Players' union to fight steroids ruling, By: David Kravets

12/28/2006

Major League Baseball's players' association will fight a federal appeals court's decision to give prosecutors access to the names and urine samples of about 100 players who tested positive for steroids in 2003.

If Wednesday's decision "is allowed to stand it will effectively repeal the Fourth Amendment for confidential electronic records," wrote Donald Fehr, executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Association, in a statement Thursday.

The court's 2-1 ruling could help authorities pinpoint the source of steroids in professional baseball. It also could bolster the perjury case against Giants slugger Barry Bonds, who is under investigation for telling a grand jury he never knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs.

Michael Rains, Bonds' attorney, disagreed. "It doesn't help their case against him," he said.

Fehr said he was consulting with union attorneys to "determine what our next step should be in our fight to protect the constitutional rights, including the basic right to privacy, of our members."

Options include asking the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the case with the same three judges, petitioning the court to hear the case with 15 judges or appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. Any appeal, even if unsuccessful, could delay the government from getting the records for months or more.

The samples were collected at the league's direction as part of a survey to gauge the prevalence of steroid use. Players and owners agreed in their labor contract that the results would be confidential.

The players' union sued to keep the government from accessing the records, saying the seizures violated the players' constitutional rights.

Wednesday's 120-page decision overturned a lower court that sided with the players. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco had quashed the subpoenas, ruling they constituted harassment and were unreasonable.

U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan of San Francisco praised the appellate court's finding that the government's "use of grand jury subpoenas were reasonable."