NCAA attempts to keep a step ahead

According to those running the tests, the NCAA conducts drug tests nearly 13,000 times a year, perhaps the largest sport-related testing program in the world.

But even for a program as vast as that of college athletics, the standard, especially in the current environment, is always moving.

Recently, the NFL joined the World Anti-Doping Agency in changing the level of testosterone that constitutes a positive test. Where previously a 6-to-1 ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone was considered a positive test, that ratio is now 4-to-1.

The NCAA has yet to follow suit.

“We’ve had no discussion to change it at this point,” said Rochel Rittgers, chairwoman of the NCAA’s subcommittee for drug education and drug testing. “We have typically aligned many of our testing procedures along with the Olympics, but we review everything individually prior to making any changes in our policy.”

Any changes to NCAA drug policy usually go through Rittgers’ committee, but the NCAA must choose to adopt any recommendations coming from the assortment of athletic directors, coaches, trainers and doctors on the committee.

“Because we are a committee of scientists and medical doctors and legal personnel, it’s a group of people that have the backgrounds to at least intelligently discuss the possibilities,” said Rittgers, the head trainer at Augustana (Ill.) College, a Division III school.

Not everyone is certain that changing the acceptable levels will matter. The NCAA doesn’t drug test on its own, farming out the job to the National Center for Drug Free Sport in Kansas City, Mo. Its president, Frank Uryasz, has been associated with NCAA drug testing since its inception in 1986, and he said the new ratio may not have any beneficial effect.

“We’ve actually been studying individuals for the past few years who have been between 5-to-1 and 6-to-1 and running a different test on those individuals,” Uryasz said. “We’ve just not found anyone in that range that has actually been using. So I’m not convinced that dropping that level down to 4-to-1 is going to deter testosterone use.

“I wouldn’t call it subjective so much as we have to account for the fact that here are biological variations in some of these hormones in the body. We can’t afford to make a mistake and call someone positive who isn’t. It makes our job very difficult and it makes the science of this very, very difficult.”

As has been exhibited by cases such as the BALCO episode in California, steroid manufacturers are constantly incorporating new technologies to try to beat the system. That makes Uryasz’s job significantly more difficult.

The organization works in concert with UCLA laboratories to try and stay a step ahead of the drug manufacturers, but with so many athletes under their watch, even those closest to the testing know their efforts won’t ever be complete.

“I compare it to workplace drug testing,” Uryasz said. “The federal government has been testing for the same five drugs for 20 years now. And our drugs change every year. It is a moving target. It’s a challenge.

“We never assume that we’re finding everything. We’re always conducting research to see what we might be missing.”