

associations. 

SEC. 4. NONCOMPLIANCE. 

Beginning 1 year after the date on which the final rules required by section 3 are 

issued, the Secretary may fine any professional sports association that fails to adopt 

and enforce testing policies and procedures consistent with such regulations. An initial fine for failing to adopt or enforce such policies and procedures under this Act 

shall be $5,000,000 and may be increased by the Secretary by $1,000,000 for each 

day of noncompliance. The Secretary may reduce the fines specified in this section 

upon finding such fines to be unduly burdensome on a professional sports association. 

SEC. 5. REPORTS. 

(a) REPORT ON EFFECTIVENESS OF REGULATIONS.—Not later than 2 years after the 

date of enactment of this Act and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary shall 

transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, 

a report describing the effectiveness of the regulations prescribed pursuant to this 

Act, the degree to which professional sports associations have complied with such 

regulations, and any significant examples of noncompliance. 

(b) STUDY ON COLLEGE AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TESTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.— 

(1) STUDY.—The Comptroller General shall conduct a study on the testing 

policies and practices (and their implementation) for performance-enhancing 

substances for athletes at colleges and secondary schools. The study shall examine the prohibited substance policies and testing procedures of— 

(A) intercollegiate athletic associations; 

(B) college and university athletic departments; and 

(C) secondary schools and State and regional interscholastic athletic associations. 

The study shall also include an analysis of the best available estimates for both 

licit and illicit use of anabolic steroids and human growth hormones by such 

athletes. 

(2) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Comptroller General shall transmit a report to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. The report shall assess the 

adequacy of such testing policies and procedures in detecting and preventing 

the use of performance-enhancing substances, and shall include any recommendations to Congress regarding expanding the application of the regulations issued pursuant to this Act to such intercollegiate and interscholastic athletic associations. 

4 

SEC. 6. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. 

(a) PRE-EXISTING POLICIES.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit a 

professional sports association from continuing to enforce policies and procedures 

governing the use of performance-enhancing substances that were in effect on the 

date of enactment of this Act until such time as such professional sports associations adopt policies and procedures consistent with the rules issued under section 

3. 

(b) MORE STRINGENT POLICIES.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit 

a professional sports association and its athletes (or the representatives of its athletes) from negotiating and agreeing upon policies and procedures governing the use 

and testing of performance-enhancing substances that are more stringent than those 

required by this Act. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 3084 is to reduce the use of performanceenhancing substances by athletes by ensuring certain professional 

sports associations maintain minimum standards regarding their 

performance-enhancing substance policies for athletes. 

While the Act alone may not entirely eliminate the use of the 

performance enhancing substances by professional athletes, the requirement of uniform, rigorous minimum standards will provide 

benefits beyond the professional level. Elite athletes are viewed as 

role models by many youths who mimic the athletes’ behavior and 

attitudes. By reducing the use of performance-enhancing substances in professional sports, the Act will establish our commitment to both the integrity and value of sports and the commitment 

to reduce performance-enhancing substance use by youth. 

Specifically, H.R. 3084 will require the Secretary of Commerce to 

promulgate rules, in consultation with the Director of the National 

Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) on certain rules, to require the 

sports associations to maintain and enforce policies that meet or 

exceed the minimums as specified by the Act. The rules will require the sports associations to adopt and implement, if they have 

not already done so, provisions regarding the minimum number of 

random tests per athlete per calendar year, the substances for 

which an athlete will be tested and are prohibited for the particular sport, criteria for therapeutic uses of prohibited substances 

for medicinal purposes, the minimum penalties imposed on an athlete for violations of the policy, the method of testing and analysis, 

and an appeals process for an athlete having tested positive. 

Additionally, the Act requires the Secretary to issue criteria 

whereby a sports association and its players (or their representatives) may, but are not required to, adopt a provision for the reduction of penalties in exceptional circumstances. The legislation also 

provides the Secretary with authority to impose monetary fines on 

a sports association for failure to implement and enforce the minimum requirements of the Act. 

Although H.R. 3084 only requires the Secretary to consult with 

the Director of NIDA for the purpose of issuing rules under Sections 3(a) (1, 2, & 3), the Committee expects that the Secretary will 

employ all available resources, which may include consulting with 

experts other than NIDA, such as other Federal agencies and medical professionals with experience and expertise regarding performance-enhancing substances and the testing thereof. 

5 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Athletics have played an important role in the cultural development and identity of the United States. America’s enthusiasm for 

participation in sports is exceeded only by its enthusiasm as spectators. Sports at the collegiate, Olympic, and professional levels 

have evolved since the latter half of the twentieth century into a 

profitable industry for many of the industry participants. Nowhere 

is this more apparent than at the highest level of competition: professional sports. 

The average annual player’s salary in the most popular professional team sports is over $1 million dollars, with the highest paid 

athletes earning as much as $20 million per season in salary. Additionally, endorsement opportunities for individual professional athletes often produce substantial financial gains. A plethora of media 

outlets now exist to provide non-stop coverage and broadcast of 

major professional sports, including sport-specific mediums. In 

total, the professional sports and related industries are multi-billion dollar enterprises. 

Most sports experts believe the media attention and riches afforded to top athletes contribute to the temptation facing many 

athletes to use performance-enhancing substances for a competitive 

advantage. The prospect of earning millions of dollars can outweigh 

the risk, if any, of being caught using illegal or prohibited performance-enhancing substances. 

Although the financial rewards in the modern sports era are 

greater than at any time in history, they are not the sole reason 

for doping in sports. In fact, the history of athletic doping, particularly through the use of stimulants, has been traced to the earliest 

days of the Olympics. Of greater relevance to the history of modern 

doping is the gained acceptance of testosterone and steroid use, 

along with other substances and techniques, by some athletes for 

their physiological benefits significance in the latter half of the 

twentieth century. Steroid use by Olympic athletes is reported to 

have been widespread beginning as early as the 1960’s, and naturally began to find its way into professional sports. 

To combat doping, the Olympic movement created the World Anti 

Doping Agency (WADA) in 1999 to implement and enforce testing 

policies for Olympic sports. In the United States, the U.S. Anti 

Doping Agency performs the testing for Olympic athletes. Some 

professional sports, including professional tennis, follow the WADA 

code for prohibited substances and penalties. 

Other professional sports associations and their players have 

similarly responded to the growing awareness of doping and implemented drug-testing programs during the past two decades. However, not all programs test for the same performance-enhancing 

substances, test using strict protocols including frequency of testing, nor do they enforce violations with significant penalties—if at 

all. Some professional sports associations do not even test for 

steroids and other performance enhancing substances. While these 

provisions have historically been the subject of negotiation between 

the players and the sports associations, many of the programs are 

considered by experts to be deficient, particularly in regard to the 

penalties imposed on a player for violating the policy. 

6 

The integrity of professional sports diminished because there are 

inconsistent and inadequate testing policies among the various 

leagues. Recent allegations and admissions by current and former 

athletes of using steroids have undermined the credibility of some 

sports, and their testing programs, and cast a wider doubt about 

the prevalence of doping by professional athletes. More importantly, the effect of the disparate policies—including those that do 

not even test for certain illegal substances nor punish athletes for 

taking the substances—is to promote the perception that the use 

of such substances by some professional athletes is at best tolerated and at worst encouraged. 

Such an effect is to contribute to the serious problem of youths 

increasingly using performance-enhancing substances, such as illegal steroids. Based on the May 2004 Centers for Disease Control 

report, there are more than 800,000 high school students who have 

used or are currently using anabolic steroids. There is no doubt 

that youths often seek to emulate sports idols, particularly in the 

professional ranks. Absent rigorous testing and penalties for professional athletes who use performance-enhancing substances, there is 

a clear message sent to youths that deterrence is not a priority. 

The Committee’s concern—and its intent to legislate minimum 

standards for performance-enhancing substance testing in professional sports—is the diminished value of the positive qualities of 

sport and the adverse health consequences of performance-enhancing substances for individuals. 

HEARINGS

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection held a joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on 

Health on steroid use on Thursday, March 10, 2005. The hearing 

was entitled ‘‘Steroids in Sports: Checking the System and Gambling Your Health.’’ The Subcommittees received testimony from: 

Congressman Jim Ryun; Don Hooton, Taylor Hooton Foundation; 

Dr. Linn Goldberg, Oregon Health & Science University; Robert 

Kanaby, Executive Director, National Federation of State High 

School Associations; Sandra Worth, Head Athletic Trainer, University of Maryland; Dr. Charles Yesalis, Pennsylvania State University; Dr. Ralph Hale, Chairman, United States Anti-Doping Agency; Adolpho Birch, Counsel for Labor Relations, National Football 

League; Frank Coonelly, Senior Vice President, Major League 

Baseball; Mary E. Wilfert, Chief Liaison, Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports, The National Collegiate Athletic Association. 

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection did not hold any hearings on H.R. 3084. However, the Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 1862, which was substantially similar to H.R. 3084, on May 18 and 19, 2005. The Subcommittee received testimony from: Frank Shorter, former Chairman of the United States Anti-Doping Agency; Donald Garber, 

Commissioner, Major League Soccer; Robert Foose, Executive Director, Major League Soccer Players Union; Alan H. (Bud) Selig, 

Commissioner, Major League Baseball; Donald Fehr, Executive Director, Major League Baseball Players Association; Gary Bettman, 

Commissioner, National Hockey League; Robert Goodenow, Executive Director, National Hockey League Players Association; David 

7 

Stern, Commissioner, National Basketball Association; William 

Hunter, Executive Director, National Basketball Players Association; Paul Tagliabue, Commissioner, National Football League; and 

Gene Upshaw, Executive Director, National Football League Players Association. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On Wednesday, May 25, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open markup session and 

approved H.R. 1862, the Drug Free Sports Act of 2005, for Full 

Committee consideration, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being 

present. H.R. 1862 was superseded by H.R. 3084. 

On Wednesday, June 29, 2005, the Full Committee met in open 

markup session and ordered H.R. 3084 favorably reported to the 

House, as amended, by a roll call vote of 38 yeas and 2 nays, a 

quorum being present. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. The following is the 

recorded vote taken on the motion by Mr. Barton to order H.R. 

3084 reported to the House, as amended, which was agreed to by 

a recorded vote of 38 yeas and 2 nays. 

8 


Insert offset folio 9 here HR210.001
9 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee held an oversight hearing and 

made findings that are reflected in this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The objective of H.R. 3084 is to require testing for steroids and 

other performance-enhancing substances for certain sports associations engaged in interstate commerce 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 3084, the 

Drug Free Sports Act, would result in no new or increased budget 

authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate provided by 

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, July 18, 2005. 

Hon JOE BARTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3084, the Drug Free 

Sports Act. 

If you wish further detail on this estimate, we will be pleased to 

provide them. The CBO staff contact is Melissa E. Zimmerman. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 3084—Drug Free Sports Act 

Summary: H.R. 3084 would require professional sports leagues 

and associations to follow prescribed procedures for testing and penalizing athletes for the use of certain performance-enhancing substances identified by the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Secretary of Commerce. Under the bill, the Department of Commerce 

would create and enforce regulations for professional sports leagues 

and associations regarding performance-enhancing substances and 

would be directed to assess and collect fines for violations of these 

10 

regulations. (Civil penalties are recorded in the federal budget as 

revenues.) 

CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $1 million in 2006 and $6 million over the 2000–2010 period, assuming the 

availability of appropriations funds. Because CBO expects that professional sports leagues and associations would comply with the 

law and the new regulations, we estimate that enacting H.R. 3084 

would not have a significant effect on revenues. The bill would not 

affect direct spending. 

H.R. 3084 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it would preempt some state privacy laws, but CBO estimates that any costs 

to state, local, or tribal governments would be minimal and would 

not exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($62 million in 

2005, adjusted annually for inflation). 

H.R. 3084 would impose several private-sector mandates, as defined in the UMRA, on major professional sports leagues. CBO estimates that the total direct cost of those mandates would fall well 

below the annual threshold established by UMRA for private-sector 

mandates ($123 million in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact H.R. 3084 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 370 (commerce and 

housing credit). CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted by the 

end of 2005, that the necessary amounts will be appropriated for 

each fiscal year, and that outlays will follow historical trends. CBO 

estimates that implementing the bill would increase spending subject to appropriation by about $1 million in 2006 and $6 million 

over the 2006–2010 period for creating and enforcing regulations 

related to the use of performance-enhancing substances by professional athletes. 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level ...................................................................... 1 1 1 1 1 

Estimated Outlays ......................................................................................... 1 1 1 1 1 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: H.R. 

3084 would require the public disclosure of the name of any athlete 

having a positive test that results in suspension. Such a requirement would preempt numerous state privacy laws and would constitute a mandate as defined in UMRA. CBO estimates that the 

costs of such a preemption to state, local, and tribal governments 

would be minimal and would not exceed the threshold established 

in UMRA ($62 million in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 3084 would impose 

several private-sector mandates, as defined in UMRA, on major 

professional sports leagues. CBO estimates that the total direct 

cost of those mandates would fall well below the annual threshold 

established by UMRA for private-sector mandates ($123 million in 

2005, adjusted annually for inflation). 

The bill would require Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, the National 

Hockey League, Major League Soccer, the Arena Football League, 

11 

and any other professional league as determined by the Secretary 

of Commerce to implement drug-testing programs for performanceenhancing substances. The leagues would be required to test, without advance notice to the athlete or any team staff member, their 

players a minimum of five times during the season of play and in 

the off-season. The Department of Commerce would prescribe the 

substances for which each athlete would be tested and establish 

the criteria whereby tests would be administered. Currently each 

of the sports leagues conduct their own testing, so the cost of the 

mandate would be the increase in cost attributable to the additional drug testing required by the bill. Based on information from 

the United State Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), the cost of drug 

testing of athletes could be up to $600 per test. The cost of the testing would include locating the athletes in the off-season, shipping 

charges, and the comprehensive analysis of samples at an approved 

laboratory. According to representatives of the professional sports 

leagues, approximately 6,000 athletes would need to be tested. 

Therefore, CBO estimates that the direct cost would fall below the 

annual threshold. 

Under the bill, the leagues also would be required to publicly disclose the identity of any athlete who has tested positive resulting 

in a suspension. In addition, the leagues must establish an appeals 

process with an arbiter. Currently, the leagues provide some public 

disclosure of test results and penalties and provide adjudication. 

Thus, CBO expects that the cost to comply with those mandates 

would be small. 

Previous CBO estimate: On July 7, 2005, CBO transmitted a cost 

estimate for H.R. 2565, the Clean Sports Act of 2005, as ordered 

reported by the House Committee on Government Reform on May 

26, 2005. H.R. 2565 would establish similar requirements for professional sports organizations related to performance-enhancing 

substances, although that bill would be implemented by the Office 

of National Drug Control Policy rather than the Department of 

Commerce. CBO’s estimate of the costs for regulation and enforcement would be similar under both bills; however, CBO’s cost estimate for spending subject to appropriation for H.R. 2565 is higher 

than that for H.R. 3084 because a survey of high school and college 

athletes would not be required under H.R. 3084. 

Both bills would preempt state privacy protections, but H.R. 

2565 contains a potentially costly provision that would give the director of Office of National Drug Control Policy the authority to extend testing standards to colleges and athletes in Divisions I and 

II of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)—more 

than half of which are public. The mandate statements reflect 

these differences in the two bills. 

Both of the bills would require testing for performance-enhancing 

substances of professional athletes. H.R. 2565 could require the 

professional boxing industry to test their boxers if the U.S. Boxing 

Commission is established. That requirement is not in H.R. 3084. 

H.R. 3084 would require more professional sports leagues, adding 

Major League Soccer and Arena Football, to test their athletes than 

H.R. 2565. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Melissa E. Zimmerman. 

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Sarah Puro. Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

12 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds that the Constitutional authority for this legislation is provided in Article I, section 8, clause 

3, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 establishes the legislation as the ‘‘Drug Free Sports 

Act.’’ 

Section 2. Definitions 

Section 2 defines that the Secretary shall refer to the Secretary 

of Commerce. This section also defines ‘‘sports associations,’’ to 

whom the legislation applies, as the National Football League, National Basketball League, National Hockey League, Major League 

Soccer, Major League Baseball, and the Arena Football League. 

The Secretary is authorized to add other professional sports associations which will be subject to the Act. 

Section 3. Rules requiring mandatory testing for athletes 

Section 3 requires the Secretary of Commerce to promulgate 

rules within 270 days requiring that sports associations adopt and 

enforce policies and procedures for testing athletes in their sport 

for the use of performance-enhancing substances. The Committee 

recognizes that most of the sports associations have existing policies and procedures in place. The Committee does not foresee the 

Secretary’s rulemaking requiring sports association to rewrite their 

rules to comply with the Act so long as they exceed the minimum 

requirements set forth in section 3. 

This section also requires the sports associations’ programs to 

test an athlete a minimum of five times a year. The Committee intentionally did not specify an allocation of the tests between in-season and out-of-season testing to preserve the randomness of unannounced testing. Additionally, the Committee believes that random 

13 

unannounced testing, coupled with strict penalties, is the best deterrent for professional athletes. The requirement for a minimum 

of five tests per athlete per year is intended to compliment the random aspect of testing and assist the programs in ensuring the integrity of their sport. To further ensure the integrity of the program, tests are to be unannounced, and neither the athlete nor the 

coaching and training staffs may be notified in advance. 

Further, this section requires the Secretary to consult with the 

Director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) regarding 

the list of applicable substances for which an athlete will be tested. 

The initial list of substances are those determined by the World 

Anti–Doping Agency to be prohibited substances and which are determined by the Secretary to be performance-enhancing substances 

for a particular sport and which testing is reasonable and practicable. The Secretary may also add substances determined to be 

performance-enhancing for a particular sport as knowledge of such 

substances and their performance-enhancing characteristics for a 

particular sport becomes available. 

In adopting the WADA list as the starting point for identifying 

applicable substances under this section, the Committee believes 

the anti-doping authorities and their experts have developed a useful reference point based upon their expertise. However, the Committee recognizes that the list promulgated by WADA is meant to 

apply to all Olympic sports and therefore includes some substances 

of no relevance to the professional sports for which this Act applies. 

For example, certain substances—including legal substances—such 

as beta blockers are banned for individual sports whose athletes 

potentially benefit from their use, such as archery. The Committee 

believes that if such a substance offers no performance-enhancing 

benefit to other sports, there is no reason to require testing for 

such substances to be consistent with the purposes of this Act. Additionally, nothing in this Act prohibits a sports association and 

their players from agreeing to adopt provisions to test for substances not yet identified as applicable substances by the Secretary. The Committee expects that the initial list of substances 

will, at a minimum, include all illegal steroids and steroid precursors. As testing procedures become available and practicable, the 

Committee expects that other substances, such as human growth 

hormone, will be added to the list if the Secretary determines it to 

be performance enhancing. 

This section also requires the Secretary to issue criteria under 

which an exemption to the athlete for the use of particular substances for legitimate medical needs may be granted if the sports 

organization so chooses. The Committee intends to provide athletes 

with ailments or disabilities access to needed medicine that may 

otherwise be prohibited, such as insulin for diabetes. The medical 

exemption may be granted either prior to testing, in which case it 

is on record, or post-test. The Committee recognizes that medical 

exemptions can and have been provided to athletes under some existing programs after athletes initially test positive. Exemptions 

applied in this manner meet the intent of this Act and need not 

require an existing program to abandon it. 

In addition, this section specifies that the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of NIDA, shall establish criteria to ensure 

the testing and analysis under a program is independent. The 

14 

Committee intends this provision to limit, to the extent possible, direct links between the sports association and the personnel employed for collection and testing. For purposes of complying with 

the Act, personnel that are not affiliated with the sports association, but are paid by the sports association solely for their functions 

specifically related to the sports association’s program (such as 

specimen collectors) shall be considered independent. 

This section also requires sports associations to adopt minimum 

suspensions, without pay, for violations including: 1⁄2 year suspension for first violation; one full season for a second violation; and 

lifetime suspension for third violation. Such suspensions shall extend into subsequent seasons of competition if necessary to meet 

the criteria. The Committee believes these penalties are more substantial than the existing penalties of the professional sports associations and will serve as a greater deterrent to athletes. Although 

the penalties are stronger, they are not unreasonable and will provide a player the opportunity to continue his career after serving 

the suspension. 

This section requires the Secretary to issue criteria for the reduction in penalties (where an athlete bears no fault or no significant 

fault for a violation) for which a sports association may adopt. The 

Secretary shall look to the WADA Code in developing such criteria. 

This provision is intended to mirror the provisions of the WADA 

Code providing reduced penalties in exceptional circumstances 

where the athlete bears no fault or no significant fault. The sports 

associations are not required to adopt this provision unless they 

agree to it with their players. This provision is not intended to provide a loophole to the penalties, but rather a provision—if agreed 

to—that will provide the ability to reduce a suspension in the very 

rare instance where the athlete bears no fault. Such reductions in 

penalties have been provided under the WADA code in certain instances where an entire batch of supplements was contaminated 

and resulted in athletes who used the supplements to test positive. 

The Committee recognizes that some sports associations adopt a 

strict liability regime where the athlete is responsible for anything 

he puts in his body and therefore does not anticipate the provision 

would be relevant to their program. 

Finally, this section provides for an appeals process for athletes 

who test positive for a prohibited substance and provides for a mutually agreeable arbiter for the appeals process, subject to the approval of the Secretary. This section provides the athlete the right 

to appeal if he provides notice within 5 days of notification of a 

positive test. A hearing before an arbiter and final adjudication 

must be completed within 45 days of receipt of notice of the appeal. 

In addition, this section provides that the arbiter shall be mutually 

agreed upon by the sports association and the athletes (or their 

representatives) and approved by the Secretary. For purposes of 

this provision, the Committee anticipates the Secretary to approve 

a mutually agreed upon arbiter absent any evidence the arbiter is 

incapable of remaining impartial. 

Section 4. Noncompliance 

This section provides for monetary penalties for a sports association not in compliance with the Act. In such instances where a 

sports association has failed to adopt or enforce the Act, the SecVerDate Aug 04 2004 21:35 Aug 05, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR210P1.XXX HR210P1
15 

retary shall fine the association $5 million dollars, and may increase the fine by an additional $1 million for each day of non-compliance thereafter. The provision also provides the Secretary the 

discretion to reduce penalties based on the financial condition of 

the league. The Committee intends this discretion to be used judiciously. In the event a sports association with little or no profits 

falls out of compliance, the Committee expects the penalty would 

be reduced to a level that would serve as a severe penalty without 

creating an insurmountable burden on the league. At this time, the 

Committee does not anticipate the reduction in penalties would 

apply to the NFL, NBA, or MLB. 

Section 5. Reports 

Section 5 requires the Secretary to provide a report every two 

years on the effectiveness of the regulations. The GAO is required 

to study and report on the performance-enhancing substance testing policies and procedures of intercollegiate sports associations, individual college and athletic departments, and interscholastic athletic associations. 

Section 6. Rule of construction 

Section 6 preserves the sports associations’ existing testing policies before the Secretary promulgates such rules. The pre-existing 

policies should continue until such time as changes—as necessary—are adopted to be in compliance with the Act. Sec. 6 also 

clarifies that such rules do not prevent sports associations from negotiating and agreeing upon more stringent policies than those required by the Act. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

This legislation does not amend any existing Federal statute. 

Æ