I am a member of the Division III Management Council and the Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports. However, I am not writing this on behalf of either of those groups — it is my own opinion that the time has come for Division III to act.

As Ken Mannie, the strength and conditioning coach at Michigan State University, said in his May 8 NCAA News editorial, "The testing expansion will prove to embolden an already firmly entrenched and extremely effective program and underpin it with a much needed additional deterrence." In addition to deterrence, drug testing helps level the playing and is a health and safety benefit for all intercollegiate student-athletes.

Recent and past NCAA surveys indicate that substance use and abuse, including that of performance-enhancing drugs, in Division III is comparable to Divisions I and II. We can choose to put our heads in the sand if we want, but there is substance abuse in Division III, which has both the largest number of student-athletes and largest number of member institutions. The 2005 NCAA Study of Substance Use Habits of College Student-Athletes indicates that ergogenic drug use in Division III is comparable to the usage in Divisions I and II. That includes anabolic steroids, amphetamines and ephedrine.

The survey indicates that steroid use has dramatically decreased since 1990 when the NCAA instituted year-round drug testing for Divisions I and II football programs. There is no significant difference in the reported ergogenic drug use by Division III. Year-round testing is favored by 71 percent of the respondents overall and 55 percent of the Division III respondents. We can trumpet all we want about alternative and educational methods to deter the use of performance-enhancing drugs, but the bottom line is most student-athletes are aware of the do’s and don’t’s and the negative consequences of illegal substance abuse. Just relying on educational mechanisms alone is not effective; there needs to be a real deterrence program.

The NCAA report to the Division III Presidents Council on the benefits of testing and the liabilities/risks of not testing concludes that: "Deterring performance-enhancing drug use creates a cleaner, healthier program; fairer competition; and meaningful championships events. Drug testing demonstrates an administration with resolve and an institution that cares about all drug use. Initiating year-round testing is pre-emptive to government intervention. Drug testing reduces the liability posed by a system that may place student-athletes at increased risk from competing against those using performance-enhancing drugs. Drug testing provides an additional deterrent against unchecked drug use, so that no student-athlete feels compelled to use drugs in order to compete."

Yes, there will be a significant cost to pilot the Division III program, and should legislation be adopted to implement a year-round drug testing program in Division III, there will be additional costs. To deny a testing program based upon cost is not wise. Although many may not state it publicly, it is really the cost issue and concerns that hold Division III year-round drug testing programs in abeyance.

When it comes to health care needs in our personal lives, the significant issue is not cost, but how we can get and stay healthy. Why should it be any different in Division III athletics? Do the student-athletes in Division III deserve the same health and safety protections as those in Divisions I and II? Do we deal with sport-specific safety regulations differently in each division?

The mission of the athletics programs at the Division III level is a little different from Divisions I and II, but the health and safety issues are not. Why are we dealing with the drug-testing issues differently? What would Congress say if it were to question our testing program and find that the largest division of college sports has a significant loophole in its testing program? How would we defend the difference? Would we say it’s too costly? Would we say that we use alternative educational measures? If alternative educational measures alone were adequate, why are we not using only those measures in Divisions I and II?

It is time to stop procrastinating and deal with the real issues. We all know if there is no significant testing, there is no significance deterrence.