During that time, the program expanded significantly, involving more student-athletes at championships while branching out to year-round testing on campuses.

But a single court decision could have brought everything to a screeching halt. The day of reckoning arrived in late January 1994 -- a little more than seven years to the day after Stanford University diver Simone LeVant claimed in Santa Clara (County) Superior Court that the program violated her right to privacy under the California state constitution.

The civil suit sparked one of the most vigorous legal defenses ever by the NCAA. And the Association quickly found itself needing a rally after the superior court's judge ruled in favor of LeVant. Judge Conrad L. Rushing issued a permanent injunction prohibiting NCAA testing of any Stanford student-athlete, placing the entire NCAA program in jeopardy.

"The NCAA couldn't continue to operate its testing program with a school exempt from drug testing," said Frank Uryasz, who joined the NCAA drug-testing staff just a few months before the LeVant suit was filed and who currently directs The National Center for Drug Free Sport. "To me, it was an all-or-nothing proposition."

The Association pressed forward, conducting testing soon after the ruling at the winter and spring 1987 championships.

The NCAA also appealed, but lost another round in 1989 when the Sixth District Court of Appeals in San Jose upheld Judge Rushing's decision. The Association's efforts to move the case to Federal judges also failed, thus leaving the California Supreme Court as the court of last resort.

Not even LeVant's graduation from Stanford ended the case. Two other student-athletes at the school picked up LeVant's cause, including one whose name was attached to the case when the state's high court heard arguments in Jennifer Hill vs. NCAA.

 On January 28, 1994, the court ruled, 6-1, that "the NCAA was well within its legal rights in adopting a drug-testing program designed to eliminate the actual or potential influence of drugs in competitive sports."

Noting drug testing in other arenas, including Olympic competition and professional sports, the court ruled that it is a "reasonably expected part of the life of an athlete."

The ruling preserved NCAA drug testing, but Stanford officials believed their student-athletes' case also prompted a healthy reevaluation of the program that resulted in positive changes.

"In this case, the university stood by its students in their challenge to the way drug testing was done in 1987, which everyone agreed was flawed," Stanford Athletics Director Ted Leland said in a February 1994 statement after the ruling. "And that challenge, along with new research and improved methods, has been a force for important changes that have made the NCAA program more acceptable."

-- Jack L. Copeland