Steroids and sports. Today, they are two seemingly connected words.
Allegations of steroid and other performance-enhancing drug use currently run rampant in Major League Baseball (Barry Bonds), and have threatened to distort the careers of countless premier athletes (Lance Armstrong).
But several well-documented cases of high-profile athletes using performance-enhancing drugs in various professional leagues have overshadowed the issue on the collegiate level, at least in terms of media coverage.
The NCAA – even with hundreds of athletes at each of its more than 1,000 member institutions – has seemingly gone unscathed during this turbulent period of drug-use allegations.
That doesn’t surprise Mary Wilfert of the NCAA, who testified in front of Congress regarding drug-use and drug testing.
“We testified a week before Major League Baseball and their folks did, and I think we were able to identify what a strong program that we have. That’s one reason why we don’t get the bad media on it -because we are addressing the issues,” said Wilfert, the assistant director of education outreach for the NCAA, who also noted student privacy laws as a possible reason for less publicity on the issue at the collegiate level.
But just how effective is the NCAA’s drug testing program?
At least a few former athletes say it’s not good enough.
Jason Scukanec, a former lineman for Brigham Young University, told the Portland Tribune that steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs are common in Division I football.
“Over the course of my five years at BYU, I have concrete proof of 13 to 15 guys, and I would suspect others,” Scukanec told the Portland Tribune. “And BYU is more temperate than most programs. … I know other schools are worse. I would bet my house you could find at least five guys on every Division I team in the country (using steroids).”
Another former Division I football player, choosing to remain anonymous, testified in front of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control in 2004 about the “widespread” steroid problem in college sports – namely Division I football, where the man knew of many players taking steroids.
The NCAA, which spends $4 million annually on its entire testing program, historically has between one and two percent of the tests return with positive traces of banned substances.
The NCAA will test 13,500 student-athletes this year.
In the testimony, the unidentified man said his close friend “supplied seven to eight players on the team with steroids.” He also said his experiences reflects other big-time Division I programs.
He said the NCAA’s testing procedure was “weak and predictable,” making it easy for athletes to take steroids without punishment.
Despite a few who slip through the cracks, Wilfert believes there is legitimacy to the NCAA’s random drug-testing program.
“We know that there are athletes out there that are using because there are positive tests every year,” Wilfert said. “We know we don’t pick up everybody, but we think it helps control use.”
The NCAA’s approach
The NCAA began testing in 1986 at championships and football bowl games after steroid use became more common in locker rooms across the country.
The association adopted a nearly year-round testing program (August-June) in 1990 and expanded the range to include all athletes from nearly every sport in Division I and II.
Division III is currently looking into the possibility of implementing a drug testing program, Wilfert said. Currently, Division III athletes are primarily tested only at championships.
In 1999, the NCAA outsourced its testing to the National Center for a Drug Free Sport, a private company founded by former NCAA employee Frank Uryasz.
The National Center for a Drug Free Sport conducts testing by alerting member institutions 24 hours in advance that crew members will be attending campus to collect urine samples.
The institution is then responsible for releasing rosters to the crew members, who randomly select athletes to test the following day.
Wilfert said crew members test 26 total athletes at Division I schools, 18 of which are football players. A total of 12 football players and 16 total athletes are tested at each Division II institution. The NCAA has the option to return to the campuses more than one time per year.
Athletes are also often tested at track championships and bowl games.
When athletes are selected, they must urinate in the presence of a crew member to prove that they are supplying their own urine.
The sample is then taken and analyzed at the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory, where experts search for more than 90 banned substances listed under various categories such as stimulants, anabolic agents, street drugs, peptide hormones and analogues as well as diuretics, which are substances aimed at masking drug use.
Since testing began, NCAA-conducted surveys have consistently shown declines in the amount of performance-enhancing drug use.
A new approach
One of the major flaws of the NCAA’s past approach was that it did not test in the summer months.
Essentially, an athlete could consume a banned substance in late June or July and attend fall camp in August clean of any traces.
This June will be the first time the NCAA will extend its program to include the summer months.
If selected, the athlete will not be forced to return to campus. Instead, crew members will travel to the athlete’s place of residence during the summer to conduct the testing.
Nevertheless, summer testing is a scary proposition and one that opens up another bag of possible problems, University compliance director Bill Clever said.
University officials and Clever are still required to notify the athletes of testing, meaning that they must keep tabs on players at all times during the summer – a daunting task considering athletes disperse across the country following the conclusion of spring term, Clever said.
Clever recently met with football players to identify their summer plans in hopes that if players selected won’t be available for testing the University can notify the NCAA of the issue and avoid punishment for missing the scheduled test, he said.
The NCAA typically treats no-shows the same as a positive result.
“That’s a rather frightening prospect,” Clever said. “Not everybody goes to summer school, not everyone will be in Eugene, but we’re still charged with providing notices. Our fear is that someone goes camping where there is not cell phone access.”
A sufficient deterrent?
Only slightly more than three percent of all student-athletes will be tested annually by the NCAA’s random drug-testing program.
“The NCAA claims to be protecting the health and safety of college athletes but in my opinion has very little pull on the illegal use of drugs in college athletics,” said the anonymous former Division I football player in front of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control.
Dr. Bob Crist, Oregon’s director of athletic medicine, believes athletes are deterred from using drugs because of the penalties handed down by the NCAA for testing positive.
After a first positive test, the athlete is suspended for one year from the date of collection. Following a second positive test, the athlete is banned from competition for life.
“You’re rolling the dice,” Crist said. “Could you use and get away with it? Obviously you could. But if you get caught, it’s a pretty severe penalty.”
Bellotti believes the NCAA’s efforts are sufficient in deterring athletes from using.
“I don’t think they’re a problem for us here because we are frequently tested,” Bellotti said. “The NCAA, and especially college football, is very well-regulated.”
Enoka Lucas, the Oregon football team’s starting center, also believes the NCAA’s approach to combating steroid use is sufficient.
“I don’t mind getting tested at all,” Lucas said. “I think the NCAA is doing a great job regulating who is taking drugs or not.”
The NCAA’s latest Study of Substance Use Habits of College Student-Athletes reports that two-thirds of the nearly 21,000 surveyed believe drug testing is a deterrent for them or for teammates.
“The NCAA is trying to protect student-athlete’s health and well-being and also trying to create a level playing field as much as possible,” said Kay Hawes, director of media relations for the National Center for a Drug Free Sport.
Another purpose for the study is to identify sports with high levels of drug use. Hawes said the baseball community often reports high amounts of drug-use and suspected drug use, which the NCAA responded to with increased testing.
Though Oregon’s athletic department no longer fields a baseball team, it is home to a club team fresh off of an appearance at the National Club Baseball Association World Series.
Bradley Ficek, Oregon’s club coach, said performance-enhancing drugs are not prevalent at the club level. He said he does not address the issue with his players either through education or testing.
“I don’t think players, especially on this team, would be interested in it. I don’t think they could get their hands on it,” Ficek said. “So it’s not something I’m worried about.”
Institutional testing
Aside from the NCAA’s random drug testing program, many Division I schools, including Oregon, perform additional testing to complement the NCAA’s approach. Some use random testing, but Oregon’s constitution prohibits the school from doing so.
A random testing program, used at most institutions, consists of selecting a set number of student-athletes’ identification numbers at random each month for testing.
Oregon is one of just a handful of states with constitutions that consider random testing to be an infringement on individual rights.
When asked if the testing program is compromised because of the inability to test on a random basis, Crist said, “Absolutely. It is a deterrent.”
Neither the NCAA nor high school programs fall under state constitutions and are able to operate random drug testing programs.
Instead of testing randomly, Oregon can only test based on
reasonable suspicion.
For instance, if a coach or administrator observes unnatural weight gains, unusual improvement in the weight room, acne or variable moods, that athlete can be required to participate in a drug test.
In addition to raising the level of deterrence, institutions that test do not have to report positive tests to the NCAA, meaning the institutions decide the punishments, Clever said.
Many, including Oregon, attempt to educate and provide counseling to athletes after a first-time offense. Athletes who test positive are then subjected to more frequent future testing.
“Our policies are trying to be corrective and not so punitive,” Clever said. “However, if the student-athlete continues to indulge in impermissible behavior, I think the student-athlete would agree that they become punitive.”
An athlete at Oregon who fails three institutional drug tests is no longer able to receive financial aid and is dismissed from his or her respective team, a lighter penalty compared to the NCAA’s punishment of a one-year suspension for one positive test and a lifetime ban for a second positive.
Crist said Oregon generally tests between two and five athletes per year and has not returned a positive in his 12 years with the University, although an Oregon athlete did test positive in 2006 via an NCAA-sponsored drug test.
Lucas said he has never been tested by the University, but supervisors such as Jim Radcliffe, the strength and conditioning coach, do a “good job patrolling what goes on in the weight room.”
Bellotti said he can recall only three athletes testing positive in his 18 years with the Oregon program. It was later discovered, after subsequent testing, that one athlete had naturally high
levels of testosterone, and he was not punished.
Bellotti said he primarily tests when athletes make extraordinary gains in the weight room. Some athletes are asked to voluntarily test after impressive performances to cease any speculation of drug use, he said.
“It’s mostly to validate what they do,” Bellotti said.
Though Crist unquestionably knows athletes have used, he does not believe the problem is as prevalent as some have assumed.
“I don’t think it is widespread,” Crist said. “I think there’s no question they are used, and I think there probably have been some athletes here at the University of Oregon that have used and not been caught. But, from what I can read and hear, I think there’s probably greater use in high schools than there is in college.”
[email protected]