To the Grantland article ( and arguing that PEDs are a Libertarian issue) what about fairness? Some guy doesn't want to take the health risks associated with the various PEDs? Is he not at a competitive disadvantage? I think it's a crap argument.
He mentions the health argument in the third paragraph and agrees that there is legitimacy to it. Then he goes off on some weird generalization about "authoritarian solutions" that doesn't make much sense.
I'd say that, in general, workplace random drug testing is wrong especially if it is just going after people smoking weed on their own time. Whatever missed procedural detail you can cite to beat that rap is fine by me. The case for it in sports is stronger given the moral hazard argument, but you can still make the case that it is a violation of privacy, that the testing isn't effective at catching users while leading to an arms race that probably doesn't promote health, that the problem is overblown, etc. But if you don't question the legitimacy of drug testing in general, I don't see how you can seriously argue that irrelevant procedural details should be grounds for dismissal of a case.