The situation is this: a professional athlete is suspected of using steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs), and the rumors are receiving a great deal of negative media attention. A request has been made by the athletes agent for me to “advise and assist him” with the situation and “try to place favorable stories about the baseball star in the media and create a positive environment for him” (Cameron, Wilcox, Reber, & Shin, 2008, p. 240). In confidence, I have been told by the athlete’s agent “that the athlete has admitted that he took some substance that was unknown to him, but may have been steroids” (Cameron, Wilcox, Reber, & Shin, 2008, p. 241). With the information given, I will explore this case from the perspective of a PR practitioner, determine whether or not I would take this case given these circumstances and examine it from an ethics standpoint.
When it comes to professional sports, players are represented by Players Unions or Associations and governed by rules that are agreed upon between those unions and associations and the heads of their particular professional sports league. Other professional athletes are also governed by the International Olympics Committee and the US Anti Doping Agency which all seem to have varying policies with regard to drug testing. Above all, the players and organizations for which the athletes work are governed by state and federal laws (unless other more stringent agreements have been arranged in contracts). In some states, suspensions and/or banning players is a violation of workplace laws which supersedes league rules. In this particular case, this athlete is a professional baseball player and will therefore be held to what is known in the world of professional sports as the utmost standard of drug policies outside of the Olympics. With that in mind, let’s look at what the consequences would be for this player.
The Major League Baseball Association considers the use of illegal substances, which would include anabolic steroids and any other substance that is being used without a prescription, a violation of their drug policy. This is enforced through formal procedures that have been agreed upon by the Commissioner and the Players Association, and those procedures involve the use of mandatory random drug testing. The punishment for violating this policy varies depending on the degree and number of violations the player has, if any. According to Murray Chass (2007), writer for the New York Times, “Under Major League Baseball’s drug-testing program today, players get 50-game suspensions for testing positive for steroid use,” although it can range to permanent suspension from Major League Baseball if there have been previous offenses or if the incident violates the policy on a more extreme scale. Even a first time offense costs these players large sums of money. These are the consequences handed down by the League, not the public. The public’s reaction to illegal drug use by a professional athlete can be far more severe, having the power to irreparably damage the athlete’s reputation and destroy his or her career all together.
From the perspective of a public relations practitioner this case is a manageable one provided that the player understands his options in dealing with these rumors, the consequences that may follow and agrees to cooperate with the process. Knowing the potential outcome helps weigh options for an approach to the issue. Although, in this situation there is also the “unknown substance” taken by the player which means the outcome is not predictable and has the potential to turn ugly if the player is tested and tests positive for an illegal substance. A few things could happen here: 1) the player can step up and admit to taking an unknown substance, apologize for his mistake and suffers whatever consequences follow, 2) he can withhold the information, never end up having to test and be home free, 3) withhold the information and end up being subjected to a drug test and pass, or 4) he could withhold the information, end up taking a drug test and fail it. If he were to fail, this would be the worst case scenario where his reputation would take the biggest hit because he would not have admitted to any mistake and been found guilty. The public is not forgiving to players who use performance enhancing drugs and often they view the situation as guilty until proven innocent.
For the sake of the league and all players it seems that drug testing is inevitable once rumors begin. With this in mind, do you take a preventative approach and publicly admit to taking an unknown substance or go as far as denying it or withholding the information and suffer the consequences that might follow that approach? In my opinion, taking the proactive approach and hoping for public forgiveness is better than risking the annihilation of his reputation and career. The mistake has already been made whether he comes up positive or not. It is more admirable to admit ones mistakes rather than run from it. Rumors may stop, but no amount of good publicity will outweigh the bad publicity that would follow a positive drug test.
Players are brands that require promoting to shape their public image. The ethical issue here is what your intentions are for promoting the player. Promoting him to cover up or mask an issue such as rumored illegal drug use is unethical when there is any question to whether the player did or did not use an illegal substance. Had there been no question to whether the player had knowingly or unknowingly violated League policies for illegal drug use than ethics would not be debated. A compromise between the extremes of this scenario may be the most appropriate option in this case.
The best course of action for a PR professional within this scenario is to take the case on the condition that the player cooperates with the process of coming clean in the situation. That could start with a statement much like the one Ramirez gave while he dealt with a similar situation as this. He said he “wasn’t tempted to use drugs” and then after testing positive he stated,
"Unfortunately, the medication was banned under our drug policy. Under the policy, that mistake is now my responsibility. I have been advised not to say anything more for now. LA is a special place to me and I know everybody is disappointed. So am I. I'm sorry about this whole situation" (Nanaimo Daily News, 2009, p. B5).
The best approach would be to make a statement that reflects his feelings about drug use, and clearly states his position on the matter. His agent may make a statement on his behalf that also states that he has never to his knowledge taken a steroid or illegal substance (provided that these statements are 100% true), and has never held any intention to.
It is not ethical to place articles to gain favor for a player when it is executed as a means of distracting or deceiving the public from another issue. There are appropriate ways to reveal information without lying and without doing unnecessary damage to a player’s reputation. As a PR professional, you have to look at the consequences, policies, and what any potential course of action will bring as a result before committing to a case. Public relations are about being honest, quick and preventative in the event of a potential crisis scenario which is what the player in this situation is facing.
Reference
Cameron, G. T., Wilcox, D. L., Reber, B. H., & Shin, J. (2008). Public relations today: Managing competition and conflict. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Chass, Murray. (2007). Rumors of drug use have damaged for decades. The New York Times, Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/sports/baseball/18chass.html?_r=2
MLB suspends Ramirez 50 games for drug use; Medication was given to him by a physician, he
said. (2009, May 8). Nanaimo Daily News, B.5. Retrieved June 17, 2010, from Canadian Newsstand Complete. (Document ID: 1706699181).
No comments:
Post a Comment