REPORT OF THE
MEDICAL ASPECTS OF SPORTS
1. ACTION ITEMS.
a. Modification of Competitive Safeguards Committee duties as reflected in divisional manuals.
(1) Recommendation. Amend Bylaw 21.1.2.2 through
non-controversial legislation to read: The committee, subject to the direction of the Executive Committee, shall:
(a)
Promote and sponsor
research to address relevant health and safety issues;
(b)
Promote education
to enhance the health and safety of student-athletes;
(c)
Operate a national
injury surveillance program to monitor injury trends and enhance safety in intercollegiate
athletics;
(d)
Deter the use of
NCAA banned substances in order to promote fair competition and safety;
(e)
Facilitate outreach
activities to enhance student-athlete health and safety; and
(f)
Provide a health
and safety perspective on relevant legislation and policy.
(2) Rationale. In the last year, the competitive
safeguards committee has revised its mission statement, goals and objectives
and developed a detailed strategic plan to guide its future actions. The six goals noted above are contained
in the new strategic plan and more clearly define the committee’s duties
without expanding its scope.
(3) Budget
Impact. None.
b.
Drug-testing
announcements at championships.
(1) Recommendation. Eliminate the drug-testing announcement
at the mandatory pre-championship administrator/coaches meeting as a deterrent
to ergogenic drug use, effective August 2002.
(2) Rationale. The competitive safeguards committee
forwarded this recommendation to the management councils after the June committee
meeting. The NCAA Division I
Championships Competition/Cabinet denied the committee’s recommendation. The NCAA Division II Management Council
referred the issue back to the NCAA Division II Championship Committee. The NCAA Division III Management Council
denied the recommendation, and the NCAA Division III President’s Council noted
a compromise approach, to delay the announcement to retain the deterrent
factor.
The
committee voted to again forward the recommendation for reconsideration by the
management councils, with a rationale that addresses the concerns voiced by
management council members. The
committee believes there is no compelling reason for schools or
student-athletes to know ahead of time whether drug testing is being conducted
at an NCAA championship event.
Announcing the absence of drug testing at a championship event
eliminates any deterrence of the use of short-acting banned drugs, such as
ephedrine. The host institution is
notified in advance of the event whether testing is being conducted. Therefore, eliminating the announcement
at the meeting will not impede the organizational process of the championship
event.
The
current process, which will not change with the elimination of the announcement
at the mandatory coaches meeting, specifies that immediately following the end
of an event and prior to the official cool down, the crew chief or designate
will provide the institution’s designated representative the list of players to
be tested. After the cool down,
the crew chief will meet with the institutional representative and the
student-athlete(s) to be tested to provide details of the testing procedures
and to get required signatures.
To
replace the current announcement policy, a prepared statement regarding drug
testing and general guidelines could be presented at all pre-championship
meetings. If a student-athlete is
significantly delayed due to drug testing, current drug-testing protocol
includes an administrative procedure to accommodate the situation.
(3) Budget Impact. None.
c.
Drug-testing consent form.
(1) Recommendation. Add emphasis to the drug-testing
consent form language reflecting the requirement, under Bylaw 30.5 (b), to
disseminate a copy of the list of banned drug classes to each student-athlete. The committee suggests the following
statement be placed in the introduction to the Drug-testing Consent form,
effective August 2002: “Per NCAA Bylaw 30.5 (b), the director
of athletics or the director of athletics’ designee shall disseminate a copy of
the list of banned drug classes to each student-athlete.”
(2) Rationale. The committee notes that on
drug-testing appeals calls and in discussions with student-athletes, the list
of banned drug classes is not always given to student-athletes, as required by
legislation. The committee feels
adding this bold statement at the beginning of the drug-testing consent form
will remind athletics departments of this requirement and contribute to the
deterrence of drug abuse.
(3) Budget Impact. None
d.
Student-athlete
statement.
(1)
Recommendation.
Add the phrase “by the NCAA and/or” to the student-athlete statement,
Part IV: Results of Drug Tests, as follows, effective August 2002: “You affirm that you have not tested positive for banned substances by
the NCAA and/or by a non NCAA national or international athletics
organization.”
(2) Rationale. Student-athletes who transfer from one
NCAA institution to another and who have lost eligibility as a result of a positive
drug test, are currently not obligated to disclose the reason for their
ineligibility. The institution
under which the drug test was conducted is not permitted to disclose this cause
for loss of eligibility. The
school to which the student transfers may be unaware that the student-athlete
is required to pass a drug test (exit test) at the end of the period of
ineligibility and before being reinstated. This statement, reflected throughout Part IV of the
student-athlete statement, will provide for this disclosure.
(3) Budget Impact. None.
e.
Student-athlete
eligibility pending a positive drug-test appeal.
(1) Recommendation. To clarify in the drug-testing
protocol, effective August 2002, the point at which a student-athlete is
declared ineligible and not permitted to participate in competition.
(2) Rationale. Currently, the drug-testing protocol
states that a student-athlete who has requested an appeal of a positive drug
test may, with permission from the committee, compete while awaiting the appeal
hearing. The new wording will make
it clear that, once notified of the positive drug test, the institution is
obligated to declare the student-athlete ineligible.
(3) Budget Impact. None.
f.
Drug-testing
protocol changes.
(1) Recommendation. To accept the proposed drug-testing
protocol changes (Attachment A) for inclusion in
the 2002 protocol book, effective August 2002.
(2) Rationale. The drug testing protocol is reviewed
annually to assure that the procedures for drug testing meet the current needs
of the NCAA drug-testing program.
The changes in Attachment A will accommodate the recommendation noted in
Action Item 1e of this report and the new paperless collection process to be
used by The National Center For Drug Free Sport.
(3) Budget Impact. None.
g.
DIVISION I AND
II ONLY. Drug testing for
Ephedrine.
(1) Recommendation. Add testing for ephedrine to the
year-round drug-testing program, effective August 2002.
(2) Rationale. The current year-round drug-testing program tests for anabolic agents and masking agents only. Ephedrine is included in the championships drug-testing program. The committee is concerned about the negative health impact of ephedrine; this concern was heightened with reports of potential ephedrine use by student-athletes who experienced medical emergencies this past football season. The committee recommends testing for ephedrine in the year-round program, which includes testing Division I and II football and Division I men’s and women’s track and field.
(3) Budget Impact. This change will necessitate an increased cost per drug test of approximately $27, requiring a total budget increase of approximately $250,000 for the current 9000 tests conducted each year in the year-round program. The committee has prioritized this budget item as the top priority for new funding, and second behind the continued funding of the enhancement of the Injury Surveillance System. (Attachment C)
h.
DIVISION I AND
II ONLY. Budget items.
(1) Recommendation. Budget requests for 2002-03 and 2003-04
were included in the committee’s September 2001 report. The committee requests endorsement of
these initiatives and for the cabinet to forward support for funding to the
NCAA Division I Management Council. [Note: Division I and Division II deferred action on this item
until this meeting. Division III
has already acted on this item.]
(2) Rationale. Please refer to Attachment
B.
(3)
Budget
Impact. Please refer to Attachment
B. (Budget Request – Attachment C)
i. DIVISION I ONLY. Health and safety reference in Division
I Strategic Plan.
(1) Recommendation. Amend Student-Athlete Welfare
Goal/Priority in Division I Strategic Plan to include a specific reference to
health and safety, possibly as a part of Objective No. 2 “Encourage an environment in which
intercollegiate athletics programs reflect institutional commitments to health
and safety, ethical values, diversity and integration into campus life.”
(2) Rationale. Health and safety is specifically
mentioned under the Association’s Constitutional Principle of Student-Athlete
Welfare but is not mentioned anywhere in the student-athlete welfare priority
in the strategic plan.
Adding this wording gains consistency with the constitutional principle
and sends a clear message to student athletes of the importance of health and safety in the eyes of the
Association.
(3) Budget
Impact. None.
2. INFORMATIONAL
ITEMS.
a.
Protective eyewear in women’s lacrosse. During the August
conference call, the committee noted the achievements of the protective eyewear
project team. Included among the
achievements are: agreement on eye wear specifications, agreement on working
under the larger U.S. Lacrosse umbrella and initial identification of
measurable factors that would reflect risky play. Select project team members will be involved in a U.S.
Lacrosse Sports Science Committee meeting on December 12 where these issues
will be further discussed.
b. Nutrition and
performance NCAA Web site. The committee reviewed and
supported the work of a national office staff project team in the development
of a nutrition and performance education website. It supported the concept of piloting the site at the 2002 NCAA
Convention and incorporating feedback into a revised version that will be
subsequently activated in 2002.
Committee chair: Bryan
W. Smith, University of North Carolina
Staff liaison(s):
Randall
W. Dick, NCAA
Mary E. Wilfert, NCAA