I am a senior volleyball student-athlete at the University of New Hampshire. The article in the Centerpiece of the November 8 NCAA News ("Eating disorders feed mental-health challenges for athletes") made me imagine what athletics departments can do for student-athletes nationwide. As I read about Kristen Martin's ENHANCE program and how she "works with student-athletes on a variety of mental-health issues, including eating disorders," I thought of my teammate who developed anorexia at the end of the season during her sophomore year. To watch her go through the stages and see her waste away created a pain in my heart that has not yet healed. I wish I had known more than the basic knowledge of anorexia at the time so I could have helped her earlier.

Kristen Martin is right in that something needs to be done to educate coaches, athletes and staff on serious health issues such as anorexia, bulimia and other mental-health issues. My coaches knew nothing about the problems she was going through, nor how to help the team deal with the loss of a teammate on the court. No one even knew how to approach my teammate on the topic. In the research article, "Nutrition and Eating in Female College Athletes: A Survey of Coaches," by Jamiee L. Heffner and colleagues, printed in the Journal of Eating Disorders in the fall of 2003, the researchers wrote, "First from a prevention standpoint, it is imperative that coaches be informed of the potential risks involved in attempting to monitor or manage athlete eating or weight. This is especially important for the coaches who indicated that they didn't have any formal training in nutrition or diet." I do not want this to happen to anyone else and would like the knowledge of these serious issues to be addressed in every college and high school.

I believe that all athletics departments should have a position for an athletics nutritionist and guidance counselor. Athletes are dealing with so many pressures throughout their collegiate career that a person such as Kristen Martin would benefit any athletics department. This position could advise coaches on how to address eating guidelines, deal with athletes who need someone to talk to, and counsel athletes who have developed disorders. I know that New Hampshire would benefit from this position because I know many men and women who need someone they can go to who understands their athletics life and can provide helpful therapy.

This issue is important enough for the NCAA to stress and maybe provide a conference at which coaches and staff can learn helpful information. This conference should teach how to identify a problem, how to prevent them and how to deal with them. If the NCAA feels that this issue is a big enough problem, then maybe more athletics departments will understand the importance for the position of an athletics nutritionist and guidance counselor.

Natasha Otte
University of New Hampshire

Coach wants attire rule to be more uniform, not less

I finish another cross country season with satisfaction and relief, but also with some nagging dismay -- another season of watching officials ignore a clear rule, coaches flagrantly purchasing equipment that violates a standard, and female student-athletes rationalizing exploitation as a "comfort" issue. I am speaking of the uniform issue, and in particular, of the rule in the NCAA Men's and Women's Track and Field Rules book that states: "Bare midriff tops are not acceptable."

The intent of the rule appears clear, notwithstanding the attempts by coaches and female runners to weasel past it by literally and figuratively stretching the "shirt meeting the waistband" interpretation. But lest you think I might be a "navel-Nazi," let me explain my understanding of the rule's intent and, hence, the source of my frustration.

Throughout history there is a blurred aspect of sport, which is fundamentally about performance but also about entertainment. This is inescapable, even at the Division III level at which I coach. I accept this, to a degree -- entertaining the public is part of how we repay the institution and the community for all the resources they pour into our programs. We must be vigilant, however, about when entertainment begins to change or violate the essential nature of sport.

It also is true that in the relatively recent ascent of women in sport, American spectators seem to demand a little more of females. Athleticism has not been sufficient; women's sports must provide some additional sensual "sizzle." We have known for years that modern cheerleading began as the female adornment of the male sport ritual. Many other examples could be cited, but suffice to say that some subtle or not-so-subtle sensuality is routinely how women's sport is packaged. Brandi Chastain did it for us in the women's World Cup soccer final, and later that same year, a 12-year-old female climber flipped off her shirt after winning a junior indoor climbing event, revealing a Winnie-the-Pooh sports bra.

Sadly, females are being taught early what they need to do to win the crowd. This, you see, becomes the most subtle form of exploitation of our female athletes. We cannot simply allow their athletics prowess the dignity or recognition -- it must be accompanied by some appeal to sexuality or mild exhibitionism.

And this is bearing true in the choices of coaches of women's teams in collegiate cross country -- choices buttressed by appeals to performance and protestations about comfort. The fact is that there is no demonstrable research indicating a significant positive effect on performance while wearing bikini briefs or cropped tops for distance runners. The human body is simply moving too slowly for wind resistance or other physics-oriented or biomechanical factors to be an issue. Parenthetically, if there were a positive benefit, men's teams would have quickly adopted these fashion styles -- a prospect that many of us would find difficult to contemplate with a straight face.

With this in mind, the NCAA as the largest single sponsor of women's athletics events in the country, has (wisely, in my opinion) said through its rules book that women deserve to have their athletics accomplishments respected on their merits, and that NCAA events will not propagate a chauvinistic or exploitative double standard. This I applaud. It seems to me that this is a small but significant attempt to reroute a particular cultural attitude about sport to a higher road, and to create growing dignity for female athleticism.

I don't step forward to belittle women's legitimate wardrobe choices. I stand forward with a call to respect the pure athletic ability of superb athletes, and to refuse to exploit an image of women that they must be sensual if they are to be worth watching. I appeal to female athletes to settle for nothing less. I appeal to coaches and athletics directors to show integrity and the highest level of respect for our female participants by purchasing equipment that is in keeping with the spirit of the rule, and refusing to cave to lesser pressures. Finally, I appeal to officials to correctly interpret and enforce the rule, first out of deep respect for female athletes, but second, because a rule is a rule, and because this one's intent is both clear and honorable.

Lester R. Zook
Head Cross Country Coach
Eastern Mennonite University

Gender-equity Q&A sends mixed-letter message

In the spirit of providing some clarity to the topic covered in the Gender-Equity Q&A published in the November 22 issue of The NCAA News, I would respectfully like to point out that the response to the first question is incorrect and misleading. Ms. Grant and Ms. Judge are mixing their letters. There are two letters of clarification. The first, written by Norma Cantu in 1995, made proportionality a "safe harbor" and changed the previous interpretation from equal opportunities to equal participants. Both of those interpretations of a previously even-handed law forced colleges and universities to even out their numbers. The prohibitive cost of adding several women's teams led to the dropping of men's programs.

The second letter of clarification was written in July 2003 (following the Town Hall meetings on Opportunity in Athletics). It was that letter (written eight years later), not the Cantu 1995 letter, that stated that dropping sports was a disfavored practice.

Since the courts gave deference to the Office for Civil Rights policy interpretations and Cantu's letter of clarification, in fact, for those eight years the OCR endorsed dropping teams to even out the proportionality numbers. In fact, many men's teams were dropped because of that letter. The fact is that things are better now. But we shouldn't rewrite history. Those things happened. They hurt men's sports. Let's not forget that. The law became a sword that cut men's sports instead of a shield that protected opportunities for all.

Bob Groseth
Head Swimming Coach
Northwestern University