DRUGS - EDUCATION AND TESTING
MICKEY HOLMES :
(Tuesday, June 11, 8:30- 10:00 a.m.)
Good morning to our opening session here on Tuesday. I'm Mickey Holmes of the Sugar Bowl and our session this morning is Drugs, Education and Testing. Our format will be quite simple. I've asked each of our panelists, all three of whom are directly on the firing line, to approach the subject from his perspective. Following the presentations, the floor will be open for questions, and we would ask that if you have a question, move to one of the mikes here in the center and before you ask the question, identif yourself with your name and your affiliation.
Coach, administrator, innovator, builder and certainlyperserverer all describe our first speaker this morning. Roy Kramer is director of athletics at Vanderbilt University. He was a standout football player in both high school and college. He coached in high school where he compiled a 58-14-3 record, winning two Michigan state high school championships before going to Central Michigan. At Central Michigan his teams went 83-32-5 in II years. He won the NCAA Division II title in 1974 when he was also national coach of the year on the Division II level. Seven years ago, he assumed his present position at Vandy and since then he has guided the Commodores program to a dramatic era of facility and program development. Currently, Roy is chairman of the Southeastern Conference Athletic Directors and a member of several NCAA committees, including the special NCAA Committee for National Broadcasting Policy. Roy
is gracious enough, despite what could have been a major schedule conflict, to be with us this morning an to discuss if there are warning signs. Do they come too late and how do you cope internally and external when confronted ? Roy Kramer.
Thank you very much, Mickey. I am pleased to be here this morning. I didn't get in here until ab( 11:00 last night, but I realize when most of you were starting out anyway. I probably wasn't out of stej I'm not real sure why I'm here this morning except the fact that in about five months, supposedly, I
became an expert. Now let me tell you a couple of things that brought this about and some concerns I hl about being an expert. The number one thing you want to do if you don't want to become an expert is to host the NCAA in your city and have a major problem; because overnight you have become an expert whethe] you want to be one or not. I have always been a little bit leary of being an expert ever since I startl coaching. I started coaching a long time ago in the State of Michigan, and when I started coaching, I
thought I had all the answers. Most particularly, I thought I had all the answers because I had read a: the books about the old coaches. In those days, the primary thing you had to do was to get your team f: up to playa game the way you did. Give them a pep talk. I had read all of those stories about Knute
Rockne,how he used to get in the locker room. He would read them to his team and they would get all fiJ up and run out on the field and the next day they would find out the guy was in good health. It worked in those days. Supposedly, they went out to play Iowa one time. They were tied at the half. They werl supposed to be ahead of Iowa 50-0. Rockne was so upset over the first half of the game, he refused to I in the locker room. Finally, he came out with 14 minutes left in the half, and gone down and came out
with a real high-pitched voice and said, "come on girls let's go." That so infuriated his team that it went out and tore Iowa apart. If you and I tried it today, they would put us in a straight jacket. Bu I thought that was all true, so I thought that was all part of the game. I thought that was the most
important part of the game, so I was an expert.
Well, about the first year I was a high school football coach, I was coaching in a little town in Michigan which most of you never heard of, and our season was over. My next door neighbor, who normall: I never spoke to, was an official. He came over and said he was going to officiate a game between two I the little high schools in the country who had an undefeated season. They were playing for the confereJ championship; both of them undefeated. He wanted to know if I would like to ride over to see the game. said, "yes, I would like to ride over." It was a typical November night in Michigan. It was spitting and a little bit of rain and everything else, so I decided not to go out. I was going to stay in there long as I could. So I was sitting in the coaches office and waiting to go out just before the game, aTh about five minutes before the game, the home team came back in the locker room and the coach started gi' them a pep talk. He gave them one hell of a pep talk. He jumped up on the bench and he started to scream and holler and tell them how important this game was. All of a sudden he jumped down off that bench and picked up one of those old wooden folded chairs and he threw it across the locker room and bounced it off of the wall. Man, that impressed me. I thought that would really wake up my team, so made a note of that. Next thing he did, he turned around and had one of these old portable blackboards right behind him on the casters. He turned around and put his fist right through the middle of it and kno~keda big hole in it. That really impressed me. I thought, I'll lift weights over the summer and m I can be able to do that. Then he jumped up on that bench one more time and said, "I'll tell you men, this game tonight is the most important game this high school has ever played. Fifty years from now yo are going to have the fifty-year high school reunion and you're still going to be talking about this gal
This is the most important thing that has ever happened to this little town. We win this football game tonight and we will go down in history --the only team in the history of this high school that has ever had an undefeated season. This is such an important ballgame, I'm going to do something tonight
I've never done in all the years I've been coaching. "I had my chair right up next to that door. I was listening to what he was going to do because I was already impressed with that he had done." He said, "I'll tell you tonight, this game is so important I want II red-blooded young men on that kickoff team who are going to do down there and tear that guy limb from limb, separate him from the football let us fall on that fumble deep in their territory, go in and score right in the opening quarter of this ballgame. I want II guys who want to win this game so bad they can taste it. I want II guys who want to play worse than any- thing else. I want to see the hands of II guys who want to tear that team apart." He waited about 10 or 15 seconds and said, " alright, I need five more."
Well, he gave what I thought was one hell of a pep talk and he only got six guys to volunteer to start the game. So since that time, I've been very leery about being an expert on anything. Let me tell you just a few things that we have learned and learned in a very practical way in the area of drugs; the monitoring and control of their use. Let me first of all say that none of us should be surprised that
drugs are a part of our athletic program. If you are surprised tha~ we are not aware of the society in which we live, because they are on our campus, and any college campus or any college administrator who
wants to stand up and say that drugs are not on your campus, has not been across your campus very recently or in your dorms. Because they are there. We should not be surprised that an athletic program reflects that society. Because the young men and young women who are part of our athletic teams are also a part
of that society and, therefore, a part of that scene. At Vanderbilt we thought we had and we did have, and still have, a rather extensive drug testing program long before our incident last January. For those of you who feel you have monitored the area of anabolic steroids with a normal drug testing program, let me assure you that you have not touched the surface. As a result of this, we have totally changed everything that we were doing. We had an elaborate educational system. We had all kinds of people who came in and talked to us. We had FBI agents. We had psychologists. We had sociologists, who all came in and talked with our athletes. We had an extensive testing program for street drugs which had been in operation and which was patterned after some of the things that some of you have also done on your campus.
But let me tell you, that none of this addresses the issue of anabolic steroids. Perhaps we have not addressed this issue for a couple of reasons. First of all, because of the difficulty of monitoring the
use of steroids. The testing program is far different. We cannot do this with an inhouse testing operation or some type of a machine that we may handle through our own training room. So it's, therefore, very costly. But far more significant than that, is the general lack of information and lack of concern in the area of anabolic steroids. They have been a part of athletics and the sports scene for many, many years; long before the introduction into the sports world of substances such as cocaine. They have been introduced
into the sports world as a positive factor, not as a negative factor; as a means to enhance the performance of the athlete. They are widely accepted in certain parts of this world and widely used. The research
out there is somewhat limited. All we have is a very good high-selling book called, Death in The Locker Room, which is based on little research. As far as the known quantities and the known problems that exist with regard to steroids, it's very very limited.
Some of that research will tell you that under certain circumstances and under controlled situations there is certainly nothing wrong with the use of steroids. They are prescribed on many occasions in the medical world for all types of ailments. On top of that there is considerable amounts of evidence, particularly that came out of eastern Europe, of their advantages to certain types of athletic performance; mainly those types of athletic performance which require increased strength and increased body bulk. As
we began to move into our situation, let me share with you some of the things we learned. We found out that there were perhaps five reasons that athletes become involved with anabolic steroids. I don't think this is different anyplace else. This information is the result of the facts after I spent a month and a half interviewing every single athlete who is a part of our program, men and women.
First of all, we found that some of these people come to our campus using anabolic steroids out of
high school. Some of them were introduced to steroids by their parents as a means to increase their size and the potential of getting an athletic scholarship in college. Some of them received it. You can get a prescription for steroids, we found out, from everybody from a veterinarian through a dentist. So you can get them with a perscription, whether that's important or not.
The second factor we found out, was it is primarily, at least in our case, an upper-class syndrome.
It is not widely used, other than those who came to us using it, by our underclassmen. We found out this came about primarily because, particularly in the area of football, your individuals gain body strength
and bulk naturally by getting on a good training program and being on the training table their first year or year and a half during the program. They just naturally gain weight. They increase their strength because they are on a very consistent program. But, about the time they are juniors they hit a plateau
and they don't get any stronger. They are not getting any larger, and all of the sudden they are starting to worry that somebody is going to beat them out of their position. They are looking for a way to get an edge on someone. TRey begin to turn to this type of substance.
A third factor we found out, is one that I'll talk about a little bit later. I feel a major fault
of our present athletic atmosphere is that we have built up on our campuses too much emphasis on evaluatioI of strength. By that I mean exactly the amount of poundage an individual can do without; squats or what the individual can do on a bench press. We have come to believe that because an individual can bench pres! 425 pounds, he is a superior athlete to the individual who bench presses 400 pounds. And, as a result, we have all of these contests. We hand out t-shirts in our weight rooms. We have all of these elaborate programs and we build the type of atmosphere where an individual feels that unless he can enhance himself up to 425 pounds, he's not very good. We create the atmosphere that brings about the use of the steroids. I'll talk about that in a minute in another way.
A fourth factor we found out, was that many of our athletes became involved because of injuries and the information, rightfully or wrongfully, they get from professionals -that a way to help themselves come back more rapidly off of a shoulder separation or a sprain of some type is to get themselves built back with the use of steroids. Much of this information comes to them and is handed down to them by professional athletes.
The final factor we found, which I believe was a very significant factor, was the advent of the USFL professional football league. In the days gone by, when we had only a limited number of
individuals who thought they had a chance to make it in the NFL, there wasn't that great of an emphasis. But now all of a sudden, all of us have large numbers of young men who think they are going to have a chal to play professional football. And, in order to gain a little bit of an extra weight to get a little bit of extra strength, they get involved in the use of steroids.
Let me tell you one other thing. At Vanderbilt, the individuals who were using them knew exactly what they were doing. They knew exactly the dosages to take. They knew exactly when they overtook the dosages and why they would be in trouble with regard to the side affects. They were very knowledgeable. Unlike the use of street drugs, which often comes without any real knowledge, the use of steroids comes with a great deal of knowledge. They had read all about them and knew exactly what they were doing when they took them. After all of the investigations were completed over a four and a half-year period, we fol 32 atheltes who had used steroids; which would be less than about three or four percent of our total athletes. Newspapers made that a little bit greater, but, nevertheless, that's what it turned out to be.
We put in a mandatory testing program for anabolic steroids. We have each of our athletes. men and women. sign a waiver that they will participate in this program. We required our freshmen signees at thE time of the national letter to sign this waiver with their parents for the coming year. We have at this point. not had a single athlete refuse to sign it. Now I know there are a lot of legal questions out there. When we started this thing I know we heard all of the legal experts. One of the problems we
have in athletics today are the lawyers. So. I started out with a whole testing program. To hell with the lawyers. I don't give a damn about the legal respects. If I get sued. sue me. but we are going to have a testing program and we are going to eliminate the drug. If you are going to sit around and worry about lawyers you better get out of the business. I say that with all due respect. I've got three brott who are lawyers. They all support me. I believe that very strongly. so we put that into force. We alsc stated that any individual who refused to sign that waiver would be barred from participation for the remainder of that year. At the conclusion of that year they would lose their athletic financial aid. Tt knew that up front and no question about it. When we went into those meetings. I talked to our young meIJ and women. I did not mention any of the statistics about what the side affects are from using steroids. because I can't prove those 100 percent and neither can anybody else tell you that all of a sudden that after six weeks you use a steroid and you are going to start growing hair on the middle of your back.
We reject steroids for two reasons. Number one. society does not accept it at the present time and the research is doubtful about it; and number two. it's an unfair advantage for the individual who does not use them. Therefore. much the same as we penalize the individual for holding in a game of football. we are going to penalize you for the illegal use of anabolic steroids. Those are the only two reasons we told them.
Secondly, we stated that if you were tested positively, you would be immediately retested. If you are positive a second time, you will be barred from participation. Now this is not street drugs. I am talking about steroids. You will be barred from participation for the remainder of that season and you will be subject to loss of financial aid provided we continue to test and you continue to prove positivI
Since we put this program into existence, we have tested some 150 athletes and some of them twice, a cost of approximately $110 per athlete. We are very encouraged by the results of those tests. But L me tell you something ladies and gentlemen, when you start testing for steroids, you are going to run into some real resistence, bec~use you will have some people on your staff and some athletes in most cases, who are using them. And there will be all kinds of excuses as to why you don't want tests for steroids. Not street drugs. Everybody is fine on street drugs. Street drugs are like motherhood and apple pie, we don't have them. But let me tell you something, I need two offensive linemen. Don't start testing for steroids. That's a different ballgame. Street drugs don't enhance your performance. Steroids can. And you've got a whole different ballgame to play with steroids than you do with street , I see John Toner out there this morning. Jack Davis is here. The NCAA has taken a very strong stand iJ
this area and I am pleased to report that I think we are moving forward with a program which will put
the NCAA on line, not only in the area of street drugs, but in the area of steroids, as well with regard to testing for postseason competition.
There is one last area I would like to talk about very briefly that concerns me greatly. That's the area of weight coaches in this country. I am not here to talk disrespectfully about this group of people, because they've made major contributions to athletics across our country. But, ladies and gentlemen, we need to step in and be very careful about the future of this new profession. It's a profession that grew up much like training in the early days; a coach, or somebody else, just moves in and becomes our weight coach.
And, many of these people come to us primarily from a background of power lifting. Power lifting in this country is filled with the use of anabolic steroids. And as a result, we have brought into our programs a whole new profession without proper control and monitoring; without the certification procedure which we now have for trainers; without the monitoring that we now have in many of the other areas of our staffs. As a result, we have opened up a whole new area of concern that we need to address, and need to address
very seriously. We have just hired another man to take over our program and we have changed the title of that position. We changed it for a significant reason. He is now our director of conditioning, and you and I need to realize and be very careful of what we are expecting this person to do. If we put this
person in our weight room, and our football coach tells him that we need to have linemen who weigh 270 p"ounds, they'll weigh 270 pounds, however they get there. You and I need to monitor that program and be serious about it if we are ever going to attack the use of steroids in this country today. If we do that, then we've made a step in the right direction.
I've wandered around and talked about a whole lot of different things. I haven't talked about the street drug issues, and I'd be glad to talk about our testing program there, but I have addressed the area that has been primarily our concern at Vanderbilt. I've enjoyed being here and I'll be happy to he any of your questions a little bit later.
Our second speaker this morning grew up as an athletic trainer and continues as such today as the
head trainer at the University of Oklahoma. Dan Pickett, as a student, was a trainer at Aldos, Oklahoma High School. Upon graduation, he went to OU as a student trainer. He graduated from OU in 1976 and was trainer at Midwest City High School in Oklahoma and at Burtner High School in Richardson, Texas. He was then back to the Sooners as a trainer, gaining the top spot in 1979. Dan is a member of the Big 8
Committee on Medical Aspects in Sports. He is not here to tell you about roasting a pig. He is here to
visit with you about the drug testing program at OU, a successful program with a very interesting philosophic base. Dan Pickett.
DAN PICKETT ,
Thank you, Mickey. I think I would rather talk about roasting a pig because I may be the one who will get roasted this morning. Roy, you are an expert. I sat here just for a few minutes and listened to your philosophy and your approach to a grave situation in regards to sports, sports medicine and our athletes of today. You've got a great program at Vanderbilt and it's going to get better. I arrived yesterday afternoon and it only took me a few minutes to realize that every member of the Chamber of Commerce in Las Vegas are women. I was at the bar for a few minutes and thought I would have me a beer before I went up to my room. A couple of ladies came up, ve~y beautiful ladies, with a lot of jewelry and very attractive and nicely dressed. It didn't take me very long to figure out these girls aren't very bright, because they kept asking me what time it was, and then on top of that, they wanted me to light their cigarette. I questioned their priorities. In Oklahoma, people get that friendly about August when the season tickets are about to come out, so I was a little bit leery once I sat down there.
About a month ago, Mickey called me and asked me to speak for a few minutes. He gave me a rough title about one successful program and its philosophy in education associated with its execution. We started
last spring on our program and I always have to admit that the educational process has been toward myself and our department rather than our athletes. They have educated us a great deal, and when I was growing up on the farm back in Oklahoma, the only deterent I had in regards to drugs was the fact that I didn't want to ride a John Deer tractor from sun up to sun down and my daddy caught me. Needless to say, that
was a hellof a deterent, and unfortunately, many people here today don't have that situation. I would lik, to commend this group of people here this morning and your professional organization for stepping forward and admitting that there is a problem with our athletes today. 'they are ruining their health and jeopardiz' ing their careers and tarnishing something that I am very proud of, and that's sports and athletics.
I am not here to pretend that we have a terrific program at Oklahoma or that we have an ideal program. I w~ll say that we have one that we are very happy with and we are content with. We think it works. When we set out about a year ago, we knew we had a realistic goal. We knew that we were not going to stop
drug usage on our campus with our athletes. You can't stop it, but you can deter. You can slow it down. We can walk up and down the halls in our athletic dorm, where our athletes live, in three dorms where all of them are together. You can't believe the impact that you have. Where do you draw the line? Where
does the program become effective?
We had a great deal of advertising and publicity that we were really going to get into drug screening drug education and drug testing. The first week of school a young lady walked over to our team physician said, "doc, I've got a problem. I won't wait until you catch me. Can we start today?" I think right the before we really even got into the ballgame, we already had some people taking notice that it really will work, and it is. Unfortunately, there are no set guidelines on how to work a program, the philosophies yo need to take and the liabilities involved. You are going to have about 100 different philosophies and different ways of doing it. But, the bottom line is just reduce drug usage and it will work. It really will. Maybe it is a social problem that we are trying to deal with, but our approach to solve that proble is through the medical philosophy. We deal with this as a medical problem. You will see where I'm coming from in just a second. As with most programs,the purpose is to obviously deter drug use and also to educa those young men and women on what they are really flirting with. Our program is set up on an individual basis. In other words, if we have an athlete who is positive on a test, the program that they will go through is for them. The athlete next in line may not have the exact same philosophical approach to it. Because those two people were brought up differently, they are from different parts of the country. Thei homes were different. Their peer groups are different. These people who come into our school, as Roy said, it's high school and even earlier that they start smoking pot. Once they realize that they do have an athletic ability, they start experimenting with the anabolic steroids. A very interesting thing that ] noticed in the past year; I can take an athlete and call this person into my office and shut the door and I can start talking to this person about drugs, cocaine, qualudes, PCP, hashish and all of those illegal street drugs, and they will sit right there and just tell me the damndest stories you've ever heard. The} tell me everything. We have very good conversation generally. The second that I change the subject and start speaking about anabolic steroids the conversation totally changes. I'll notice anger. I'll notice fear. I'll notice resentment from them. The conversation doesn't go very much further than that. For sc reason, they accept street drugs as a way of life. They can deal with it. But, once you start questionir them about anabolic steroids, you have just opened a new can of worms. That is something that they reall) cherish --the privilege that they can use anabolic steroids and it's not illegal. It's not an illegal dl How they get it maybe, but it's not illegal. As athletic trainer, you know when we go out on the footbalJ field and it's 110 degrees and the humidity is up there pretty high, we go out there and a young man
just dropped. We roll him over. Boy, I'll tell you what, I sure hope he's not on drugs, because when we try to determine if he has a head or a neck injury and his pupils are not the way they are supposed to be in regards to reacting to light, it sure puts an awful lot of liability on our part. I think with this drug screening and druge"duca:tionprogram that we have, we are beginning to see some light.
We have been somewhat cirticized because of our light nature in regards to punitive action. If we bring an athlete in, we test him or her. If we get a positive, the protocol goes something like this: I' simply call the athlete in. The team physician may be present or he may not be, and I'll simply sit down and ask this athlete if he or she has a problem. Is this recreational use of smoking pot? What happened: What's the deal? Talk to me about it. They will all say, "it was just one of those things. I was with a bunch of people the other night, we beat Nebraska and it was just celebrating. I smoked a little pot, and that is about all there is to it." I'll also inform them what will happen on a second and third and fourth positive. On a first positive, that young person has just entered our drug program. Now, he mayor she may not really realize, it, but we have their number on a first positive that gives us the go-ahead to test them any time, day or night, for the next four years; on a first positive. On a second positive, things change just a little bit. We'll call them in. We'll get their mom and dad's phone numbe as soon as they sit down. I tell them this is number two. This is your second positive. On a second positive, we call mom and dad. The team physician obviously would probably be there too, and you get to call your mom and dad yourself and you tell them that you do drugs. This is your second positive. You a still flirting with it. Now we have you on a number two. Now it's your chance to tell your mom and dad you have a drug problem. You'll also tell your mom and dad that we are going to enter you into a drug program.
The first step of our drug program is a personality profile that is examined with the psychologist. feel that's a very critical part of our individualized program. Find out what makes this young man or young lady tick. It's amazing some of the things that we come up with; child beatings, being molested wl they were children, thoughts of suicide. It scares you when you are talking with the young man with a psychologist about some of those things. It'll scare you to death. This athlete will stay in the progr~ until the psychologist determines you can let him out. If the psychologist determines that this athlete our physicians determine this athlete, needs to be entered into an inpatient or an outpatient hospital, I do so. We've got an athlete right now in the hospital. We tell the athlete also in a number two, no
one knows about this except yourself, myself, our team physician, the psychologist and your mom and dad. The coaches know nothing about this. This is a medical problem. You have to convince these people that program is for them. It's for them and their teammates. If they really believe that it is for them, thl response and reaction that you will get from them I think will be much improved. If for some reason, thl athlete drops out of the program on a second positive, at that time we would notify his head coach; not the assistant coach, the head coach. Now if they stay in the program and do just fine, no one knows abol it.
Now let's say time goes along, and unfortunately, we get a third positive on this particular person.
Once again, we will call him back into the training room, call mom and dad again. We'll bring the head coach in and the athlete will be re-entered back into the drug program. We'll start allover. This is on a third positive. No punitive action. As time goes along we get a fourth positive. By that time the athlete has probably flunked out of school or decided the water is too darn hot and it's time to get out. He is
going to transfer. I realize we didn't cure his problem, but we tried with no punitive action taken. If we get a fourth positive, the athletic director, our team physician, myself, that particular coach, the parents and the athlete will sit down and have a little pow wow. We'll take the recommendations that
the doctors give. If the doctors decide that this particular person is truly an adolescent delinquent and we are not going to reform this particular person, because in his opinion drugs are just fine, if he can
come up with the money, he can do some cocaine, it's no big deal. If he truly believes that it's just fine, we are not going to rehab that person. It can't be done, but we may be sincere in our honest effort to provide a program for him or her to go through.
I think one of the biggest controversies about drug screening programs is the waivers. The only waiver our athletes must sign is a parental notification on a second positive. In other words, they sign a form that gives us permission to talk to mom and dad about their drug problem on a second positive. I think it's the privacy act in 1974. Scott can tell you about that. But, we do not ask the athlete to sign a
form to leave a sample as part of his scholarship. It's one of those things you kind of have to read in between the lines. The drug screening in Oklahoma is done by the athletic trainers; myself and my two full-time assistants.
I would like to leave you this. It is a tremendous burden on my job as an athletic trainer. But personally, I believe in it very strongly and it really doesn't upset me. A number of trainers who are
friends of mine have expressed a deep concern that we are going to start a trend where all of the athletic trainers are going to be screening for drugs and we don't have time. Well, that's true. We don't have
time. Some say we are not counselors, that's true. I'm not a counselor, but everyday when I walk into that training room, something is going to happen that I become a friend of one of these boys and girlR- I've got to talk to. We are trained to tape ankles and examine knees and make doctors appointments and negotiate with the players as to who is going to work out and who isn't. It is something that is awfully burdensome to the athletic trainer, but I am going to do it. He do we do it? Number one, our procedures are random selection. Our athletes have no idea when we are going to screen, when we are going to test.
They have absolutely no idea. People who have drug screening programs that have scheduled dates, November I, March 31, I really don't believe that you have a true deterent program. They know when they are going to be tested or have some idea. If they know when they are going to be tested twice a year, you know
they can probably float through it and probably do some of the things they've always done. It's complete random selection. With our football squad, I divided the team up into seven groups. I had anywhere from 13 to 15 people per group. They had no idea when it was their day. Each of the seven groups had "x" number of seniors, "x" number of juniors, sophomores, red shirt freshmen, and freshmen. Each group
in order that these kids feel that it was in fairness to everyone, I didn't say OK today, I'm going to test all of the running backs, tomorrow I'm going to test all of the defensive backs, I didn't break it up that way. I screened the football players and each player left a total of II samples with me this past year.
Eleven times they had to urinate in front of me or my two assistants. Now that's just football. We test primarily for marijuana and cocaine, since those are generally the two that we're familiar with. Unfortunate- ly, there, we may have missed a few amphetamines or a few qualudes, but if we get a positive on an
athlete, we call them in on number one or number two or number three. If they say the machine doesn't
work, you've made a mistake, there's an error, that's not my sample, we simply take another sample right there. We carry that sample across campus to our health center and have it rechecked by a different
method, a gas spectrometer, which is much more delicate and much more scientific. That situation happened
last year. An athlete said our machine was wrong, he did not smoke any marijuana. I said, "very well, I'II take your word for it and I believe you, but in all fairness to everyone on your club, I will have to send your sample to Oklahoma City and have it rechecked." He said, "that's the thing to do." We got the sample back and he had marijuana, cocaine and speed. This kid was all messed up. I called him in the next day
and said, "we got your sample back. We found ahell of a lot more than what you probably wanted us to find." He just sat there and grinned and kind of shrugged his shoulders, and that was about it.
Like I say, we don't have the ideal program, but we do have one that is going to deter drug usage. We are very proud of it. One of the criticisms that I have had in regards to our program is our active role in the counseling on a first positive and a second positive and even on a third positive. Even though it's not a big role, we do participate to some degree. Some of my critics say I am not a drug counselor. Well, that's true, I'm not. Every time that I walk into a training room on any day of the week, the potential for me to make a wrong decision is great; whether it's looking at a young man with a sore throat and sending him to the doctor. Every day we touch on the liability of it, and this is just one of the things that we are just going to have to live with. We are going to have to deal with it.
Well, neither was I prepared this spring when we sent a young man over to the doctor who had been feeling tired and weak. He is one of our golfers. About a week or so later, he came back to the training room and said we needed to talk. He just came back from the hemotologist, that's a blood specialist. I said I just
had a few minutes. We've got to have the kids on the practice field here in about an hour, but let's sit down. What's the problem? He shut the door and he said, "I've got leukemia. Would you be here when I call mom and daddy." I wasn't ready for that. That's part of it. We are friends of those kids and we love them and that's why I'm going to fight for the drug screening and drug education, because I believe in it. Thank
MICKEY HOLMES :
Thank you, Dan. Anchoring for us today is maybe the most eligible bachelor at the NACDA Convention, Mr. Surfboard USA, Scott Zolke, the academic counselor and legal counsel at Georgia Tech. A native of Chicago, Scott attended Niles West High School. He first started college at the University of Missouri, where he was a frustrated wishbone quarterback. He transferred to Georgia Tech where he received his BS degree in 1976 and from there he went to the University of Miami, from which he earned his JD degree in 1979. So Roy, we do have an attorney here today. Almost three years ago, he went back to Tech from a law firm in Chicago where he specialized in litigation and appellate practice. He was instrumental in
the development and implementation of Tech's testing program. Scott has also done extensive legal research in the area of "to test or not to test." Scott's approach will be a form of preventative maintenance testing and other attendant problems. Scott Zolke.
First I want to say, unconditionally, I support Roy Kramer along with your bro-thers. Shakespeare
said that a way to straighten the world out is to kill all of the attorneys. After practicing criminal defense law in Chicago, in which I was defending a great number of people who were allegedly involved in the sale and transportation of drugs, I think I know enough about the problems with intruding on this
area so as to be able to help you implement a program. I'll say up front that I am very much in support of drug screening. I do feel that it is legal. I think that we should not kid ourselves. Let's do something to protect against the possibility of a lawsuit. I'll tell all of you this; anyone in this country can sue anyone, so there is no guarantee that you will not be sued, but there are things that we can do to ensure that we prevail, if in fact, that occurs. A study was completed at the end of 1984 which showed that American industry is losing $25 billion a year because of slowed productivity, lateness and absenteeism directly related to drug usage. That's recreational drug usage. That's not drug usage on the job. Therefore, it's the American industry that is being succumbed to this incredible deficit financially. I think we can all agree that college athletics, being but a small part of society, is going to suffer its sh! of that loss. It's up to us to do something about it.
In determining whether or not to test, the key word is, reasonable. What is reasonable? Reasonable- ness, the courts have told us, is measured really by three things. I'll give you these three ideas and you can draw your own conclusion. One, is contact. How much contact are you having with the individual? I submit to you that the urine test is probably the least intrusive measure, and, therefore, I don't think there is a problem with urine. You may have a little bit more of a problem to deal with if you are taking blood tests, but with urine tests there's absolutely no intrusion, as far as going into the body itself.
The second area that the courts wil~ use in determining reasonableness is the exposure of intimate body parts. Certainly, we all know that we have to have some measure, some protection, so that we can ensure that the urine specimen that's being given to us is that urine of that individual. Whether we need to have someone stand with their face into the indiviual's private parts is really a question.
Whether we merely watch them go into an empty cup and come out. Stand behind them, by all means. It is important that you ensure this accuracy and that someone monitor the elimination process, but the nature of the exposure is certainly something that we need to be aware of.
The third and final area is force. Are you threatening? Are you putting a gun to their head? Force is something we will get into a little bit later. As we balance the interest of your program with the interest of the individual, the right to privacy and this area of constitutional law is something that everybody screams about. Implicit in the first amendment, the fourth amendment, ninth amendment and the l4th amendment is this area that we should be left alone. Our private affairs should not be exposed publically. Every state, in its own constitution, deals with privacy. Every state in its own municipal and local laws deals with privacy.
Case law has evolved, probably in the last 25 years, which recognizes a tort that is an infringement of a person's privacy; where you have intruded upon the seclusion of the solitude of that individual. However, in order for there to pe an intrusion, you must have some kind of physical trespass. It is for that reason that I contend, that regardless of the United States Constitution, regardless of the state constitution and state laws, urine testing is not a physical trespass, unlike the blood test and unlike that individual's body. The screening of urine is not an invasion, so I don't think there is any law, whether it be by statute or by case decision, that makes the act of urine screening itself illegal; or would give rise to liability. It's what you do afterwards that could cause problems. This is what we will discuss -flagrant breaches of decency or propriety. That is an abuse of the testing procedure it- self which might be found in harassment; which might be found in sending a male trainer into monitor an
elimination by a female athlete. Things like this your common sense can dictate. These are the only areas that you might get yourself in trouble.
For instance, this past .March the United States Supreme Court was asked to rule on what is flagrant and what is a breach of decency. A case arose where there had been an armed robbery and the store
clerk who was being robbed was able to get a shot off and hit his robber somewhere in the shoulder or the chest. About two hours later, an individual who fit the description of this alleged robber showed up at a hospital with a bullet wound. When the medical authorities started to get their procedures going to remove the bullet, he said no, knowing that the only way he could be linked to that robbery was to match the bullet with the gun. The State of Virginia petitioned the court and tried to get an order to force him to submit to surgery to have the bullet removed. Oddly enough, Virginia, being a conservative state, said, yes, he must be operated on and have that bullet removed. They found that because it was just
under the skin, the intrusion could be done under a local anesthetic. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed that, and said no, you cannot force a person to go through surgery for the removal of a bullet. They set forth two criteria to measure the intrusion. The first criterion is, does the procedure threaten health? Does it threaten the person's health? The second question is, how much of any intrusion and how does it affect the person's interest? How embarrassing is it to a person?
I submit to you that one, a urine test for drug screening poses no health threat to an individual, and secondly, the intrusion is no more so than a community shower; a locker room situation, and therefore, I think under this recent ruling you are going to find that the screening procedure itself is absolutely
not a problem. A question you also want to ask yourself is, are there any other methods that you could
use that are less intrusive? Is there an easier way to go through it? One of the things that we've done is take a urine specimen as a manner of procedure during the annual physical that everybody goes through. My thought there being, once they've given, they implic~tly waive any argument down the road to say that is
just too much. The fact is, you submitted to a physical and there was no problem then, so there should be no problem if we want to test you every week or every other night, or whatever.
Now, what are some of the things that you can do to safeguard? First, and very very important, is let the student-athletes know what you are doing. Informed consent, in this concept, is that the student-athletes are making a knowing and intelligent decision to go through this drug testing. Secondly, do not threaten to take their scholarship away if they fail to sign a consent. Just do it. It's like
two fighters. If you tell a guy you're getting ready to punch him in the face, he's going to hit you firSt. Don't threaten. Do what you must do. Make your own policy. I'm not saying whether it's going to be
legal or illegal to pull a scholarship because someone refuses to go through a testing procedure, but I will say this, if you threaten to take a scholarship refusal, then you are really going to invite legal problems. Keep in mind that our constitution guarantees merely a society of free choice. People may not agree on what those choices are. You may not agree on the choice that your student-athletes make, but the bottom line is, provide them with an opportunity to make a free choice. Educate them on what you are doing.
Keep in mind also, that once you've initiated your testing procedures, you are not required to specify what you are testing for. You don't have to tell them. Once you have received your sample there are
many chemica~that can be used to check for the presence of steroids, the presence of cocaine, marijuana, alcohol, whatever. These vary in price. Everybody's budget is not going to be the same. The
practicalities of certain testing is going to be different for any two programs. But the bottom line is, you can test for whatever you want to and you don't have to tell them specifically what you are testing for; merely the consent that they are giving a urine sample for the screening and the presence of any pharmaceuti- calor nonprescription drug or alcohol.
Now with that in mind, I was reading through the NCAA booklet last week and I came across a couple
of recommendations. Policies are in the booklet now that I think can be incorporated into the NCAA plan. The first one is recommended policy No.9, that deals with medical examinations which encourages medical examinations. The second policy that helps to empower the institutions to do this type of thing, is
policy 10, dealing with nontherapeutic drugs. Let me read you section 2 of policy No. 10. All member institutions, their athletics staffs and their student-athletes, should assert aggressively their wholesome influences in combating the usages of nontherapeutic drugs among the nation's youth. Well, right there, you have what I think is enough power, through the Executive Committee, that gives you the authority, although not explicit, at least in an explicit sense, to test for drugs.
Because of this policy, we should be exerting whatever influence we can to combat the use of nontherapeutic drugs. A steroid used to build muscle and bulk is nontherapeutic. Speed to cause a
player to play with more reckless abandon that he would otherwise have, isnontherapeutic. Muscle relaxers to enable an athelte to compete with severe injury is nontherapeutic. As such, you are invading no
medical area in terms of a privacy question by banning the usage and by telling your athletes, upfront, that you are going to check to ensure and to deter usage. Those should be the two policies. You are
running a check and balance to keep your programs clean, and two, you are trying to deter the use through
the testing of drugs. Possible problems? There is a lawsuit that has been filed two weeks ago in Atlanta
on behalf of a high school student, because she was put through a drug test. The big argument, and a very novel one, is that there is a lack of regulations for the analytical practice in the laboratories. So, if
you send your drug, your urine specimens out to the laboratories, one of the areas that is right now creating a great problem, is that the testing that is done by the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta has found that there are inaccuracies. That's because the labs do not yet have a federal or a local statute guideline such as a lie detector test. There can be problems and conflicts. The way to protect yourself, if an athlete comes back and says this is wrong, give him an immediate retest and make the results of that test known to that person. If you do that, then you can protect yourself from any claim of unfair testing or from inaccuracy. Let him submit to an immediate retest and make the results present to that student-athlete.
The second thing that we need to do in order to cover ourselves is ban together to get these fees reasonable. Right now, the cost of testing for anabolic steroids is very, very high. Something needs to be done to set forth a structure so that the cost prohibitive nature of certain tests is made a little
bit easier. Right now the CDC, the Center For Disease Control, has found that in certain labs, inaccuracies have gone anywhere from 37 percent to 69 percent, and that's strictly because every lab has a different procedure. There is no standardized procedures for those labs to follow, therefore, you in your own programs set forth procedures to ensure that at your end of the screening is done very methodically. Everything is done with checks and balances to ensure that there is no confusion or mix-up. Once again, I am talking about your liability. If the lab messes up, and it gets sued, that's not your problem. As long as you can show that you took reasonable steps to ensure that the urine specimens were mark~d and were followed through and that there was no confusion. You've not done anything that you need to be worried about.
The case in Atlanta poses three questions that are going to continually come up as we build this
drug program. One is, how accurate are the lab tests anyway? If there is one study done to show that inaccuracies may go as high as 69 per~ent, I'll go out and find an expert who can show you that the inaccuracies are less than one percent. That's just the way the law of practice is. You give me an expert, and I'll give you an expert. So I don't worry about that. The other two areas that we all need
to be concerned of is one, are we doing everything that we can do to ensure that the results of those tesb are kept confidential? What I fear are lawsuits where some player turns up positive and the information leaks. It runs in the press and that person either loses employment or suffers severe emotional distress, and turns around and sues because there was a breach of confidentiality. Have guidelines to ensure that you know the people who are supposed to keep that information, and that those people keep that information confidential. We cannot prevent leaks. Leaks can occur. However, you better have guidelines so in case that ever comes up, you can show you did everything reasonable to ensure that the only people who would have the results will be the player, the trainer, the coach and the team doctor; and those results are kept either in the offices of the club physicians or theyare kept in a locked filed cabinet in the trainer office.
The third and the final area that we need to be concerned about respects the treatment of those individuals after they have been found to be positive. I know that proposal number 89, pending before the NCAA convention, would make the schools able to pay for drug rehabilitation. An area that is yet untested is, if we are going to test these kids and we are going to identify them, then don't we have an obligation to do something further? The whole defense that I throw to the people who are going to say thj is an invasion of privacy, is to say we have the best interest of these kids at heart. tve are not on a witch hunt. We are trying to keep our programs clean. We are trying to maintain the integrity of intercollegiate athletics. I think it's critical that the NCAA take measures to provide for treatment following identification. Otherwise, the argument that we have their best interest at heart and the argu! that we are merely trying to maintain the integrity of intercollegiate athletics goes out the window, because you are not doing anything after you identify them. In affect, you are on a witch hunt. So, I think this is something that the NCAA must consider and must realize if we are going to incorporate an overall plan. That plan is going to be consistent with privacy rights and it's going to be consistent with the policies and regulations of the NCAA. It's also going to be for the betterment of the programs and the betterment of the student-athletes. We must be able to take that second step and provide for the treatment and the rehabilitation of those identified.
Right now, 25 percent of all Fortune 500 companies are drug screening. They are telling their employees to be screened or to be fired. That number will climb through 1985. People are telling their employees, "we don't care what you do on this job." The only drawback I can give you about drug testing is that the tests merely show the presence of drugs. They don't show what affect that drug has on the individual. Now I've stood up here for about 25 or 30 minutes and given you many reasons why we should drug test. The only single reason that I can come up with negative, is that the tests merely shows presence. It doesn't showaffect. I submit to you that the unique aspect of intercollegiate athletics, u~ique strains and stresses that are put on the bodies of these young people, the extreme conditions in 1 these student-athletes are having to perform, make the argument that you don't know what affect it has
a very, very weak one. Because that, my friends, is the exact reason we should be testing. We don't kn, what affect it could have. Therefore, why take chances? Why run the risk that someone might die? Why the risk that someone might be permanently injured or damaged? Make that risk zero and screen for the presence of these athletes.
I'm very very much in favor of this testing. I think that we can all continue to do things to protect ourselves and make any argument against testing a very weak argument. I encourage all of us, in whatever input we can have in the NCAA, to support the passage of Proposition 89, which would permit the institutions to provide for the rehabilitation and treatment of the athletes. Thank you.
MICKEY HOLMES :
We do have some time left if there are any questions. Feel free to ask them of anyone of the three panelists, or all of them. I would remind you though, that if you ask a question, please state your name and affiliation. Questions?
Tom Shupe from West Virginia University. We have just completed our second year of street drug testing and we are very proud of it. I wanted to say, in support of, Scott's comments that if the NCAA doesn't pass Proposition 89, we are all out of the water. I think that is very, very critical. I wanted to issue my endorsement of that comment. For Roy, I'II tell you one thing at West Virginia, what the program has brought to us, is that the street drug testing has come. It's in place and we are fairly comfortable with it. It's brought the social life of our student-athlete into the athletic directors office. Now what we have are steroids and that's, as you mentioned, probably our biggest concern.
I want to ask you, and you can just nod your head on this, do you test only football players and basketball players? You said 150 athletes. It is cost prohibitive. It's expensive. Right now there are two certified laboratories; really one and a half certified laboratories in the United States for steroid testing. One is in Los Angeles, which was set up by the Olympic Committee. The second is in Indianapolis. That's the one we are using. It is certified, not totally certified, but partially certified under the IOC. Those are the only two. Now that number will increase because of the interest in it right now. I'm not here to stay, but there will be a laboratory on our campus in our medical school in the department of pathology, that within a year we think will be certified by the IOC. When you get four, five, six of these, I think the cost will come down. One more thing, and I'll sit down.
I would like to direct this question to Dan. Athletic trainers have come so far and been so cooperative in adding to their work load for street drug testing. Now comes a philosophical concern among trainers and coaches about the steroids. What is the trainers Association's philosophy towards the steroid concern, aside from the drug testing.
Our philosophy from an Athletic Trainers Association runs parallel with the American Medical
Group, the AMA. It is not condoned in our world. It is not condoned because of the medical risks
that are involved. Especially with the liver and some of the other internal organs. But, our national group, as a matter of fact, is meeting this week in San Antonio. They shipped me up here for some reason. I'm trying to take a hint maybe. It is not accepted at all. Like Mr. Kramer brought up, we are
regulated closely by our peers. We care who wins and who loses, but we are there working for physicians
to keep our people and your people on the field and healthy. We are really not threatened by the win-loss record. We are threatened if we take part in possibly harming a young athlete. It is a taboo situation all the way through.
Unfortunately with the strength coaches, I do not think their organization at this point is professionally and medically oriented as the Athletic Trainers Association. I hope they get there, because we work very closely with the weight coaches, strength coaches, conditioning coaches or whatever you want to call them. It's important that they assume those same medical liabilities as the athletic trainer has.
Scott, both Roy and Dan speak of the signing waivers
Would those hold up in the courts?
The intrusion itself, I don't think is severe enough to warrant even the need of any waiver. What we have them sign is a consent which re-establishes the fact that they've been advised and informed what we are doing. That they are making a knowing and voluntary decision to submit. They understand that we will permit them to inspect the results of their tests, which comes under the Family Privacy Act of 1974 One of the things that act calls for is that people are able to correct any inaccuracies. That's one
of the things that I stress. If someone comes in and says that test is inaccurate, you want to let them know that they have the right to come in and challenge it, be retested and be shown the results.
The second aspect of that is to let them know that you are going to keep those results confidential You are not going to make a press release that so and so was kicked off the football team because he is
on cocaine. If there is a situation, there is no comment. If the press wants to speculate, then the pres: can run the risk that they get sued for libel. It is our policy that we are treating it as a medical situation. It's between the doctor and the trainer and the coach and the player. The player knows that
we have the right to call the parents, if the player won't. We are trying to let that player know that he is making an informed decision.
What if they refuse to give complete consent? I was stressing you don't tell the kid, "if you don't consent, you are off the team." But you can do that, if that is what you want to do. If you want to refuse to let that player participate, then the response can be something very simply, that until we have a urine specimen and we can check you, we can't certify you as medically able to compete. Therefore, you are willfully making yourself unable to play, and pursuant to the NCAA bylaws with respect to financial aid, we may exercise our right to terminate you.
Scott, all three of you, I think your presentations were wonderful. I do have one problem that I
wish you would help us through. If the NCAA allows the institutions to pay for rehabilitation in youngsterl who have participated in drug abuse, my concern is, how are you going to get enough money to do it? And if you do it, which we would all like to do, where do you stop? What about the youngster who has psychological problems? My point is that drug abuse, except for steroids, is not a sports related problem. They may have psychological problems, but it's not a sports related problem. Where do we draw the line between helping a youngster because we think it's the right and the fine thing to do, and having enough money to do the things that are not sports related?
SCOTT ZOLKE :
The first thing is, you must test them before they enroll. So, the first determination you are
going to make is, are they coming here clean or are they coming here with a problem. Now if you determine that they are coming there with a problem, you have no obligation whatsoever, because in fact, I can see
a question of fraud as far as the student-athlete is concerned with the institution. If that student-athlel is bringing in a drug problem, then my position would be very strongly that I don't think that institution has any obligation on the grant-in-aid. It may be the obligation of the parents or of the social communit~ Now, once they come to the institution, if they develop a problem, you know that problem could be caused from any number of factors. I think it then does become at least the interest of the athletic
department, in that you've initially expended whatever monies it cost to send that kid through a semester
or a year. To lose that individual because of a drug problem at that point, really isn't a wise financial decision. With respect to the continuing treatment, we have in the NCAA a one-year scholarship. My proposal would be that you advise these people that this is a year-to-year thing. We have to renew you. If we find that you are positive in February, we are going to work with you until July, then we have got to make a decision, ethically and morally, as to whether it's in our best interest and whether it's in your best interest to renew you for the next year. And, with that renewel, of course, would come drug rehabilitation. So, I think it is the kind of thing that could be incorporated into the philosophy of the year-to-year scholarship and the year-to-year provision of medical treatment.
MICKEY HOLMES :
Do we have any more questions? If not, I would like to thank all of you for coming this morning. It was early. I would also like to thank our panelists for a job well done and ask all of you to thank them also. Lastly, if I am reading my watch correctly, we do have a break now before the 10:30 sessions, and I'd invite all of you to visit with our exhibitors. They are fine supporters of NACDA. Thank you.