Regulations vary widely from organization to organization. What lies at the heart of a drug policy though, is the integrity of the sport. Poor drug enforcement merely encourages the use of dietary supplements and steroids – what is to stop them? Most athletes feel obligated to participate in the drug use just to compete. However, strict drug policing maintains the reputation of not only the league and/or the competition, but also of the sport and the athletes themselves. The safety of the athletes is priority. It should be a true contest fought by clean athletes.

NCAA Regulation

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is by far the strictest governing body of any sport. Testing is random and extremely thorough with a laundry list of banned drugs. Below is what the NCAA has on banned substances:

(NCAA; DCSAH handout 2004)

The list is extensive, yet not totally exclusive. The NCAA treats the student-athlete’s participation in sports as a privilege, not a right. “If you participate in a Division I NCAA sport, you also agree to be tested on a year-round basis for anabolic agents, diuretics, ephedrine and urine manipulators” (DCSAH 2004). The privilege of playing a collegiate sport can easily be revoked at any time for many reasons, from academics to professional/amateur status. However, the use of performance enhancers has always been yet another reason for suspension. In the results of the NCAA Drug Testing from the 2002-2003 academic year, there were 103 positive tests out of 10,791 tests (NCAA 2003). That means that less than 1 percent of student athletes were found to use drugs – a staggeringly low statistic considering the shear number of athletes playing, and the intense competition with its high stakes.

The NCAA testing procedure is very thorough. Testing occurs year round at any school that sponsors a Division I sport for which the NCAA sponsors post-season competition. Division II schools that have post season competition sponsored by the NCAA can also be subject to testing. Drug testing begins in August and runs through the end of the academic year. It can happen more than once a year on each campus. A notice of testing is given no more than 48 hours before testing. For division I institutions, a testing will include 18 football athletes and 8 athletes from one other sport. The NCAA determines the individuals chosen for urinalysis testing. A positive test carries major consequences: “…you will be ineligible to participate in regular-season and postseason competition for one calendar year after your positive drug test and you will be charged with the loss of a minimum of one season of competition in all sports…” (DCSAH 2004). A second positive test renders you ineligible for any remaining seasons you might have been eligible for in any sport. Obviously this policy is responsible for the very low incidence of drug use in college athletics – it’s simply not worth it. The testing is too rigorous and random, and the consequences too dire.

The NCAA does not have any tolerance for ignorance as well. Many nutritional supplements contain banned substances, and student-athletes could unwittingly. A positive result automatically puts the athlete tested ineligible, regardless of the circumstances.

World Anti-Doping Agency Regulations

In the Olympics, there are regulations according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Surprisingly enough, the banned substance list is very similar to the NCAA list – both extremely comprehensive. The WADA’s list includes stimulants, narcotics, cannabinoids (i.e. marijuana, hashish), anabolic agents, peptide hormones, beta-2 agonists, agents with anti-oestrogenic activity (only in males), masking agents, and glucocorticosteroids (WADA 2004). Within the WADA’s prohibited list for 2004, there is a section specifically on prohibited methods, which includes enhancement of oxygen transfer and gene doping. Genetic engineering is on the rise, especially with stem cells, and sooner rather than later, it will have an impact in the quickly advancing arms race of performance enhancement (Wadler 1999).

In a test of Olympic vs. non-Olympic sports, it was found that Olympic sports had a slightly higher incidence of doping, as compared to non-Olympic sports.

WADA 2003. http://www.wadaama.org/docs/web/research_science/2003_Labstats_FINAL.pdf

Also in an Olympic sport analysis, it was found that the sports with the highest incidence of “adverse analytical findings” were weight-lifting (2.06%), baseball (2.47%), boxing (3.68%), and cycling (3.93%) (WADA 2003). High incidence rates were also found in the following countries: Belgium (4.21%), France (6.00%), and Malaysia (6.56%) (WADA 2003).

All of the 202 national Olympic committees have signed and adopted the World Anti-Doping Code, which is quite extensive, but flexible with the different resources each nation has. There are many other international and national sport federations that have signed onto the code as well. The code is often used as a guideline for sports federations that can adopt the code and implement it if they wish. For instance, often the banning of cannabinoids (i.e. marijuana) is left optional, so the adopting federation can make the choice in order to maintain the sport’s integrity and reputation. Although it is ironic that many international sporting associations have signed on, it is conspicuous to note that none of the professional leagues in the United States (i.e. Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, etc.) have adopted the World Anti-Doping Code.

The World Anti-Doping Agency has strict guidelines, and testing is just as stringent. If an athlete is tested positive for a steroid, he/she faces a minimum two-year ban. A second positive results in a lifetime ban (Wilson 2003). The WADA has very little tolerance for doping in sport. Not only do many major organizations sign onto the policy, but the WADA’s example sets a precedent for other major athletic organizations to follow. Often financial reasons and logistics of testing become aggregating factors in the implementation of these guidelines. For instance, it may be viable for the U.S. to test every track and field athlete at least once a year, but a poorer, third world country may not be able to financially support this policy. Perhaps they would find it possible to test on a random basis, such as one in every five athletes. The Olympics, however, have rigid, standard testing. Regardless, the World Anti-Doping Agency provides excellent guidelines for any sporting organization.

NFL Regulations

The major leagues in the United States have widely varied policies. Usually the policy is left up to the respective players’ associations to make. These players unions are strong groups who ultimately have the last word in drug regulation.

The National Football League has an excellent policy: all players are subject to testing at least once a year, usually during pre-season. However, they are also eligible for weekly testing throughout the regular season, post-season and off-season. Random players are selected from each team each week. Moreover, there is “Reasonable cause testing for players with prior steroid involvement or where medical or behavioral evidence warrants” (NFLPA Steroid Policy 2003). Proving how random the testing was, Dan Marino says he was “tested eight times in one season” (Collinsworth 2003).

Steroid violations are taken very seriously. NFL recreational drug tests are given to players with plenty of advance notice, and it takes two positive tests before suspension. If an athlete were to fail these tests, there would have to be a serious addiction problem, and the player is given help at this stage (Collinsworth 2003) However, with steroid positives, an automatic 4 game suspension is given. A second positive results in a 6 game suspension and a third violation is given at least a one-year suspension (NFLPA Anabolic Steroids 2003).

Why does the NFL have such a tough drug policy? Imagine if they did not. Football is a sport that requires immense physical strength and size, and anabolic steroids are the perfect drugs to obtain those characteristics. If the linemen of today were to start to use steroids, just fathom how much bigger and stronger they could be. The average size of an offensive lineman in the NFL is about 6’4”, 300 pounds – they already are huge and powerful, and if they had that much more brawn, it could be dangerous. Steroids are already known for increasing the likelihood of injury because the muscles, tendons, and bones are not used to the kind of weight and stress steroids permit. But if these bigger, stronger guys were now hitting and tackling smaller guys, the likelihood for injury would increase dramatically. A strict steroid policy levels the playing the field, maintains the character of the sport, and the health of the athletes. It is a shame other major sport organizations do not have as thorough drug regulations as the NFL.

NBA Regulations

The National Basketball Association has a less strict drug policy at best. Testing for veteran players (i.e. any player that is not in his first year) is done no more than once each season and occurs during training camp. For a traded player, there is no more than one test and it is done within the first 15 days of joining the team. One test only is completed for veteran players. First year players are to be tested no more than once during training camp, and no more than 3 times during the regular season (NBPA 2001). NBA in season testing is essentially non-existent for everyone except first year players. The penalties are even more of a mockery.

If a player were to test positive for marijuana, they would have to enter into the Marijuana Program, which is basically a rehabilitation program. The second violation requires the player to enter into the program and pay a $15,000 fine. Finally, for the third violation, and any subsequent violation, the player would have to enter into the Marijuana Program, and be suspended for 5 games (NBPA 2001). Therefore the player could continue to play in the NBA, and simply serve the 5 game suspension and still be a part of the program, for each violation thereafter: hence continue his habit while still playing in the NBA.

For the use of possession of steroids there are slightly stricter violation consequences. The first violation of the steroid policy, which includes a positive test or possession, the player is suspended for 5 games and enters into the Steroid Program, another rehabilitation program. A second violation requires the player to be suspended for 10 games, and to re-enter into the Steroid Program. For a third violation, and any subsequent violation, the player must serve a 25 game suspension and enter into the Steroid Program for a third time. These consequences can be quite severe once a player gets to strike three, but to even test positive once, with the advance notice of testing, would be highly unlikely (NBPA 2001).

MLB Regulation

Although the NBA runs a tight shift once a player is found to be in violation, Major League Baseball’s drug policy is a travesty. Senator John McCain claims that baseball has a “legitimacy” problem and “The integrity of the sport and the American people demand a certain level of adherence and standards that are frankly not being met at this time” (AP 2004). Major League Baseball’s Players’ Association (MLBPA) set forth in 2002’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that Survey Testing would be implemented in 2003, where the players would be tested for steroids and if more than 5% of the players tested positive, then a regular testing program (Program Testing) would be employed (CBA 2002). A positive test in Survey Testing would have no repercussions. The Program Testing began in 2004 because 5-7% of the 1,438 tests done in 2003 were positive (Bodley 2003). Program Testing involves two unannounced tests, an initial and a follow-up within a week of the initial test. If a player were to test positive initially but negative on the follow-up, the test would be considered negative. This loophole allows players to test positive, and then sufficiently drain their system of the drug and test negative on the follow-up. Penalties are as follows: 1 st violation – treatment only, 2 nd violation – 15-day suspension without pay or up to a $10,000 fine; 3 rd violation – 25-day suspension without pay or up to a $25,000; 4 th violation – 50-day suspension without pay or up to a $50,000; 5 th violation – one-year suspension without pay or a fine up to $100,000 (Bodley 2003).

In response to the MLB’s drug regulation, chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency Dick Pound commented:

I think it’s a complete and utter joke. You can test positive for a steroid five times, then they think of booting you out for a year? Give me a break. The first time someone has knowingly cheated and they give you counseling? It’s a complete and utter joke (Wilson 2003).

Senator Jay Rockefeller goes on to criticize.

I blame the union. The union over the years has been very destructive on this. They’re not helpful. I blame management. I blame the administration of the league for not cracking down at what is such an obvious problem, which is an embarrassment to the United States, which is hurtful to fans all over the country (AP 2004).

Gene Orza, the unions’ associate general counsel, has claimed that random drug testing automatically presumes a player’s guilt and is a violation of one’s privacy (Fainaru 2004). In reference to the NFL’s Players’ Association, Orza said, “Some other unions do it differently, but they value peace more than justice, in my estimation” (Fainaru 2004). Peace over justice? Bud Selig, commissioner of the MLB, clearly has stated that the drug policy was nearly forced on the administration, short of a strike, leaving him with little choice. In the hearings in Washington, Selig defended himself by stating, “We accepted less than we wanted because, in my judgment as the commissioner, we had pushed the MLBPA as far as it would go without a strike…” (AP 2004).

Ironically enough, the minor league baseball teams have year round steroid testing. When asked why, the players’ association claims the minor leaguers do not have the protection of the MLBPA – a players’ association that places its players’ health on low priority (Leshanski 2003). Some famous major leaguers, including Tony Gwynn, Mark McGuire, and Ken Caminiti, who died from a cocaine overdose, estimated that between 20-65% of athletes are using illegal supplements or stimulants (Leshanski 2003).

Whose responsibility is it to fix the problem? The MLBPA obviously has to step up and realize the health implications. The administration, including Bud Selig, has to come down harder and lastly, the fans have to realize this drug problem. The increased production of home-run hitters is something fans have absorbed themselves in. The home run race between Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire intoxicated fans. However, they need to acknowledge the drug use, and understand that the playing field is not level at this point. It will take more than just one group to make an appreciable change.

Regulation in regards to performance enhancers is quite inconsistent. The NCAA and the World Anti-Doping Agency have strict policies that are effective. The NFL is a model organization for other pro-leagues in the U.S.A. to follow. However, the NBA is an organization that could heighten their standards, but the MLB needs to seriously review their mission.

BACK TO TOP