The issue of "voluntary" workouts for student-athletes in the summer for football or during the nontraditional season for other sports has been debated for several years. For the most part, that debate has swirled around whether the workouts are indeed voluntary or if there is an unspoken rule that somehow requires student-athletes to participate.

But there are other issues, perhaps more important ones, that transcend the semantics. Whether the workouts are in the end voluntary or mandatory, it stands to reason that a significant number of student-athletes (competitors that they are) will want to participate in those sessions in order to gain whatever legitimate advantage they can on the fields and courts.

If indeed the workouts remain as part of the student-athlete practice regimen (optional or not), it becomes logical for schools to concentrate less on what to call them and more on how to conduct them -- safely.

It is safe to say that the current model of voluntary activities that emphasize strength and conditioning for student-athletes is not working. There are concerns about the ways in which student-athletes are acclimatized to those workouts, and about the lack of prudent emergency coverage and the ways in which the sessions are staffed and overseen from a sports medicine standpoint. There also is a separate concern -- but one that is related in this case -- about nutritional supplements and how they play a role in strength and conditioning workouts.

Currently, there are no time restraints on the student-athlete regarding athletics activities in the summer. While no one argues the value of maintaining physical conditioning from a physiological perspective, summer workouts have taken on a different meaning for the strength and conditioning coaches who conduct them. The original purpose for those coaches' presence was to monitor for safety alone. However, there is at least anecdotal evidence that at some institutions, that role has escalated to not only supervising workouts, which is legal, but recording them and reporting results to the football coaches,

which is not. The goal of the workouts seemingly has changed from simply maintaining physical conditioning to pushing student-athletes to reach or exceed their physical peaks.

If that's something the NCAA wants to address, blaming strength and conditioning coaches is not the answer. Their jobs currently depend on pushing student-athletes to the limit and beyond. If they don't, they answer to their employer, the head football coach, whose job depends on winning. In addition, the athletic trainer usually is placed in an awkward situation as the voice of safety concerns on the field. The athletic trainer has little or no power to limit or curtail those workouts since strength and conditioning coaches answer to the head coach. If the athletic trainer's employer is the athletics department (that is, the head coach), the conflict of interest is evident.

Another challenge is the timing of the summer workouts for football student-athletes. Heat acclimatization is essential during this time due to the extreme climatic conditions that come with summer. Our society's ubiquitous access to air conditioning is a constant barrier to proper acclimatization, but the medical community believes that catastrophic heat illness in athletics is preventable.

Numerous recommendations have been raised by health-care groups, as well as the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports. One particular area of concern has been the constant pressure from the football community to reduce, if not eliminate, the acclimatization period at the beginning of the preseason. This has occurred by allowing more and more equipment to be worn during this abbreviated three-day period. It is well-documented that the football uniform hinders heat loss, but the apparently overriding concern by coaches for shoulder injuries has reduced the effectiveness of the acclimatization period and perhaps rendered it dangerous.

The second safety concern is prudent emergency coverage. A 1998 survey of Division I football institutions showed that only 53 percent of strength and conditioning workouts had a person in attendance who was qualified and delegated to render emergency care. Also, only 38 percent of programs required all their athletics personnel, including coaches, to be trained in administering first aid and CPR.

Nutritional-supplement use complicates the matter even further. Their promotion and use in strength and conditioning activities is widespread. Many student-athletes come to college having already used them. There is no governmental control on the labeling, purity, production and distribution of those substances. The sale of nutritional supplements is a multibillion-dollar business in the U.S. alone and is heavily promoted by professional athletes. Ninety percent of the NCAA's drug-testing appeal cases are for nutritional supplements that turn out to contain NCAA-banned substances.

Many of those supplements are akin to drugs, and they carry the same dangers if used improperly. The lack of proper information along with the desire for quick strength and performance gains have placed many student-athletes in a vulnerable and potentially dangerous situation. The pressures on them to succeed are enormous, and many are willing to risk their health to achieve athletics success. When student-athletes have underlying medical conditions, or when they engage in extreme physical activities, the potentially dangerous effects of those supplements can be magnified.

To be sure, the challenges involved with voluntary workouts are numerous and complicated. There may be no simple solution to all of the concerns. But that doesn't mean that nothing should be done.

NCAA governance groups already are talking about modifying the practice-season structure in football or perhaps allowing the head coach to have more oversight during voluntary workouts. At one recent meeting I attended, a prominent Division I-A coach said he believed his peers unanimously want what's best for the student-athlete. While we may not have discovered yet what that is, we at least need to agree that what currently is in place is not it.

Student-athletes have said that voluntary workouts that are not voluntary create a trust gap between the student-athlete and the school. Workouts that don't have appropriate medical coverage jeopardize student-athlete safety. Extreme climatic conditions and the unknown risks with nutritional supplements add complications.

Band-Aids are not the solution. There needs to be significant change.

Bryan W. Smith chairs the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports.