Jul 21, 2010 1:26:17 PM

Division III is nearing a crossroads in its follow-up to a two-year drug-education and testing pilot, including decisions on how or even if a national testing program fits with the Division III philosophy and whether the benefits gained from testing merit the potentially high expense of a year-round program.

Division III currently conducts drug testing only at its championships; however, individual schools may conduct testing throughout the year at their own expense.

But the Presidents Council in 2007 authorized a two-year pilot program that allocated resources for 100 participating member schools to provide drug education or a combination of education and drug testing to their student-athletes.

Just as the findings from the pilot reveal no clear consensus among student-athletes about whether drug testing should be conducted either by their school or by the NCAA, athletics administrators are starting to have the same debate about how best to ensure competitive equity and enhance the health and well-being of their student-athletes.

At the Division III Management Council meeting Monday and Tuesday, members talked at length about four key questions:

• Is the status quo program an adequate position going forward?
• Is there support to spend Division III funds to enhance drug-education efforts?
• Is there support for a required national testing program?
• Is there a support to spend Division III funds on an optional, localized drug testing program?

While Council members agreed that the answer to the first question was "No," they were divided on the other three. In particular, the question about whether there should be a required national testing program at all produced varied responses.

To help with that discussion, the Council noted that the Division III Strategic-Planning and Finance Committee, which talked about this matter earlier, did not support the idea of a required national testing program, saying in its report, "The use of performance-enhancing drugs does not seem to be prevalent in the division, and conducting year-round testing for street drugs would treat student-athletes differently from the general student-body in a way not justified by the Division III philosophy."

But the Management Council itself was split. While members understood how people might have trouble squaring testing student-athletes with the philosophy of treating student-athletes the same as the student body, they also saw how testing could be regarded as a benefit to ensure student-athlete health and safety and well-being – and address the more traditional concerns related to competitive equity.

They also were divided on whether to focus solely on performance-enhancing drugs or to include street drugs – if in fact there was a required national testing program. A straw vote on that revealed a preference for testing only for performance-enhancing drugs and leaving the street drugs to be addressed at the local level.

Potential costs for a national testing program also raised flags with Council members who wondered whether the benefits would be worth the investment. That led many to lean toward favoring an optional approach outlined in question No. 4 whereby institutions could obtain grants to conduct testing that would address their particular needs.

The Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee also favored that approach over a national program when it discussed the matter at its meeting late last week.

Overall, the discussion in the Management Council meeting was varied enough to cause Presidents Council chair Jim Harris, who was there monitoring the debate, to ask members to clarify what he should relay to his Presidents Council colleagues when that group meets in two weeks.

What he heard was that the status quo is not favored; that the current drug-education efforts do not appear to be effective; and that while there's no consensus on a national testing program, in lieu of one the best alternative would be optional funding for institutions to access as needed.

The Presidents Council and its Presidents and Chancellors Advisory Group will discuss the matter further during their August 11-12 meetings. Full membership discussion of options, including any recommended alternatives from the governance structure, is scheduled to occur at the 2011 Convention. A final membership vote, if necessary, would occur at the 2012 Convention.