PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 280.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 3, 2005
Integrity in Professional Sports Act - Expresses the sense of Congress that the individual records of athletes achieved as a result of performance-enhancing substances or methods should be invalidated.
Prohibits a professional sports league from organizing, sponsoring, endorsing, promoting, producing, or recognizing a professional sports event without adopting and enforcing a testing policy for performance-enhancing drugs that meets or exceeds the standards specified in this Act.
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 five times a year; and (3) proscribe any employee or contractor of the league, the team or club, or the professional athletes' union from complicity in an offense by an athlete.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Provides that the testing policy shall be violated if: (1) a test reveals the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers; (2) evidence of the use of a prohibited substance or method is discovered; (3) an athlete refuses to submit to a test; (4) an athlete tampers with the testing process; (5) a league or union representative administers a prohibited substance or method to any athlete a or assists, encourages, aids, abets, or covers up any other type of complicity involving an offense by a professional athlete.
Allows a league to provide an individual athlete an exemption for a particular prohibited substance or method for a documented medical condition.
Sets penalties as a minimum of two years' suspension for the first violation, permanent suspension for any subsequent violation, and public disclosure of the name of the violator and substance involved.
Allows the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to seek civil penalties for violations of this Act.
Requires the United States Boxing Commission (after it is established) to promulgate uniform performance-enhancing substance testing standards for professional boxing consistent with this Act.
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.
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 280.
Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S12345)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 2025. 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.1960 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.1960 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.1960 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.1960 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.