A trying era tests athletes and schools

From the Mitchell Report to Marion Jones’ confession, recent controversies concerning athletes and performance-enhancing drugs have plagued professional athletics. For the most part, the NCAA’s mandatory drug-testing policy in Division I has helped prevent this level of abuse from occurring at the collegiate level. Nonetheless, it would be naive to assume that college athletics are immune to such problems. In evaluating Princeton’s current policy, it is important to understand the goals behind the testing program.

“The three most important reasons for having a drug-testing program are to protect the health and safety of student athletes, to establish an equal playing field and to serve as a deterrent to future athletes,” Director of Athletic Medicine Dr. Margot Putukian said. On protecting the health and safety of student athletes, Putukian made it clear that it is the University’s job to ensure that this goal includes the appropriate use of strength and conditioning coaches who ensure that athletes are improving in healthier ways.

“The athletic department as a whole, even our strength and conditioning coaches, has a no-supplement philosophy, and we stress improvement through practice and eating healthy,” Associate Director of Athletics Erin McDermott said.

McDermott recognizes that, though Princeton may not have as many athletes who expect to turn professional as some other schools, “the concerns for an equal playing field are the same for us [in the Ivy League] as they are for big conferences.”

The overarching issue is whether the NCAA’s mandatory testing policy is sufficient. The policy involves testing random players on the baseball and football teams each year as well as members of a third team, which is selected for each testing cycle by the NCAA. Additional tests are possible during postseason play such as NCAA championships. The more frequent the testing, the more powerful the deterrent, but many members of the athletic department believe that additional testing may not guarantee a better program overall.

“In some ways, the possibility that you can be tested is just as much a deterrent as actually being tested,” women’s basketball head coach Courtney Banghart said. Banghart stressed that the ramifications of a positive test — which can include automatic disqualification from postseason play for the team as well as suspension from intercollegiate athletics for the athlete — are sufficient reasons for athletes to stay clean.

Men’s basketball head coach Sydney Johnson ’97 agreed that “given the integrity on this campus and the ethical standard that we hold across the board, I think it’s fair to expect that our student athletes wouldn’t be using steroids.”

Still, it may seem obvious to assume that more frequent testing will automatically result in a more effective system. The Department of Athletics, however, is loath to take this point of view.

“Our philosophy is to do our best to treat athletes the same way as the rest of the student body is treated,” McDermott said. “And we certainly feel that, because student-athletes have a duty to represent the student body, the athletic department and the University in a public way, some policies for athletes may be necessary … But we do try to avoid treating athletes differently when we can."