Doug Barron Denied TRO in Court, Still Barred from Q-School
by Ryan Ballengee on Nov 17, 2009 10:48 AM EST
35 comments
Last evening, Judge Tu Pham denied Doug Barron's request for a temporary restraining order that would have allowed him to participate in the second stage of Q-school that begins on Wednesday in Houston.
Judge Pham denied the request under his belief that Barron would be unlikely to be successful in challenging the Tour's one year suspension of him for use of testosterone. Barron's lawyers indicated that he had only taken testosterone once in 2009 - the week of the St. Jude Classic, in which he was subject to random drug testing and failed.
Pham, though, indicated that Barron may have had success in challenging the doping program against his two decade record of use of the beta blocker propranolol.
Paraphrasing Meatloaf, one out of two ain't bad. But it's not good enough.
The PGA Tour was clearly confident that they could withstand this suit for a TRO. They made a brief comment in a statement through Ana Leaird, saying, "We are pleased with the court’s decision and have no further comment at this time."
Not sure where we go from here short of a full-blown suit against the program, but Barron's attorneys did raise critical questions about the enforcement of penalties and the release of positive test results.
0 recs |
35 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
apparently, Barron’s lawyers questions weren’t “critical” enough to interest the judge. the court room isn’t always the place to bring up good questions, being an adversarial setting.
I kind of wish they had allowed Barron to play in Q-school this week. If he got through, he still has to play in the third stage, and there is time to take another look at the process. If he doesn’t make it through – no harm no foul. If he made it through to the final stage and they decided against him, there is time to take him off the list and put someone else in.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 11:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Well, Barron took testosterone the week of the tournament. Nothing screams “gaining an advantage” more than that!
The questions that they raised were still valid, but their defense on that aspect of it was not.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroomryan, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Nov 17, 2009 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
very true – but I’m still up in the air on the whole “advantage” of getting your testosterone count up to an average level for a man of his age. It’s a medical condition for sure – but if your body can’t keep up, that’s not the other competitor’s problem.
sort of like tennis players getting rub downs for cramps during a match. that’s not an injury – that’s conditioning.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's more of a Casey Martin issue, really
The guy has the testosterone of an 80 year old. He doesn’t take it to gain an advantage, he takes it to get to the low-end of where a man of his age should be. So the question is, does that give him an unfair advantage or does it simply allow him to compete? Does his natural state just not allow him to compete on the PGA Tour, similar to Martin, and should an accommodation be made?
by Double Eagle on Nov 17, 2009 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a great question – I think they one that his lawyers really failed to answer definitively.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroomryan, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Nov 17, 2009 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
exactly – but how is the fact that his body doen’t produce enough testosterone the problem of the rest of the field ? he is artificially raising his testosterone level, which gives him an advantage over his ability to compete in his natural state.
I agree with you on the Casey Martin illustration – but I didn’t agree with the court’s decision to force the PGA Tour to give him a cart. Tournament golf IS more than just hitting the ball – if it was, they could play rain out days on a simulator inside.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 11:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I saw a commercial a while back, where Jim Furyk or someone was hocking Alleve. He said if not for that, his arthritis would keep him from playing his best. Same thing with Fred Couples. I read an interview with him saying that at some stage in his life he had to take a bunch of that a day just for his back to function.
Is that the problem of the rest of the field? Sure, it may not be a banned substance, but is it really that much different? Are those guys not changing their natural state to be able to compete?
by Double Eagle on Nov 17, 2009 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hmm – a pain relief medicine vs a hormone that increases muscle mass and strength
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A hormone that we all have in certain “normal” quantities, which he doesn’t. Not a quantity above and beyond what would be found in a man of his age naturally.
Last I checked, my body doesn’t produce it’s own Alleve to make my arthritis feel better. If it did, I would be much happier. The fact is, it allows players to compete more effectively. If that isn’t performance enhancing, I don’t know what is.
by Double Eagle on Nov 17, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
apparently we don’t “all” have it in “normal” quantities…whatever that level is.
I don’t disagree with you – this is a confusing area and very difficult to police. How do we know someone wouldn’t take it as prescribed, then “juice up” for a tournament ?
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And that's where testing should come in
If he gets tested and his level is elevated above whatever is considered normal for someone of his age, then there should be consequences. I don’t even think it would be unreasonable if he were granted an exception and then had to submit to testing for each tournament, just to be sure that he’s not abusing the system.
by Double Eagle on Nov 17, 2009 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have no problem with that. Make the change to the section under punishment. First timers get a fine and maybe have to miss a start. Then they will be tested regularly…once or twice a month depending on the substance.
Then take the punishment up the ladder for future infractions.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And for the record...
…I also was opposed to the Casey Martin decision.
There are some very fine lines separating some of these situations, though. For instance, we might all agree that a prosthetic leg would perfectly OK if a player required it. But is that really much different from Casey Martin’s situation? Yeah, a cart and a prosthetic leg are vastly different devices, but to me, the principles at play are very, very similar.
by Double Eagle on Nov 17, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
how does a prosthetic leg equal a cart ? The leg allows you to walk – the cart eliminates most of the walking.
remember – Ken Green is working on a comeback with a prosthetic leg.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The point is, a person is relying on the aid of a device to play the game. If we’re talking about people playing in their natural state, then how is that not a consideration, at least?
Ken Green is also hoping to play the Champions’s Tour which has allowed accommodations like carts for a long time before the Martin case.
by Double Eagle on Nov 17, 2009 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
but how many one legged golfers have you ever seen on the Champions Tour ? (aha !! got you there – run rings around you logically !!) (think Monty Python…penguin on the telly skit)
the leg doesn’t boost performance and still requires the player to walk to his next shot.
Casey Martin wasn’t pushing the Champions Tour around – he was pushing the PGA Tour around.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So, let me summarize this: do you agree that without an artificial device, a player with a missing leg wouldn’t be able to walk to his next shot, which you consider to be an integral part of the game?
by Double Eagle on Nov 17, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
depends – do you call using crutches “walking” ?
I didn’t say an integral part of the game – I said it is a part of tournament golf on the PGA Tour and most other Tours with the exception of the Champions Tour where there is a rarely used rule that allows carts.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I mentioned this in passing in my blog post for today, and I’m interested if anybody else has considered it. If the courts rule in the PGA Tour’s favor, they have set a precedent saying that a sports organization has the right to overrule an athlete’s personal doctor. Is no one concerned about this kind of ruling? With more and more businesses routinely testing employees for drugs, coupled with the rising price of health care, the possibilities for legalized abuse are huge! The other (admittedly important) issues about “level playing fields” could become entirely moot.
Mike Southern
www.ruthlessgolf.com
by Ruthless Mike on Nov 17, 2009 12:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Who said the Tour would overrule a doctor ? The Tour has the right to set the ground rules for The Tour. If a player doesn’t want to abide by the rules, they are free to go elsewhere.
These rules/guidlines for the Tour’s drug policy weren’t made up in house – they are the rules developed for international competition like the Olympics.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But the Tour has overruled Barron’s doctor; that’s my whole point. Barron had been taking some of his treatment for 22 years under a doctor’s supervision; supposedly, that means the doctor had chosen that treatment and believed it to be the best. The Tour refused to accept that doctor’s opinion and told Barron that he would have to stop the treatments if he wanted to remain on Tour. That means the Tour has overriden the doctor’s accessment, because they required him to discontinue the doctor’s treatment in order to maintain his Tour membership.
According to your argument, Court, the Tour will determine who plays on Tour based not on how well they play, but on whether they conform to a certain natural genetic profile. The issue ceases to be whether you are using drugs to gain an unfair advantage, but whether you use drugs at all. If your genetics are inferior to everyone else’s and you require certain drugs to live a normal life, you can be ruled unacceptable for the Tour and denied a chance to play. I’m not accusing you of anything, so don’t take it that way… I’m simply saying this is a much more complicated issue than it may at first appear. It’s a key point here that apparently Barron isn’t taking these drugs just so he can play golf; rather, he needs them to function properly in normal life.
A lot has been made of the testosterone treatment, as well. I don’t know all the details, but I do know other players have been taking testosterone treatments (Shaun Micheel is one well-publicized one), yet nothing has been said about them. I would be interested to know how their cases were handled.
As for the rules being set up by the Olympic Committee, that doesn’t change the issue. I would argue that the PGA Tour is nothing like the Olympics; the Olympics are for athletes who already function at the limits of human capability, and there are very few “normal” people who would be competitive there, even with drugs. Unless a Doug Barron managed to become good enough to qualify for the Olympics — and, no offense to Doug Barron, but do any of us really think he could become one of the country’s two best golfers? — there would never even be an overlap. If he did, we just wouldn’t allow him to compete there because the drugs obviously would have been a factor for him to reach that high a level, given where he started from.
Again, Court, I’m just saying that this is a Pandora’s Box. The rulings made in this case could have some unforeseen side-effects in the years ahead.
Mike Southern
www.ruthlessgolf.com
by Ruthless Mike on Nov 17, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No – the Tour overruled the doctor ONLY in relation to him playing on the PGA Tour and Nationwide Tour. They requested that he wean himself off of that beta blocker and find something that doesn’t break the rules. According to the doctor, he had done so – cutting down from 18 mg to 4 mg over time. It wasn’t the beta blocker that caused the judge to rule against him – it was the injection of testosterone before the St Jude that got him in trouble.
I don’t disagree with you in principle. I was against this whole peer pressure situation in the first place. Some idiot reporter tried to equate the PGA Tour with the MLB on substance abuse and performance enhancing substances – and the Tour couldn’t get away from people asking the old “have you stopped beating your wife” type of questions.
But if you’re going to have testing – and if so many people are going to get all ga-ga over the idea of golf in the Olympics – then you have to abide by the Olympic standards for drug testing.
Barron made a little over $33k in 2008 playing professional golf. This year he made nothing. Without testing, would it have made any difference to the season ?
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What do the Olympics have to do with it?
Only players intending on playing in the Olympics have to abide by Olympic standards in testing. A handful of PGA Tour players will be affected, so why would the Tour have to be concerned with Olympic-caliber testing?
by Double Eagle on Nov 17, 2009 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That mattered to get golf into the Olympics in the first place. They had to show to the IOC that they were willing to keep their athletes to the Olympic doping standard.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroomryan, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Nov 17, 2009 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
The PGA Tour specifically had to adopt Olympic standards? How about the rest of the major world tours? Did the NBA have to institute Olympic testing when the games opened to pros and the dream team was being formed?
I can see, obviously, participants tested by the IOC for the games, but I’m surpised to learn that the PGA Tour had to adopt the full international standards instead of developing their own.
by Double Eagle on Nov 17, 2009 3:56 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Ummm – because the PGA Tour can’t just test Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson ? :-D
When the Tour decided they were going to do drug testing, they just decided to use the international drug testing rules. Instead of doing the work to find substances that might be golf specific, which would take a time, they just went with the system the Olympics uses.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if the testosterone injection had something to do with cutting down the beta blockers…
I think we’re pretty much on the same page here, Court, but it does show just how twisted this all becomes. While the judge may have made his decision based on the injection, the Tour suspension was based on both. (I think Ryan listed that in an earlier post.) If so, the Tour made a decision that, again, didn’t agree with the doctor — namely, that he wasn’t being weaned from the drugs fast enough. It becomes a matter of interpretation, which is what worries me.
Once you set a precedent, the reasons for the precedent may or may not be taken into account in later court cases. All you need is the right political climate and the right judge. You can see this in all kinds of legal cases; think about something as outrageous and well-known as Prohibition, for example.
In this case, if it’s about getting into the Olympics (and that makes sense to me), this could end up being a real mess since the majority of golfers will never make it there… and they know it. It will depend on how widespread the problem turns out to be. After all, a PGA Tour event isn’t nearly as restrictive in who can qualify as, say, the World Championship Trials at the USA Swimming National Championships.
Mike Southern
www.ruthlessgolf.com
by Ruthless Mike on Nov 17, 2009 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I read something this week – can’t confirm his credentials, but he was saying that the two don’t have anything to do with each other and can’t be used to treat the same thing. Can’t get on the Tour for including both substances in the suspension – he tested positive for both, and it was his first PGA Tour event he was in this year, and his first testing.
I’m not willing to go the conspiracy theory route.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Neither am I… I was just wondering if the doctors were trying to sub one for the other. Like I said, there are guys like Micheel getting testosterone, and we don’t know what the Tour said about them yet.
That last paragraph I wrote about the Olympic qualifying was a bit off my original point, but I’m wondering if the Tour will end up creating special qualifying tourneys to determine which golfers make the U.S. team. If the rank and file complain too much about drug testing, might that be a way around some of the problems?
Mike Southern
www.ruthlessgolf.com
by Ruthless Mike on Nov 17, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I kind of doubt that top players will have that problem
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Top players are rarely the problem… it’s the rank and file who make the news in these situations.
On Golf Central tonight, they talked to Barron and to the head of the Tour’s law team. Here’s what I was able to glean from it:
1) Barron said he wished he had known about this sooner so he could have tried out for the European or some other tour. So it appears the other major tours haven’t instituted drug policies yet.
2) Kelly Tilghman said that others, like Shaun Micheel, had applied for and received permission to continue their treatments. So the Tour isn’t just saying “It’s on the list, you can’t take it and still play the Tour.”
3) Barron has used BBs for 22 years and testosterone for about 4 years. The Tour’s lawyer said that Barron had submitted medical records to support his case, but the Tour had those records reviewed by a panel of other doctors who decided they didn’t justify his treatments and rejected his request. In other words, Barron’s doctor was overruled by other doctors brought in by the Tour.
The doctors on the Tour panel were from places like the Mayo Clinic, which I suppose gave their opinions more clout than Barron’s doctor. However, doctors frequently disagree on treatments (the current uproar over how often mamograms can be safely given is one example). This is what I was talking about in earlier comments — why should anyone assume that the opinion of doctor #1 is better than that of #2, even if #1 is from a place like Mayo, when #2 has treated the patient for 22 years and #1 has merely spent a few minutes studying medical records?
However — and this is my concern — this legal case could set a precedent where this question arises more frequently. And from a legal standpoint, it’s a small step from sports organization / member to business / employee. While I’m not suggesting a conspiracy in this case, once the precedent has been set, all bets are off concerning what could happen in the future.
Mike Southern
www.ruthlessgolf.com
by Ruthless Mike on Nov 17, 2009 7:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Your question was about qualifying for the Olympic team – there won’t be any IMHO. They will take the top players who want to go. Tiger Woods gets the first call – then Phil…golf’s “Dream Team”…unless they make it a team competition – then Tiger will take the job if Phil’s not his partner.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 7:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I wasn’t real clear, Court. I was thinking about the “lower level” players who have these drug problems, like the Doug Barrons. Player reps have talked about how they have to balance the desires of this larger group of players against those of the top players. I just wondered whether the Tour might institute special qualifying tournaments where the drug testing would be critical, leaving the “lesser” events where players could play without worrying so much about it. You know, a way to keep peace in the ranks and maybe avoid a bunch of lawsuits.
In Olympic qualifying,after all, the big guys know they’re going to get tested… and usually when. And they know for sure they’ll get tested after a victory. Hmmm… maybe that might be the simplest solution
I guess that’s all I have to say about it. I love a good debate, Court… thanks for the chat.
Mike Southern
www.ruthlessgolf.com
by Ruthless Mike on Nov 17, 2009 8:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But, would the Tour even be involved in Olympic qualifying? I would think the Olympic committees for the various countries would be completely in control of that like they are for other sports. In that case, does it even matter what the Tour does with respect to drug testing? OK, I can see if they want to put on a good show of golf being a clean sport for the good press, but do they have any involvement beyond that?
by Double Eagle on Nov 17, 2009 9:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Me too, Mike – I hope the Tour is as thorough and insightful as we are. (lol)
The Olympic committee won’t have anything to do with the team past maybe appointing a “coach” for the team…and begging the bejezus out of Tiger Woods to show up. Might be someone like Haney or Harmon.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 9:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Waggle Room
Related FanShots on Waggle Room
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
