The use of drugs and other performance-enhancing substances in sport is a well-known fact. Athletes getting caught using performance enhancing substances or illegal street drugs -- especially a well-known athlete -- become the center of attention for the media. Whether the desire to win is so strong, the pressures of being a collegiate student-athlete are too much or education about drugs is not reaching the student-athletes, the number of positive drug tests on the collegiate level is rising and the need for a deterrent is stronger than ever.

Collegiate drug-testing began in August 1970 when the NCAA Council formed the Drug Education Committee because of concern about an increase in drug abuse by collegiate student-athletes. In September 1981, the NCAA Drug-Education Committee developed a questionnaire that was distributed to more than 1,000 male student-athletes in the Big Ten Conference in the hopes of getting a better idea as to the extents of substance use and the drug-abuse problem.

Although a relatively small portion of member schools was surveyed, the results were enough to show that the problem of drug abuse was real. Forty percent said drug use by varsity athletes was a slight or growing problem and 59 percent rated their university's effort at education as fair or poor. Of those who offered suggestions to help reduce the problem, 54 percent suggested more education, 27 percent suggested stricter enforcement (including blood and urine tests), 7 percent offered less enforcement and another 7 percent said nothing can be done.

NCAA maintains control

In October 1982, the NCAA Council was informed that a staff task force had been formed to work in the area of drug education and that the task force had recommended a national drug-use study be conducted. In addition to other recommendations in the area of education, the task force suggested possible NCAA testing for drug usage at NCAA championships using new technology that could make such testing economically feasible. This led to the Drug-Education Committee approving a proposal submitted in April 1983 by Michigan State University to conduct a nationwide study of the substance use and abuse habits of college student-athletes.

In October 1983, the committee declined an offer from the U.S. Olympic Committee to share its services of the newly formed doping control operation and decided that any drug-testing program involving student-athletes at NCAA championships should be entirely under NCAA control.

The Special NCAA Committee on Drug Testing was formed in April 1984 to carry out the directives of the 1984 resolution. Those directives asked the NCAA Executive Committee to develop an ongoing program for drug testing and to notify the membership before July 1, 1984, of the substances and the nature of that program and to present legislation for consideration at the 1985 Convention. By May 1984, the special committee had finalized its list of banned drugs and drug-testing protocol, and its proposed testing plan. It should be noted that the list of banned medications included stimulants, sympathomimetic amines, diuretics, anabolic steroids, and beta-blockers and alcohol for rifle, but did not include street drugs (for example, marijuana). In October 1984, the NCAA Council gave preliminary approval for legislation that would be presented at the 1985 Convention for the implementation of the drug-testing program.

On November 24, 1986, the first NCAA drug test was conducted at the Division I Women's Cross Country Championships in Tucson, Arizona. During the 1986-87 academic year, 3,360 student-athletes from 30 NCAA postseason championships and 10 certified football bowl games were tested. Of those tested, 2.4 percent were found positive for a banned substance. In January 1988, the NCAA launched a voluntary anabolic-steroid testing program during the off-season. This program ran through May 1990 and was later replaced by the mandatory year-round program that was implemented in August 1990. The year-round program, initially a pilot program for Division I football from August 1990 to June 1992, was expanded to include Division I track and field programs effective August 1992. Today's drug-testing program is similar to the one of 1992, but includes Division II football as well.

No pain in testing

From the beginning, urine has been the preferred specimen for drug testing. Even though blood analysis has been under consideration, especially of late -- for reasons of testing substances such as erythropoetien (EPO), which is seemingly on the rise as an abused performance-enhancing drug -- urine still is preferred for a number of reasons. Many abused drugs are present in greater concentrations in urine than in blood, large specimen volumes are easily obtained and there is no physical pain or discomfort to the athlete.

Even though urine is the preferred specimen for drug testing, cost reasons have made the analysis of saliva more popular in testing for street drugs such as marijuana by some collegiate programs.

Urine collection does not inflict any sort of physical pain on an athlete. But because of problems with athletes attempting to alter their sample, the collection must be validated to ensure the specimen given is that of the athlete being tested and no tampering has occurred with the specimen. Athletes attempt a wide array of alteration techniques, such as putting additives in the urine to change pH characteristics, the use of diuretics to change the concentration of the urine, and even using a foreign urine sample as opposed to their own.

Great strides are being made in the area of analyzing urine. A concern in drug testing has been analyzing for the abuse of substances that are produced endogenously, such as testosterone. The current method of testing for testosterone doping is to quantify the amount of testosterone and epitestosterone, an epimer of testosterone, and if the ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone (T:E) is greater than 6:1, a positive is reported. The T:E ratio is normally very close to 1:1, but due to physiological factors, it can vary. The new technique in development is to measure the ratio of Carbon 13 to Carbon 12, which is called carbon isotope ratio (CIR). Research is proving that endogenous (made in the body) hormones have a different CIR than do exogenous (made outside the body) hormones. This method allows for the rare physiological differences of an individual with a T:E ratio greater than 6:1 not to have to go through follow-up testing, and to catch those who are able to abuse testosterone but keep their ratio within the 6:1 limits. Advances also are being made in the area of testing for the abuse of EPO. Both the CIR and the EPO detection had the possibility of debuting in the Olympic Games in Sydney.

A popular notion about drug testing in sport is that it is used to catch athletes using only the well-known substances such as cocaine, marijuana and anabolic steroids.In fact, high-profile substances such as these receive attention from the media and the public, as well they should. They do however, tend to overshadow some of the other problems that have growing concern. These other problems being referred to are dietary supplements, which are increasing in popularity at an astonishing rate. Dietary supplements do not receive the negative hype that other drugs do in part because of the "safe and all-natural" label associated with so many of them. The misperception about the dangers of using dietary supplements can be attributed partly to the marketing and advertising. When deaths due to ephedrine are documented -- and ephedrine can still be sold over-the-counter as a "safe weight-loss aid" -- adverse effects associated with dietary supplement use will continue to grow.

Beating the system

A large number of dietary supplements are aimed at athletes and some of them contain NCAA-banned substances such as ephedrine, androstenedione (andro) and 19-norandrostenedione (norandro) to name a few. The use of the prohormone 19-norandrostenedione is of grave concern. Norandro is metabolized to the anabolic steroid nandrolone, which falls under schedule III of the Controlled Substance Act. Yet no regulation is placed on the dietary supplement norandro, which is marketed as a safe, all-natural means of increasing muscle growth as well as athletic performance.

Dietary supplements in general are a huge concern because of the seemingly innocent connotation associated with their use. The advertisements are very deceiving to many athletes. Increases in positive drug tests due to products such as norandro and ephedrine are the reasons for the introduction of student-athlete services such as the Dietary Supplement Resource Exchange Center (REC) to provide accurate answers in the midst of the clever supplement marketing claims.

Drug testing in collegiate athletics always will be needed. Athletes and coaches are constantly trying to push the limits of regulations that currently are in place and stay at least one step ahead of the most current knowledge and detection methods.

The area of drug testing is very difficult because of the fact that it is one of the most looked-down-upon areas of sport by those who choose to ignore the cheating that is going on. There also is at least as much money and research expertise in the area of beating or defying the system as there is in developing new, more efficient ways of detecting performance-enhancing substances and trying to bring back the notion of safe and fair athletics competition. As long as today's society continues to put the "sports heroes" on such a high pedestal, and money and fame are the rewards for athletics excellence, there will always be those trying to cheat and find the easy way to the top. Drug testing always will be an important entity of athletics, and if current trends continue, it will become more important to have a reliable deterrent to performance-enhancing drugs.

Assistant Swim Coach/Athletics Equipment Manager

Vassar College, an NCAA Division III institution, is searching for an assistant men's and women's swimming coach/athletics equipment manager. This is an academic year position. Applicants must hold a bachelor's degree and college swimming and coaching experience is preferred. This position reports to the head swimming coach and facility manager. Coaching duties include recruitment of student-athletes, practice organization/supervision and technical instruction. Equipment management duties include facility set-up, facility management and supervision. Position begins on 08/01/00. Qualified applicants should submit letter, resume and three references to Andy Jennings, Director of Athletics, Vassar College, Box 259, 124 Raymond Avenue, Poughkeepsie, NY 12604. Application deadline is 04/24/00. For additional information please visit Vassar at www.vassar.edu. Vassar College is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer.