In the past couple of years, supplement companies have begun partnering with athletics departments, and coaches have begun endorsing certain products.

The relationships vary, with some supplement companies advertising on banners in arenas and perhaps promoting an athlete of the week on the school's Web site. Other relationships include even more visible advertising, in programs and in newspapers where the company touts a particular school's athletes.

One supplement company, Advocare, operates on a distributor network system, and the experts at The Center for Drug Free Sport report that the company is recruiting coaches to both endorse its products and to sell them directly to student-athletes. The Resource Exchange Center also reports that some coaches' wives have been recruited to sell Advocare products.

Frank Uryasz, the director of The Center for Drug Free Sport, says he objects to all three known relationships between supplement companies and athletics departments: partnering with supplement companies; endorsing a particular supplement line; and the actual sale of the supplements on the part of coaches.

"I would argue that it's highly inappropriate and a conflict of interest for a coach to sell a product to student-athletes," said Uryasz, who acknowledged that the practice is not illegal and does not necessarily violate NCAA rules. "And for the coach to say, as we have heard some do, that they are not the distributor but their wife is, is simply unacceptable. Advocare works with a distribution network, where you make money by having people sell the product under you. They recruit coaches because coaches have a great network of student-athletes.

"I would hope most institutions would see that this arrangement was fraught with danger. I would hate to be an athletics director who knew a coach was selling supplements to student-athletes and didn't address it. It exposes the university and the athletics department to legal liability."

Advocare officials did not immediately return calls regarding their practices.

The NCAA's Stephen A. Mallonee, associate chief of staff for Division I, notes that there is an NCAA official interpretation explaining that coaches and other institutional staff members are not allowed to sell nonpermissible muscle-building supplements. "It has to fall into something permissible. That's going to be an institutional responsibility to monitor," he said.

Mallonee notes that legislation requires coaches to obtain annual approval from the institutional CEO for outside income. And should student-athletes be selling supplements, as some have be rumored to be doing, student-athletes would need to be careful that they were not violating NCAA rules prohibiting them from making money based on their athletics ability or reputation.

While some of these companies, such as Advocare and Met-Rx, have formulated "collegiate" lines of supplements that are said to fit into NCAA guidelines for permissible supplements, they also produce supplements that contain substances banned by the NCAA.

Elsa Cole, NCAA general counsel, cautions that institutions should be careful and avoid endorsing a supplement.

"There may be a substance in the supplement -- even one not listed on the label because of the unregulated nature of the industry -- that could cause injury, an adverse reaction or even an adverse decision on a drug test resulting in a one-year suspension for that student-athlete," she said. "Our advice to schools is don't expose yourself to potential legal liability that could result in any of those situations, from death or injury to a drug-related suspension."

Cole notes that the greater the involvement of athletics personnel, the greater the risk of liability.

"I also have a problem with coaches selling anything to student-athletes because there's a power relationship there. How do you say no, you're not going to buy a particular product from the person who ultimately decides if you make the team or not?" she said.

Mixed messages

Products that are permissible for distribution by an athletics department are governed by NCAA Bylaw 16.5.2, which permits institutions to distribute only non-muscle-building substances, provided they don't include any banned substances and also fit into one of four categories: carbohydrate-electrolyte drinks, energy bars, carbohydrate boosters, and vitamins and minerals. The supplements also may not contain more than 30 percent of their calories from protein.

Arnold Mazur, staff physician at Boston College Health Services and a member of the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports, believes that even endorsing a supplement or partnering with a supplement company sends the wrong message to student-athletes, even if an athletics staff member isn't selling it.

"The student-athlete is, in a sense, captive of an athletics department or conference in the sense that their authority figures are there. Student-athletes believe that if a product is marketed or supported by a coach, an institution or a conference there must be something to it," Mazur said.

Mazur, who is among those who hear appeals of drug-testing cases, said he frequently sees student-athletes who appeal because they say they didn't realize a banned substance was in the product they were taking. He sees endorsement and sponsorship deals as making it even more difficult for student-athletes to discern what's permitted.

"We have seen time and time again that student-athletes are not good discriminators between substances," he said. "The student-athlete is getting the message of endorsement from the coach or the athletics department and goes and buys something else with the same brand name from a different product line and gets a positive drug test. Even though a coach has endorsed only a particular line, student-athletes perceive that you have endorsed that entire brand."

Don Sommer, director of the strength and conditioning department at Texas Christian University, has chosen to endorse the Advocare "Pos-U" line, which he says is his way of ensuring that the student-athletes are steered in the right direction toward products that are permissible and legal.

"I've endorsed it because I think it's the best thing out on the market right now," he said. "College kids don't eat right anyway. You can educate them as much as you want and they still go out and eat that greasy cheeseburger."

Sommer says he is careful to provide only permissible products to student-athletes and to endorse only permissible products, and he does not sell them himself.

"Using it to benefit the student-athletes is one thing," he said, "but I don't believe in making money off them."

Sommer also carefully monitors other supplements student-athletes might want to take. All student-athletes bring anything else they want to take in to him or the athletic trainer.

"We tell them to keep the receipt until we look at it. They can go down to the local GNC and get whatever they want -- I can't stop that -- but we want to see it before they take it. I might as well try to educate them on what they should be taking and get them some stuff that is permissible and legal," he said. "There's no magic pill in a bottle. It would be better to just eat right. But we preach and preach that and then ask them to perform at a high level, and some kids need help. I don't (recommend supplements) en masse; I think that's wrong. We're trying to do what's right for each particular athlete."

Mike Perko, associate professor and coordinator of the health education program at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, argues that endorsing a product, or even permitting a supplement company to buy advertising at an athletics event is sending the wrong message to student-athletes.

"If the athletics director allows a nutrition supplement banner or a magazine advertisement, that sends the message that supplements are acceptable. That's a message that then becomes part of the culture," he said.

"From my research, we know that coaches are on a pedestal," Perko said. "They take on a lot more duties than Xs and Os. They become confidants, they represent the final word. And they are a huge influence on a kid trying to get a starting position, trying to be the best that they can be. To put in their hands a produce that is a money-making venture in a self-regulated industry is detestable. Their job is to coach, not sell supplements."

Uryasz agrees.

"I think it sends a mixed message, much like partnering with a distiller," he said. "It shows very poor judgment for an athletics department to be promoting a supplement manufacturer, particularly when a huge majority of their products are impermissible."