PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 109-525.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 29, 2005
Professional Sports Integrity and Accountability Act - Prohibits a professional sports league from any involvement in a professional sports event without adopting and enforcing a testing policy for performance-enhancing drugs.
Requires each such league to adopt policies and procedures that: (1) proscribe the use of prohibited substances and methods; (2) provide for random testing of each professional athlete at least three times a year; and (3) proscribe any person associated with the league from complicity in a violation by an athlete.
Prohibits all substances and methods prohibited by the United States Anti-Doping Agency Protocol for Olympic Movement Testing and any other appropriate substance or method as determined by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Includes as a violations of the testing policy: (1) the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers; (2) refusing to submit to a test; (3) administering or attempting to administer a prohibited substance or method to any athlete; and (4) assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up, or any other type of complicity involving a violation by a professional athlete.
Allows a league to provide an individual athlete with an exemption for a particular prohibited substance or method for a documented medical condition.
Sets the penalties for the first violation at a minimum of two years suspension, permanent suspension for any subsequent violation, and public disclosure of the name of the violator and substance involved.
Allows the FTC to seek civil penalties for violations of this Act.
Expresses the sense of Congress that the individual records of athletes achieved while using performance-enhancing drugs should be invalidated.
People & committees
Sen. Bunning, Jim [R-KY] · R–KY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 109-525.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S7905-7906, S7907)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR 7/1/2005 S7906-7907)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1334 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1334 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1334 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1334 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.