[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DRUGS IN SPORTS: COMPROMISING THE HEALTH OF ATHLETES AND UNDERMINING
THE INTEGRITY OF COMPETITION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-93
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-522 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,Chairman
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California JOE BARTON, Texas
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Ranking Member
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey FRED UPTON, Michigan
BART GORDON, Tennessee CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
ANNA G. ESHOO, California ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
BART STUPAK, Michigan BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
GENE GREEN, Texas JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Vice Chairman Mississippi
LOIS CAPPS, California VITO FOSSELLA, New York
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania STEVE BUYER, Indiana
JANE HARMAN, California GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
TOM ALLEN, Maine JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MARY BONO, California
HILDA L. SOLIS, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas LEE TERRY, Nebraska
JAY INSLEE, Washington MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
______
Professional Staff
Dennis B. Fitzgibbons,Chief of Staff
Gregg A. Rothschild,Chief Counsel
Sharon E. Davis,Chief Clerk
David L. Cavicke,Minority Staff Director
(ii)
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois,Chairman
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois CLIFF STEARNS, Florida,
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
JOHN BARROW, Georgia ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
BARON P. HILL, Indiana CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Mississippi
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia VITO FOSSELLA, New York
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas MARY BONO, California
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas LEE TERRY, Nebraska
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JIM MATHESON, Utah MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio)
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 1
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 3
Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 4
Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, opening statement.................................. 6
Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts, opening statement...................... 7
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 8
Hon. Anthony D. Weiner, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, opening statement........................... 10
Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Nebraska, opening statement.................................... 11
Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, opening statement.............................. 12
Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 13
Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan, prepared statement................................ 180
Witnesses
Hon. George J. Mitchell, a United States Senator from the State
of Maine, prepared statement................................... 14
Allan H. ``Bud'' Selig, commissioner, The Office of the
Commissioner of Baseball....................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Donald Fehr, executive director, Major League Baseball Players
Association.................................................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 24
David Stern, commissioner, National Basketball Association....... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 37
G. William Hunter, executive director, National Basketball
Players Association............................................ 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Roger Goodell, commissioner, National Football League............ 44
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Gene Upshaw, executive director, National Football League Players
Association.................................................... 46
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Gary Bettman, commissioner, National Hockey League............... 90
Prepared statement........................................... 92
Paul Kelly, executive director, National Hockey League Players
Association.................................................... 98
Prepared statement........................................... 100
Jim Scherr, chief executive officer, U.S. Olympic Committee,
Colorado Springs, Colorado..................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 148
Travis T. Tygart, chief executive officer, U.S. Anti-Doping
Agency, Colorado Springs, Colorado............................. 149
Prepared statement........................................... 151
Myles Brand, president, National Collegiate Athletics
Association, Indianapolis, Indiana............................. 154
Prepared statement........................................... 156
Robert Kanaby, executive director, National Federation of State
High School Associations, Indianapolis, Indiana................ 161
Prepared statement........................................... 163
Alexander M. Waldrop, chief executive officer, National
Thoroughbred Racing Assocation, Lexington, Kentucky............ 165
Prepared statement........................................... 167
Submitted Material
National Football League Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Related
Substances 2007, June 21, 2007................................. 62
E-mails from horse racing owners and breeders, submitted by Mr.
Whitfield...................................................... 108
DRUGS IN SPORTS: COMPROMISING THE HEALTH OF ATHLETES AND UNDERMINING
THE INTEGRITY OF COMPETITION
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:40 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rush, Schakowsky, Barrow, Markey,
Towns, Weiner, Matheson, Whitfield, Stearns, Pickering,
Fossella, Pitts, Terry, Burgess, Blackburn, and Barton (ex
officio).
Staff Present: Christian Fjeld, Consuela Washington,
Valerie Baron, Brian McCullough, Shannon Weinberg, William
Carty, and Chad Grant.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. This subcommittee will come to order. In the
109th Congress this subcommittee led the congressional efforts
to produce legislation cracking down on the illegal use of
steroids and other drugs in sports. Then subcommittee Chairman
Stearns introduced H.R. 3084, the Drug Free Sports Act of 2005.
And with his competent leadership we have reported the bill out
of subcommittee, then out of full committee to the floor of the
House of Representatives. Subsequent to those committee
efforts, no further action was taken as the professional sports
leagues made progress towards implementing and enforcing new
testing policies for their athletes.
The purpose of today's hearing is to restart and perhaps
finish the legislative process that we started in the 109th
Congress. The use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports is
not a trivial matter. This is a serious public health problem
that is worthy of congressional scrutiny. The detrimental side
effects of steroid use are well documented and their effects on
young people are particularly pernicious. Steroid use has been
linked to impotence, clotting disorders, liver damage, heart
attacks, strokes and violent mood swings known as roid rage.
HGH, the human growth hormone, which is increasingly replacing
steroids as a drug of choice among athletes has been documented
to have equally negative side effects, including swelling,
diabetes, hardened arteries, high blood pressure and abnormal
growth of bones and organs. Some medical experts assert that
HGH increases the risk of cancer.
So given the severity of the problem, I fully intend to
have our hearing be deliberative and perspective. While it is
important to hold people accountable for past actions, I for
one am not interested in rehashing the past. The purpose of
this hearing is to deliberate on a number of public policy
issues that are either new or unresolved from our deliberations
in the 109th Congress.
First, I am interested in the recommendations of the
Mitchell Report and how the sports leagues will or will not
implement those recommendations and the provisions of the World
Anti-Doping Agency Code, or the WADA Code.
Second, I want to address the increasing prevalence of
marketing and use of HGH. The fact that professional and most
amateur sports associations do not or cannot test for HGH is a
major hole in the current system.
Third, I want this hearing to explore the idea of saving
player samples and retroactively testing them when new drugs
are discovered. The designer steroid THG was only discovered as
a result of the BALCO Federal investigation and those athletes
that tested positive for the drug were implemented by old
samples that were stored at laboratories and retested.
Eradicating sports performance-enhancing drugs at the
highest level of competition is not just a matter of preserving
the integrity of the competition. It is about sending a clear
resounding message to young people that these dangerous drugs
are not attributed to success and achievement. We have to get
it into our kids's heads that taking steroids and other drugs
will lead you nowhere but pain and ill health and certainly not
well-earned wealth. It is vital that we treat steroid use and
abuse as an urgent matter and then eradicate it not only from
the locker rooms of millionaire athletes but from the lockers
rooms filled with young impressionable students. Whether HGH
use among NFL or college football players exists, whether it is
amphetamines use among baseball players, THG's prevalence with
Olympic athletes or whether it is illegal painkillers injected
to Third World resources, these performance-enhancing drugs are
a deliberate attempt to cheat and to spoil honest competition
with devastating long-term effects on athletes.
If Congress can play a vital role in shaping public policy
to eradicate all sports and every level of these substances,
then the subcommittee is prepared to act. Let me just say, I do
resent the elitists, the cynics and the culture critics who
dismiss this issue as a populous spectacle. I believe that we
can move forward in a measured, deliberative and bipartisan
manner with legislation that seriously tackles drugs in sports.
And as chairman, that is precisely how I intend to conduct the
business of this subcommittee on this particular matter.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time. I now
recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
Whitfield, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Whitfield. Chairman Rush, I want to thank you very much
for having this hearing. I want to thank Cliff Stearns and the
both of you for the leadership that you have provided on this
important issue that is of great interest to people throughout
America. And I can assure you that our side of the aisle looks
forward to working with you to proceed in a nonpartisan manner
to improve the integrity of all sports.
I might say that I believe that football, baseball,
basketball, and other sports have been quite effective in
addressing this issue and showing their sincerity and trying to
deal with it. But this morning briefly I want to shine the
spotlight on another sport that has not been as successful in
addressing this serious issue, and that is the horse racing
industry.
Last month in an interview, Hall of Fame horseman and
trainer Jack Vanberg, who has won more races than any living
trainer, said he had seen enough. He said drugs ranging from
medications like steroids and clenbuterol to prohibited
substances like EPO are slowly destroying horse racing in
America. Trainers and vets make the decisions and the horse
cannot say no. England, France, all of Europe, Japan, South
Africa, Dubai, Australia, all the major racing jurisdictions
have banned the use of drugs still commonplace in America.
England, for example, banned steroids in racing over 30 years
ago. And throughout the world the U.S. is viewed as a place
where racing is about drugs. As many people in the industry
say, it is no longer my horse is better than yours. It is my
vet is better than yours.
In 1981, U.S. Senator Matt Mathias of Maryland gave a
speech to the Jockey Club Roundtable in Saratoga, New York, to
speak about legislation entitled the Corrupt Practices in Horse
Racing Act. That bill had been introduced by Senator Pryor of
Arkansas and others and it would have banned all drugs,
including Bute and lacix, putting the U.S. in line with other
major racing jurisdictions around the world but, more
important, establishing for the first time a clear and uniform
rule for the United States. It also would have prohibited
numbing, nerving, and freezing of all horses prior to racing.
If the horse is not healthy to run, if the horse is not healthy
enough to run, then it shouldn't be running.
State racing commissioners descended on Senator Mathias'
office after that speech, and they assured him 21 years ago
that they were going to address the problem, that they were
going to crack down on the use of these drugs in racing. Here
we are 27 years later and not much has changed. Many racing
jurisdictions have adopted some version of the model rule. But
although the racing commission in Louisiana, after adopting
this rule just last month, 2 months ago, yesterday the Senate
in Louisiana reversed that decision. So some 27 years later
there is not a uniform national drug policy rule for horse
racing in America.
Now, through the years the horsemen's groups who claimed
that they represent every trainer and every horse owner have
been in the forefront to stop the adoption of more stringent
drug rules, and they have been and continue to be successful to
the detriment of the sport. Recently the Racing Medication and
Testing Consortium recommended that four steroids be classified
as Class III drugs, which in effect would ban steroids from
racing in the U.S.
Now Dr. Steven Barker, state chemist for the Louisiana
Racing Commission and an ally of the Horsemen's Benevolent and
Protective Association, said the group that put this together
should be taken out and beaten.
Now steroids have been banned in all professional sports
except horse racing for a reason. They are dangerous, and they
contribute to clotting disorders, liver damage, heart attacks,
strokes and weakened tendons. In horse racing they also
contribute to breakdowns on the tracks, endangering the lives
of jockeys, exercise riders, as well as horses. The industry
does not provide transparency about accidents and fatalities on
the track. But from the bits and pieces of information that
have become available, it is estimated that between 2,500 and
3,000 horses die on the track each year in America.
Now as D.G. VanClief said, who is the former CEO of the
National Thoroughbred Racing Authority, we have endeavored to
adopt uniform rules governing the use of medication for years
without success despite the clear need to do so. So I would ask
this morning as we have this hearing the rhetorical question
that Senator Mathias asked 27 years ago. Is it time to call the
Federal cavalry and send it chasing into your stables with guns
blazing to clean up the sport of horse racing?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the vice chairman of the
full subcommittee, my friend from the great State of Illinois,
Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Frankly, I wish we
didn't have to hold this hearing at all, but after years of
stories of professional athletes testing positive for
performance-enhancing drugs, I am afraid that this committee
and this Congress is left with little choice. Professional
athletes should be positive role models who demonstrate the
importance of fitness, of teamwork and of striving to be the
best you can. However, I am deeply concerned that for kids
across America they are instead examples of unfettered ambition
and they are conveying the message that it is okay to cheat to
get ahead at any price. And I am afraid that this is the
message that is reaching our children.
Performance-enhancing drugs are being used by more and more
high school students across the country. I have heard about
junior high students as well. Studies show that more than 1
million children in the United States have used steroids at
least once in their lifetime. The CDC estimates that between 3
and 6 percent of high school athletes, hundreds of thousands of
young athletes, currently use some kind of steroid. The risk to
teenagers of using these substances are well-documented. The
side effects of these substances to adults are serious, but
because of the hormonal changes that they are going through
children can experience additional side effects which can have
harmful, permanent physical and emotional damage to their
development.
On January 14, Illinois enacted a random drug testing
program for students participating in State finals
competitions, joining New Jersey and Texas and Florida to
become the fourth State to test for performance-enhancing drugs
used by high school athletes. Unfortunately, studies have shown
that random drug testing programs don't seem to serve as a
deterrent. That is how powerful and alluring these drugs are
for young athletes. But I am hopeful that my home State has
more success in combating the proliferation of these substances
than other programs have had in the past.
Still I am concerned that this trend is going to be very
difficult to combat. The sad truth is that performance-
enhancing drugs are all too easy to obtain. Type steroids into
Google or Yahoo! shopping and you will find almost 20,000 sites
where you can easily obtain them. Type in HGH, human growth
hormone, and you can find almost 10,000 sites. Some of these
pills sell for as low as $5 a bottle, a price that an average
teenager can easily afford. Here is the name of some of these
Web sites, houseofmuscle.com legalsteroids.com, let's see,
roid--www.roidstore.com.
It is becoming more and more clear to me that Congress
needs to once again consider legislation to address this issue,
legislation that will eliminate the use of these substances in
professional sports that will make clear that HGH is banned,
hazardous, and that will crack down on the proliferation of
these drugs on the Internet.
In the Congress I was proud to work with Congressman
Stearns last session to craft the Drug Free Sports Act,
legislation that required professional sports associations to
conduct random testing of athletes for the use of performance-
enhancing substances. It required testing five times each year
at random intervals during both the season of play and the off-
season and without advanced notification. The penalty for a
positive test result is suspension without pay for one-half of
the season for the first violation, for one full season for the
second violation and permanently for the third violation. I am
curious to hear why this commonsense approach to finally
ridding drugs from professional sports in a uniform transparent
manner wouldn't work.
Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Derek Jeter, these are idols to
millions of kids across the country who collect their baseball
cards and wear their jerseys. These athletes should be national
treasures. I simply don't know what I am supposed to say to my
grandkids when the stories break of yet another athlete caught
cheating. I would be very interested to hear from our witnesses
here today what they say to their children and grandchildren.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I welcome and look forward
to hearing from our witnesses today, and yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Rush. The Chair wants to thank the gentlelady. The
Chair now recognizes the former chairman of the subcommittee,
the author of the H.R. 3084, the Drug Free Sports Act of 2005.
The Chair recognizes Congressman Stearns of Florida for 5
minutes of opening statements.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Stearns. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing. This now is the third hearing on steroids
by this committee. I also want to congratulate my colleague
from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, for his new position as the
ranking member and hopefully some day soon he will be the
chairman. My colleagues, in March of 2005 as chairman of this
Committee, along with my distinguished colleague Jan
Schakowsky, we held hearings to investigate steroid use in
professional baseball and I believe that those hearings have
directly led to the creation of a steroid testing policy,
particularly with emphasis in Major League Baseball and to the
Mitchell investigation. I believe Commissioner Selig took
action as a result of these hearings. And when pressed, he had
Senator Mitchell investigate.
Mr. Chairman, he is to be commended for this investigation
and appointing Senator Mitchell to do this. But, my colleagues,
the Mitchell Report is a report card on how he and the Players
Union Association handled the steroid epidemic in Major League
Baseball over the past 16 years. In short, they failed. And I
am already on record calling for the resignation of
Commissioner Selig. However, I respect the owner's decision to
renew his contract and there is good news that progress has
been made, and I hope this progress will warrant a passing
grade in the future. As the results of the committee's action,
Major League Baseball has recognized they have a problem with
widespread steroid use and have recently instituted a steroid
testing policy. Yet the testimony of James Scherr, the Chief
Executive Officer of the United States Anti-Doping Agency
states that the U.S. ADA's stringent testing system is viewed
as the world leader in Olympics anti-doping and is universally
acknowledged as one of the most rigorous anti-doping programs
in the world. Question, shouldn't professional sports be using
this system in its entirety? It has a proven record. While each
professional sport now maintains their own steroid testing
policy, are there any reasons why each of our country's
professional sports associations could not adopt the world-
class standards created by the United States Olympic Committee?
In 2005, as I mentioned, I introduced the Drug Free Sports
Act, a bill that would direct the Secretary of Commerce to
require professional sports associations to adopt and enforce
strict steroid testing policies. What I would like to see done,
Mr. Chairman, is for all professional sports associations to
come together voluntarily and develop a consistent, transparent
and independent anti-doping policy like the USADA. I would even
like to see professional wrestling added into that coalition.
If the sports associations are not inclined to adopt these
standards, we in Congress may need to create a Federal standard
to compel their compliance. At this time obviously I would
rather not have the Federal legislation developed, or it be
mandated to involve the Federal government in testing
professional athletes. However, Mr. Chairman, I strongly
believe that Congress and this committee should continue to
monitor professional sports to ensure that the willful neglect
that occurred in the past does not occur again.
So I call today for all professional sports to come
together, all of your associations, to develop a plan like the
anti-doping agency, like the plan that has been developed for
the Olympics so that the Congress does not have to act. The
integrity of professional sports, their athletes and our young
people who want to grab that brass ring on the merry-go-round
of glory deserve no less.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Florida. And
I want to just add, I don't agree with your ambitions. I think
you have been--I have tried to be very gracious towards you and
then you want me to lose my job. So I have to let you know I
don't agree with that.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts,
Mr. Markey, for 5 minutes of opening statements.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I want to
thank you for holding this very important hearing. Today we
have a white hot spotlight shining on the issue of drug use in
sports. Whether we are talking blood, doping, anabolic steroid
use, human growth hormone, ephedra, amphetamines, enabling or
tolerating drug use in sports undermines the positive and
productive goals that are part of athletic competition. It also
endangers the health of the young aspiring athletes of this
country and the world.
The news is spread across the sports pages, Olympic Track
and Field stars, Tour de France champions, NFL middle
linebackers and Major League pitchers, it really doesn't
matter. We are inundated with the success stories of
professional and amateur athletes who tarnish the good name of
competition through the use of performance-enhancing drugs.
However, what is it that is of most concern to me is the
example that superstar athletes are setting for the next
generation of young people in high schools and junior high
schools across the country. We are now seeing what I believe is
only the proverbial tip of the iceberg with regards to
performance-enhancing drug use in high school populations. In
2005, of 10,000 adolescents, 4.7 percent of the males and 1.6
percent of females age 12 to 18 admitted to using anabolic
steroids, DHEA, HGH or a host of other performance-enhancing
drugs at least once a week. I want to emphasize that point. We
are not talking about trying a drug once and then stopping. We
are talking about repeated, regular use. We are also talking
about those who admitted to drug use. You can bet that the
actual percentage for use of banned substances are close to if
not greater than 10 percent. Whatever the real percentage is,
the fact remains that we are seeing unprecedented numbers of
high school and junior high school athletes who are choosing to
use roids, gear, juice, sauce, vitamins, whatever you want to
call it, all for the sake of an edge in competition.
There are some who ask, why is Congress having a hearing on
this issue in the first place? To those statements I reply the
price that will be ultimately paid for the widespread use of
performance-enhancing drugs is high. Time will only tell how
high. We know the issue of HGH can cause diabetes, joint pain,
and other problems. In the adolescent population, HGH use while
bones are still growing can actually result in abnormally
accelerated bone growth known as gigantism. Steroid use can
cause more serious problems, including liver and kidney damage,
in addition to heart attacks. And this is only the short-term
damage. We are merely guessing if we suggest we know what long-
term harms will result from steroid and HGH use.
Over the past years, it has appeared that some Major League
Baseball players believed that HGH stands for helps generate
homeruns, when it really stands for health gets harmed. And
sadly at some point in the not too distant future today's
stars, both amateur and professional, may deeply regret the
price they paid in terms of their own health for their ill-
gained athletic success. The potential health crisis and
possible lifetime damage to players is truly tragic, but
especially dangerous because it sets a bad example for junior
high school and high school athletes.
The first step in dealing with this problem is addressing
our own apparent ambivalence to this as fans, as coaches and as
a society. We cannot continue to stand by and watch Major
League and players associations talk from both sides of their
mouths publicly condemning the use of performance-enhancing
drugs while turning a blind eye to their use in club and
fieldhouses across the country. That is why I hope at the end
of this important discussion we have laid the groundwork for
more stringent and rigorous testing standards for all athletes,
professional and amateur alike.
I would like to congratulate the actions that have been
taken by the leagues thus far. It is a big step over what has
existed in the past. But I think this hearing can play a very
constructive role, Mr. Chairman, in helping to ensure that we
have some sense of uniformity which is put in place that young
people can depend upon as the message that is coming from their
heroes in the sports world.
I thank you for taking me out of turn at this time.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks my friend from Massachusetts.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee,
Mrs. Blackburn, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs.Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do feel like we
are picking up on an important conversation that we started a
couple of years ago, as you have heard from other members. And
I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that you have called the hearing
and that you are giving the attention to the Mitchell Report
that it has certainly generated and we see it deserves our
attention. And the significant health and competitive issues
that it raised in the public consciousness with respect to
professional sports necessitate our attention to the issue.
However, I will tell you I wish that we were on the floor
of the House right now, working on renewing and extending the
Protect America Act and making certain that our intelligence
community has the ability they need to keep our country safe.
Sometimes I think we get our priorities out of order.
Fortunately, much has changed since our subcommittee first
met on this issue in 2005. Major League Baseball now has a
respectable and mandatory drug testing policy in place and the
world of pro sports is on notice. The notice sent is the
American people will no longer accept a see no evil, hear no
evil and speak no evil attitude towards drugs in sports. Yet as
the Mitchell Report reveals, all is far from well. Professional
athletes continue to seek out performance-enhancing drugs, be
they anabolic steroids or human growth hormone, and many
questions raised by the Mitchell Report are still unanswered,
primarily several recommendations from the Mitchell Report have
yet to be implemented by Major League Baseball.
This does not mean that Major League Baseball has failed to
act. In fact, Commissioner Selig and his team at MLB are to be
commended for acting quickly to adopt all provisions from the
Mitchell Report that could be unilaterally adopted. What we
don't know, however, is how quickly the league will be able to
implement the remaining recommendations which will require
direct negotiations with the players association. It is my hope
that the two sides will move expeditiously to reopen
negotiations and work out an agreement. After all we know the
current collective bargaining agreement negotiated in 2006 is
in effect until 2011. Yet it is in both sides' interest to go
back to the table, reopen negotiations and work to implement
the remaining recommendations of the report.
And I am quite interested to hear from both sides on this
matter today. After all, the matter at hand reaches far beyond
the playing field of pro sports. We are even more concerned, as
you have heard from other colleagues this morning, about the
effect this has on our student athletes at the college and high
school level. Seven million student athletes are going to be on
the field, the mat, the court, the track in 2008. Between 2 and
6 percent of these young people will take steroids. The debate
is about how they, how they are going to perceive your
attitudes toward performance-enhancing drugs and how you, each
of you at the panel today, react may determine the future of
the issue.
And my question is, how do you square this with your
children and grandchildren and the message that you are sending
to them, the message that you are giving by your lack of
initiative in taking this issue into your own hands and
addressing this issue. I would love to hear from you on that.
What do you say to your own children about how you act about
this issue? If the professional sporting world, including but
not limited to the representatives that are before us today,
remain committed to permanently eradicating anabolic steroids,
HGH and whatever comes next, we could possibly win this battle.
We are not going to do it if we continue to have hesitation, if
we don't see a willingness. We know we can't do it all alone.
We look forward to hearing from you. We thank you for the
strides that you have made. We look forward to your doing a
better job. And we thank you for the time of being here with us
today, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The Chair now
recognizes for 5 minutes of opening statements the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Weiner.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY D. WEINER, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Weiner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There almost should be
stipulated that this issue has impacted the integrity of your
product and that the value of the product has been sullied and
that the athletes that are involved in it have been impacted by
implication, in many cases by participation in what was I guess
cheating. But I think that I speak for many Members of Congress
and frankly many Americans in wondering whether this is the
forum that we should be solving these problems in. You know we
in Congress frequently are interested in getting information
about issues of the day. But the matrix between legislative
activity and what you all do is tenuous at best.
I know that it has been argued that in various levels
baseball has an antitrust exemption to some degree, all of you
operate as kind of national trusts. We are interested in the
integrity of the game, we are interested in young athletes, as
my colleague has mentioned. But I think at the end of the day
what is really going to impact the change in behavior on the
part of the people who sit before this panel is that your
business is going to be impacted, that fans are going to
express an unwillingness to buy into the idea that competition
is fair, they are going to cease to enter into this
relationship, this one that we have with athletes where we kind
of admire and idolize them and seek to emulate them and that,
at the end of the day, is going to impact the bottom line of
what are basically very successful businesses. I think
ultimately it is the marketplace that is going to say, you guys
have to work out something that makes this--make the sports
back to what they were or you risk tipping into that area of
entertainment where it becomes professional wrestling that
everyone kind of agrees that it is not on the up and up.
Everyone filters the results through that lense and at the end
of the day your product will cease to have the same value.
This is something that I think that everyone realizes is in
the interest of the athletes to get sorted out and in the
interests of ownership to get sorted out. We in Congress
obviously are interested in it. We are fans, we are
legislators. But at the end of the day I don't believe that
this--that ultimately this is going to be resolved by Members
of Congress or by the legislature. We have important issues.
And I am not saying that we shouldn't have hearings like this.
But it does beg the question of whether or not the real outcome
of this should be resolved by fans who start to vote with their
feet and start to say you know, I don't like athletes who do
this, I am not going to buy jerseys with their number on them.
Or I am not going to support teams that don't really crack down
or I am going to start looking for other sports where maybe I
can find more nourishing entertainment or I am going to go
start watching college sports and the like. I think ultimately
that is what is going to wind up happening because that is the
erosion that is taking place in the public consciousness. By no
means is the worst thing that happens to these leagues that
there are photographs of the commissioners taking an oath in
front of Congress. The worst thing that is happening to these
leagues is that fans are simply losing their faith that
everything is on the up and up.
So I think that we are perhaps providing an informative
light on these issues. But frankly, there is no absence of that
light coming from the media, there is no absence of reflection
going on within these leagues, and perhaps that is the best
place the best forum for these things to be continued in the
future.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Nebraska, Mr. Terry, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing and especially I appreciate the gentleman sitting
in front of us, this first panel. Your time is important to us.
So we appreciate that you took the time to be here.
Listening to sports talk, I think there is two major issues
here. According to people who call into sports talk radio
shows, they are the sports purists, they are upset about
steroids and human growth hormones in the sense that they are
cheaters. There are people who are skewing the system to
themselves and the selfishness of it, and that perhaps those
cheaters should not be allowed into the record books and such.
And I think that debate is perfectly fine in that realm of
sports talk radio or perhaps even in your own boardrooms.
But the reason why we are here today and we have invited
you is because there is other implications to society as a
whole. There is health issues at stake here, as most of my
colleagues have discussed. And that is that the steroids, human
growth hormones, whatever is being used at the professional
level to gain that advantage trickles down, it trickles into
college, it trickles into high school. And we are worried about
how widespread this may be. And we have heard various
statistics in opening statements today. And while the
statistics may be slightly different, what we know is real is
that it exists in the high school level. And I think there is
two thought processes of why it trickles down. One is just as
the gentleman from Massachusetts said, it is just a hero
worship. If my favorite player can do this, I would like to be
like my favorite player. I am going to use them, too. The other
part of it is the competition. And this was brought out by a
gentleman from my hometown of Omaha who was a professional
pitcher named in the Mitchell Report who said as a rookie he
understood that if you wanted to be able to compete--this is
him talking on Omaha Sports Talk--that he knew that he had to
use it, that he felt that he didn't really have a choice in the
matter. Now that is just his way of defending. But I think
there is a lot of truth to that, that if the folks he has to
compete with to get onto the roster are using them then you
have got to use them. Then you look at the college ranks. Well,
if I am going to get to the top level where I am going to be
compared to those folks at the pro level and they are on
steroids, then I have got to start taking them now. And it
trickles down then into the high school levels.
So we have to deal with both of those, hero worship and the
very fact that if they want to compete at the highest levels,
there is a thought process that you have to use these anabolic
steroids or human growth or whatever is going to be next. And
it is important to society as a whole that our professional
sports eliminate this drug from their respective sports.
And so I want to know what the highest level of prevention
can be, what do the rules have to do? Do we have to go to blood
testing, random blood testing? What does it need to do? How can
the sports work together? Do we need to have a universal
standard for each sport, whether it be hockey or football or
baseball? Is it the Olympic standard? What would that be? But I
think we need to elevate this to what is the best practice to
eliminate any of these type of cheating drugs from our sports
not because it gives one player the advantage over the other
per se in a cheating manner, but how it trickles down and
affects society as a whole.
So I want to hear what efforts, especially baseball, since
that has been the sports that has been picked on because there
has been reports all the way back to John Rocker in early 2000
that said that team physicians were advising on how to use
this. So it looks like there has been a pattern in baseball and
that is why they have been chosen as the poster boy. The
reality is it affects every sport. So I want to hear from you
and what you are going to do, and I yield back my time.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, for 5
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Chairman Rush. I know we have got a
lot of stuff to get through this morning so I do want to try to
be very brief. I will thank the witnesses for giving of their
time to be with us today. A lot of people have asked the
question about the wisdom of holding yet another hearing. Mr.
Chairman, I think I feel obligated to point out that if
Congress has a role in this matter, this is the appropriate
committee. This is the appropriate subcommittee, the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. This
is the appropriate place to be holding these hearings because
we are the subcommittee with the legislative authority. We are
the subcommittee with in fact the legislative duty to craft
legislation, craft laws that deal with this matter. So I am
proud of my chairman and ranking member who have chosen to
conduct this hearing. And I am also proud that they have
elected to hold this focused on the future, not so much of
revisiting what has happened in the past. But where do we go
from here, how do we go forward?
So thank you, Chairman Rush, and Ranking Member Whitfield,
thank you for your commitment to integrity, not just the
integrity of the subcommittee and the committee but the
integrity of competition in the broader scale.
We do need to focus on the future because after all, in my
opinion, where we really should be concentrating is on what is
happening to our children who aspire to be student athletes and
go on to a career, a career in athleticism. And it is after all
in our young people where the particularly pernicious practice
of using performance-enhancing drugs, that is really where it
takes center stage.
My whole State of Texas--and everyone knows Texas. We love
our high school football in Texas. Don't ever do a political
event on a Friday night because you are going to get in
trouble. But my home State of Texas took a very tough stance on
steroid usage and enacted legislation that grants the
university interscholastically the authority to establish rules
and penalties for the use of performance-enhancing drugs among
student athletes. For a State athlete in Texas to be eligible
to participate in a university interscholastic league sporting
event, he or she must agree first off not to use performance-
enhancing medications but also agree to be subject to random
testing and to complete an educational and training program on
athlete anabolic steroid use. According to the Dallas Morning
News, this will be the largest student drug testing program in
the Nation. And we will require that an estimated 22,000
student athletes submit to this random testing. And certainly
there are people who are going to question the validity, the
constitutional validity of this. But I think the Texas
legislature made some strong steps in the right direction, and
I certainly applaud their commitment to the future of the
children in Texas, and I hope that perhaps their legislation
can be a model that is incorporated nationally.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for keeping us focused on
the real issue of this debate, and I will yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing to examine issues relating to drugs in sports and the
importance of upholding the integrity of hard work and
competition. While the majority hearing is focused on the use
of cheating and steroids in humans, I commend you for also
examining the issue of cheating and steroid abuse in
racehorses. We will hear about that in our second panel.
Humans who use steroids have a choice about whether or not
to use those substances and subsequently whether or not to
damage their health. In horse racing, horses never have a say
when they are injected with any type of performance-enhancing
drug and they are helpless against the abuse. Unfortunately,
horses do have to suffer through the negative health effects of
any forcible steroid injections they receive. Randy Moss, an
ESPN horse analyst on the national thoroughbred racing blog,
wrote on December 19, 2007, quote, thoroughbred racing should
have reacted at the first hint of widespread steroid abuse in
other sports. After all, the same types of anabolic steroids
are commonly used on racehorses and some prominent trainers
even insist the sport will suffer if steroid use is prohibited.
The message needs to be loud and clear, horses should not be
allowed to run with anabolic steroids in their systems. Long-
term health issues associated with steroids are even more toxic
for racing, since horses don't have a say in what goes into
their bodies, end quote.
One academic expert on pharmacology indicated at the New
Bolton Center at the University of Pennsylvania, which is in my
congressional district, that they did spot checks of racehorses
and discovered that 60 percent of those horses tested positive
for steroids. Proactive protection by racing commissions and
various horse associations against abuse of horses should help
address this reportedly widespread problem.
According to one report, Bennett Liebman, racing expert and
instructor at Albany law school, believes that, quote, steroid
use in racing is rampant and has been for years, end quote.
It is important that the appropriate organizations examine
the scope of steroid use and abuse of horses so the issue can
be properly addressed. I commend the Pennsylvania Horse Racing
Commission for their new program, which is scheduled to begin
on April 1, 2008, to test horses for steroid use in order to
stop this practice and provide a more level, more fair
competition for competitors, let alone more healthy and safe
environment for horses. And I look forward to hearing from our
distinguished witnesses today, particularly regarding the
positive, proactive steps their associations will be taking to
help end the use of drugs in sports.
As far as the racehorse industry is concerned, I hope the
second panel will answer the question to what extent the
Federal Government's oversight role should be in monitoring the
abuse of horses. Athletes and racehorses deserve to be
recognized for winning well through hard work, skill and
determination, not through drug abuse. And I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. This concludes
the opening statements of the members of the subcommittee. We
will now proceed to the opening statements of the first panel.
But before I introduce the first panel, I would like to say a
few words on two invited panelists who are not here this
morning.
First, Senator George Mitchell wanted to testify at today's
hearing and discuss the recommendation of his report.
Unfortunately, the Senator is receiving radiation treatment for
cancer in New York and is unable to attend this morning's
proceedings. Fortunately, it is my understanding that Senator
Mitchell is expected to make a full recovery and his long-term
prognosis is quite good. I know that many people in this room
share my deepest respect and admiration for Senator Mitchell
and his long-term work. Our thoughts and our prayers to go to
him and we wish him and his family the best in his recovery.
Senator Mitchell has submitted a written statement and I
would like to ask for unanimous consent to have his statement
entered into the record. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Statement of Hon. George J. Mitchell
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Whitfield, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you
this morning.
In March 2006 I was asked by the Commissioner of Baseball
to conduct an Independent Investigation into the Illegal Use of
Steroids and Other Performance Enhancing Substances in Major
League Baseball. When he asked me to accept this
responsibility, the Commissioner promised that I would have
total independence and his full support. He kept that promise.
In December I completed and made public my report. In this
statement I will provide a brief summary of our conclusions. I
will then focus on the report's broader findings and
recommendations.
The illegal use of steroids, human growth hormone, and
other performance enhancing substances by well known athletes
may cause serious harm to the user. In addition, their use
encourages young people to use them. Because adolescents are
already subject to significant hormonal changes, the abuse of
steroids and other such substances can have more serious
adverse effects on them than on adults. Many young Americans
are placing themselves at serious risk. Some estimates appear
to show a recent decline in steroid use by high school
students. That's heartening. But the most recent range of
estimates is from about 2 to 6 percent. Even the lower figure
means that hundreds of thousands of high school-aged young
people are illegally using steroids. It's important to deal
with well known athletes who are illegal users. But it's at
least as important, perhaps even more so, to be concerned about
the reality that hundreds of thousands of our children are
using these substances. Every American, not just baseball fans,
ought to be shocked by that disturbing truth.
During the period discussed in my report, the use of
steroids in Major League Baseball was widespread, in violation
of federal law and baseball policy. Club officials routinely
discussed the possibility of substance use when evaluating
players. The response by baseball was slow to develop and was
initially ineffective. The Players Association had for many
years opposed a mandatory random drug testing program, but they
agreed to the adoption of such a program in 2002, after which
the response gained momentum.
Since then, the major league clubs and the Players
Association have agreed to a number of improvements to the
program, including stronger penalties, that have increased its
effectiveness. The current program has been effective in that
detectable steroid use appears to have declined. However, many
players have shifted to human growth hormone, which is not
detectable in any currently available urine test. The minority
of players who used these substances were wrong. They violated
federal law and baseball policy, and they distorted the
fairness of competition by trying to gain an unfair advantage
over the majority of players who followed the law and the
rules. They - the players who follow the law and the rules -
are faced with the painful choice of either being placed at a
competitive disadvantage or becoming illegal users themselves.
No one should have to make that choice.
Obviously, the players who illegally used performance
enhancing substances are responsible for their actions. But
they did not act in a vacuum. Everyone involved in baseball
over the past two decades - Commissioners, club officials, the
Players Association, and players - shares to some extent in the
responsibility for the steroids era. There was a collective
failure to recognize the problem as it emerged and to deal with
it early on. As a result, an environment developed in which
illegal use became widespread.
Knowledge and understanding of the past are essential if
the problem is to be dealt with effectively in the future. But
being chained to the past is not helpful. Baseball does not
need and cannot afford to engage in a never-ending search for
the name of every player who ever used performance enhancing
substances.
In my report I acknowledged and even emphasized the
obvious: there is much about the illegal use of performance
enhancing substances in baseball that I did not learn. There
were and are other suppliers and users. And it is clear that a
number of players have obtained these substances through so-
called rejuvenation centers, using prescriptions of doubtful
validity. Other investigations will no doubt turn up more names
and fill in more details, but that is unlikely to significantly
alter the description of baseball's steroids era, as set forth
in my report.
The Commissioner was right to ask for this investigation
and report. It would have been impossible to get closure on
this issue without it, or something like it. But it is now time
to look to the future, to get on with the important and
difficult task that lies ahead. I urge everyone involved in
Major League Baseball to join in a well-planned, well-executed,
and sustained effort to bring the era of steroids and human
growth hormone to an end and to prevent its recurrence in some
other form in the future. That's the only way this cloud will
be removed from the game.
The adoption of the recommendations set forth in my report
will be a first step in that direction, and I will now
summarize them. While some can be and have been implemented by
the Commissioner unilaterally, others are subject to collective
bargaining and therefore will require the agreement of the
Players Association. The recommendations focus on three areas.
First, there must be an enhanced capacity to conduct
investigations based on non-testing evidence. Some illegal
substances are difficult or virtually impossible to detect.
Indeed, one leading expert has argued that ``testing only
scratches the surface.'' The ability to investigate vigorously
allegations of violations is an essential part of any
meaningful drug prevention program.
The Commissioner has accepted my recommendation to create a
Department of Investigations, led by a senior executive, to
respond promptly and aggressively to allegations of the illegal
use or possession of performance enhancing substances. To do
its job effectively, this department must establish credibility
and cooperate closely with law enforcement agencies. I
recommended that the Commissioner strengthen pre-existing
efforts to keep illegal substances out of major league
clubhouses by logging and tracking packages shipped to players
at major league ballparks, conducting background checks and
random drug tests on clubhouse employees, and adopting policies
to ensure that allegations of a player's possession or use of
performance enhancing substances are reported promptly to the
Department of Investigations.
I also recommended that club personnel with responsibility
affecting baseball operations be required to sign annual
certifications that they have no unreported knowledge of any
possible violation of Major League Baseball's Drug Prevention
Policy.
The Commissioner has implemented all of these
recommendations.
Second, improved educational programs about the dangers of
substance use are critical to any effort to deter use. Over the
last several years, the Commissioner's Office and the Players
Association have made an increased effort to provide players
and club personnel with educational materials on performance
enhancing substances. Several suggestions for improvement in
this effort are set forth in my report.
Third, although it is clear that even the best drug testing
program is, by itself, not sufficient, drug testing remains an
important element of a comprehensive approach to combat illegal
use. The current program was agreed to in 2006 and will remain
in effect until 2011. Any changes to the program therefore must
be negotiated and agreed to by the clubs and the Players
Association. In my report, I set forth the principles that
presently characterize a state-of-the-art drug testing program,
and I urged the clubs and the Players Association to
incorporate them into baseball's program when they next deal
with this issue.
The program should be administered by a truly independent
authority that holds exclusive authority over its structure and
administration. It should be transparent to the public,
allowing for periodic audits of its operations and providing
regular reports of aggregate data on testing and test results.
It should include adequate year-round unannounced testing, and
employ best practices as they develop. To ensure that the
independent administrator can accomplish these objectives, the
program should receive sufficient funding. And it should
continue to respect the legitimate privacy and due process
rights of the players.
My report demonstrates that I'm not an apologist for either
the Commissioner or the Players Association. But in fairness, I
think we should recognize what they have done to address this
problem. As noted in my report, prior to the 2002 negotiations,
the Commissioner took several key steps to lay the foundation
for an agreement on a mandatory random drug testing program,
including: In early 2001, he convened a meeting of several
respected team physicians, during which they shared their own
experiences and concerns about the use of steroids by major
league players. That year he unilaterally imposed a drug
testing program for minor league players, which he could do
because minor league players are not represented by the Players
Association. In 2002, after detailed negotiations, the Players
Association agreed to the Commissioner's proposal for a
mandatory random testing program in the major leagues. To their
credit, this was a significant step by the Players Association
because, as I noted earlier, they had for many years opposed
such a program.
The drug testing programs in all sports, including the
Olympics, have evolved over time through a process of trial and
error, as the programs were modified to address emerging
problems and concerns. In that respect, baseball's program has
been like all the others. As described in my report, since 2002
the Commissioner and the Players Association have agreed to
several improvements in the program to deal with issues as they
arose.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I was asked to
conduct an inquiry and to report what I found as accurately, as
fairly, and as thoroughly as I could. I've done so, to the best
of my ability, and my work has been completed. Now it's up to
the Commissioner, the clubs, and the players, to decide how
they will proceed. Their actions over the past six years have
demonstrated that they can address this problem through the
collective bargaining process. I hope they will do so again.
----------
Mr. Rush. Second, Mr. Vince McMahon, the Chairman of the
Board for World Wrestling Entertainment, was also invited to
testify at today's hearing. Mr. McMahon was the only witness,
the only one to decline our invitation, and I am extremely and
exceptionally disappointed with his decision. I received a
letter on January 28 from the attorney representing Mr. McMahon
indicating that he, the lawyer, could not be in Washington on
the hearing date. I fully understand their scheduling issues,
and circumstances arise that make attending a congressional
hearing in Washington, D.C. difficult. However, today's hearing
is not a trivial matter. And all, each and every one of today's
witnesses made the necessary accommodation to be here this
morning. And I am going to take a moment to thank you all for
making that very, very hard and difficult effort to be here
this morning.
I for one am not convinced that Mr. McMahon's reasons for
not attending are any more compelling than are the difficulties
and inconveniences faced by you, the other witnesses. Steroid
abuse in professional wrestling is probably worse than in any
professional sports or amateur sport. And while I recognize
that professional wrestling is not actually, quote, a sport,
end quote, it certainly requires a great deal of athletic
talent, it is immensely popular with young people, including
children, and many of their high profile athlete entertainers
have fatally abused steroids and other drugs. The number of
deaths in professional wrestling ranks is startling, to say the
least. And the tragedy of Chris Benoit has been well
documented.
I want to ensure Mr. McMahon that this committee, this
subcommittee fully intends to deal with the illegal steroid
abuse in professional wrestling, and we hope he will be a part
of the solution and not part of the problem. We intend to
proceed deliberatively on this particular matter. We have
options. Mr. McMahon should and must be willing to cooperate
with the undertakings of this subcommittee and we expect no
less.
With that, I am pleased to introduce the witnesses on the
first panel. Starting at my far right, Allan H. ``Bud'' Selig,
who is the Commissioner of Major League Baseball; Donald Fehr,
the Executive Director of the Major League Baseball Players
Association; David Stern, Commissioner of the National
Basketball Association; G. William ``Billy'' Hunter, Executive
Director of the National Basketball Players Association; Roger
Goodell, Commissioner of the National Football League; Gene
Upshaw, Executive Director of the National Football League
Players Association; Gary Bettman, the Commissioner of the
National Hockey League; Paul Kelly, the Executive Director of
the National Hockey League Players Association.
We want to thank you for taking the time out again for
being present before this subcommittee, and we will recognize
Mr. Selig. Please limit your remarks to 5 minutes. Mr. Selig,
you are recognized for opening statements.
STATEMENT OF ALLAN H. ``BUD'' SELIG, COMMISSIONER, THE OFFICE
OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL
Mr. Selig. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Rush, Ranking
Member Whitfield, and other members of the committee. I thank
you for the opportunity to testify this morning. As the
Commissioner of Baseball, I have confronted many difficult
problems. At the outset I want to acknowledge the constructive
role that the committee, including its former chairman,
Congressman Stearns, and Chairman Rush, has played in helping
baseball come to grips with the magnitude of the problem of
performance-enhancing substances.
As I have said previously, I accept responsibility for the
fact that baseball was slow to react to this problem. Today,
the most important thing is that we continue to work together
in the fight against performance-enhancing substances. When I
became Acting Commissioner in 1992, baseball's economic system
was so ineffective and outdated that it was undermining the
core competitive character of our game and compromising the
integrity of our sport. Moreover, our labor relations were so
dysfunctional that the game had endured an unbroken string of
work stoppages that threatened to alienate even our most loyal
fans. We confronted these problems, and as a result, today, the
great game of baseball is more popular than ever with fans
across America.
As difficult and complex as these problems were, none was
more difficult than the issue of performance-enhancing
substances. The use of steroids and human growth hormone is
difficult to detect because it involves clandestine behavior by
users and the science of cheating constantly changes. It is
divisive because it pits players who use such substances
against those who do not. It is corrosive to the integrity of
our game because it creates an unfair advantage on the field,
and it is dangerous both to the players who use these
substances and the other people who emulate these players.
Major League Baseball has acted aggressively to combat the
use of performance-enhancing substances by our players. In
1994, we made a thorough and detailed proposal to the union on
drug testing and it was rejected. In 2001, I implemented the
first industrywide drug testing program in our Minor League
system where I was free to act unilaterally. I have continually
improved that program by adding more banned substances and
imposing tougher discipline. I have also expanded the program
to cover players in the Dominican and Venezuelan summer
leagues. In the initial year of the Minor League program, we
had a positive rate of 9 percent. By 2007, that rate had
declined to less than half of 1 percent.
In 2002, we overcame the Players aAssociation's historic
opposition to drug testing of any type and negotiated the
first-ever Major League drug testing program. Since that time
we, along with the Players Association, have taken the
unprecedented step of twice reopening our collective bargaining
agreement to toughen our joint policy.
Our current policy, complete with disciplinary provisions
of 50 games, 100 games, and life, is the strongest in
professional sports. Senator Mitchell's recent report found
that the program has been effective in deterring the use of
detectable steroids. In fact, we had nearly 100 positive tests
in the 2003 survey test and just two steroid positives in 2006
and three in 2007. Moreover, on our own initiative, we banned
amphetamines and other stimulants in 2006. We test for these
stimulants on game days, both before and after the game.
I understand that new challenges like human growth hormone
will continue to emerge. As a result, Major League Baseball has
been active in research and education. We have provided the
initial funding for Dr. Don Catlin's effort to develop a urine
test for human growth hormone, a project subsequently joined by
the NFL. We are a founding member, along with the USOC and the
NFL, of the Partnership for Clean Competition, an ongoing
multisport sport research program that will also include HGH
testing research. Major League Baseball has also funded and
worked closely with the Partnership for a Drug-Free America and
the Taylor Hooton Foundation on educational efforts directed at
preventing steroid use by young people.
Most recently, I unilaterally took the unusual but
important step of commissioning the Mitchell investigation. I
knew that looking into the past would be difficult and
disturbing, but I was determined to learn the truth about what
went wrong. I never wanted it to be said that I personally, or
baseball as an institution, had something to hide.
I believe that the Mitchell Report will be a roadmap for
our future efforts to deal with performance-enhancing
substances. I am encouraged that Senator Mitchell found our
program to be effective in dealing with steroids and that I
recognize that HGH remains a problem for baseball and all
sports. To the extent that the Report is critical of baseball,
I first accept that responsibility. Equally important, I am
committed to adopting Senator Mitchell's recommendations and
continuing the fight against performance-enhancing substances.
I have already adopted all of the Mitchell recommendations
that can be accomplished without collective bargaining.
Baseball has created a new Department of Investigations to
pursue non-analytical positives. Key department personnel have
met with senior law enforcement officials to open and improve
lines of communication. Background checks and drug testing of
clubhouse personnel will be required in the 2008 season. Our
policies requiring club personnel to disclose information on
performance-enhancing drug use have been strengthened, and we
have established a confidential hotline and Web site to
encourage such disclosures.
Mr. Selig. Other recommendations made by Senator Mitchell
require bargaining with the Players Association. We have
already reached agreement to eliminate the overnight advance
notice of urine collections previously provided to clubs.
Moreover, I have met personally with Don Fehr and a group of
players about the Mitchell recommendations. My staff is
involved in ongoing, detailed discussions. Unfortunately, we
have not yet concluded that negotiation. Consistent with the
Senator's report, I am committed to achieving a more
independent, a more transparent and a more flexible program
that will have adequate year-round, unannounced testing to
deter the use of illegal substances.
Mr. Rush. Please conclude.
Mr. Selig. Okay. I am almost done.
Moving forward, I can assure you that Major League Baseball
will remain vigilant and proactive in dealing with the issue of
performance-enhancing drugs. But performance-enhancing drugs
are a societal problem. Senator Mitchell's report identified
the difficulties inherent in any attempt, whether by baseball,
by other professional sports or by the Olympics, to stop by
itself the use of illegal performance-enhancing substances. We
welcome your participation in attacking the problem at its
source. There are a number of bills that have been introduced
that we wholly support, including Representative Lynch's bill,
Senator Schumer's bill, Senator Grassley's bill and Senator
Biden's bill to crack down on the sale of controlled substances
over the Internet.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to be here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Selig follows:]
Statement of Allan H. Selig
Good morning Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Whitfield and
other members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify this morning.
As the Commissioner of Baseball, I have confronted many
difficult problems. When I became acting Commissioner in 1992,
Baseball's economic system was so ineffective and outdated that
it was undermining the core competitive character of our game
and compromising the integrity of our sport. Moreover, our
labor relations were so dysfunctional that the game had endured
an unbroken string of work stoppages that threatened to
alienate even our most loyal fans. We confronted these problems
and, as a result, the great game of Baseball is more popular
than ever with fans across America.
As difficult and complex as these problems were, none was
more difficult than the issue of performance enhancing
substances. The use of steroids and human growth hormone is
difficult to detect because it involves clandestine behavior by
users and the science of cheating constantly changes; it is
divisive because it pits players who use such substances
against those who do not; it is corrosive to the integrity of
our game because it creates an unfair advantage on the field;
and it is dangerous both to the players who use these
substances and the young people who emulate those players.
Major League Baseball has acted aggressively to combat the
use of performance enhancing substances by our players. In
1994, we made a thorough and detailed proposal to the union on
drug testing and it was rejected. In 2001, I implemented the
first industry-wide drug testing program in our minor league
system where I was free to act unilaterally. I have continually
improved that program by adding more banned substances and
imposing tougher discipline. I have also expanded the program
to cover players in the Dominican and Venezuelan Summer
Leagues. In the initial year of minor league testing, we had a
positive rate of 9 percent. By 2007, that rate had declined to
less than one half of one percent.
In 2002, we overcame the Players Association's historic
opposition to drug testing of any type and negotiated the
first-ever Major League drug testing program. Since that time,
we, along with the Players Association, have taken the
unprecedented step of twice reopening our collective bargaining
agreement to toughen our joint policy. Our current policy,
complete with a disciplinary provision of 50 games, 100 games
and life, is the strongest in professional sports. Senator
Mitchell's recent report found that the program has been
effective in deterring the use of detectable steroids. In fact,
we had nearly 100 positive tests in the 2003 survey test and
just two steroid positives in 2006 and three in 2007. Moreover,
on our own initiative, we banned amphetamines and other
stimulants in 2005. We test for stimulants on game days, both
before and after the game.
I understand that new challenges like Human Growth Hormone
will continue to emerge. As a result, Major League Baseball has
been active in research and education. We provided the initial
funding for Dr. Don Catlin's effort to develop a urine test for
Human Growth Hormone, a project subsequently joined by the NFL.
We were a founding member, along with the USOC and the NFL, of
the Partnership for Clean Competition, an on-going multi-sport
research program that will also be involved with HGH-testing
research. Major League Baseball has funded and worked closely
with the Partnership for a Drug Free America and the Taylor
Hooton Foundation on educational efforts directed at preventing
steroid use by young people.
Most recently, I unilaterally took the unusual, but
important, step of commissioning the Mitchell Investigation. I
knew that looking into the past would be difficult and
disturbing, but I was determined to learn the truth about what
went wrong. I never wanted it to be said that I personally or
Baseball as an institution had something to hide.
I believe that the subsequent Mitchell Report will be a
road map for our future efforts to deal with performance
enhancing substances. I am encouraged that Senator Mitchell
found our program to be effective in dealing with steroids and
I recognize that HGH remains a problem for Baseball and all
sports. To the extent that the report is critical of Major
League Baseball, I accept responsibility. Equally important, I
am committed to adopting Senator Mitchell's recommendations and
continuing the fight against performance enhancing substances.
I have adopted all of the Mitchell recommendations that can
be accomplished without collective bargaining. Baseball has
created a new department of investigations to pursue ``non-
analytical positives.'' Key department personnel have met with
senior law enforcement officials to open and improve lines of
communication. Background checks and drug testing of Clubhouse
personnel will be required in the 2008 season. Our policies
requiring Club personnel to disclose information on performance
enhancing drug use have been strengthened and we have
established a confidential hot line and web site to encourage
such disclosures.
Other recommendations made by Senator Mitchell require
bargaining with the Players Association. We have already
reached agreement to eliminate the overnight advance notice of
urine collections previously provided to Clubs. Moreover, I
have met personally with Don Fehr and with a group of players
about the Mitchell recommendations. My staff is involved in on-
going, detailed discussions. Unfortunately, we have not yet
concluded that negotiation. Consistent with the Senator's
report, I am committed to achieving a more independent, a more
transparent and a more flexible program that will have adequate
year-round, unannounced testing to deter the use of illegal
substances.
Moving forward, I can assure you that Major League Baseball
will remain vigilant and proactive in dealing with the issue of
performance enhancing drugs. But performance enhancing drugs
are a societal problem. Senator Mitchell's report identified
the difficulties inherent in any attempt, whether by Baseball,
by other professional sports, or by the Olympics, to stop by
itself the use of illegal performance enhancing substances. We
welcome your participation in attacking the problem at its
source. There are a number of bills that have been introduced
that we wholly support, including Representative Lynch's bill
(HR 4911) and Senator Schumer's bill (Senate Bill 877) to make
HGH a Schedule III Controlled Substance, Senator Grassley's
bill (Senate Bill 2470) to prohibit the sale of DHEA to minors,
and Senator Biden's bill (Senate Bill 2237) to crackdown on the
sale of controlled substances over the Internet.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to be here.
----------
Mr. Rush. Mr. Fehr, please be reminded--and the other
witnesses--that your statements have been read and are a part
of the record. Please summarize your statements in 5 minutes,
if you will.
STATEMENT OF DONALD FEHR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MAJOR LEAGUE
BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Fehr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member and
other members of the subcommittee.
As you know, I serve as the Executive Director of the Major
League Baseball Players Association, and I appreciate the
opportunity to be here this morning.
As I previously testified, playing Major League Baseball
requires talent, drive, intelligence, and determination.
Unlawful performance-enhancing substances have no place in the
game. We can't change the past. We can learn from it.
As I testified a month ago--or a little more than that--
before Government Oversight, the problem was larger than we
realized and certainly than I did. And to the extent
responsibility should be taken we do, and in particular I do.
But, as I think the Mitchell Report demonstrated, since we
began with our first agreement in 2002, we have worked
vigorously to rid the game of these substances and have made I
think very great progress. I reaffirm our commitment to
continue that effort.
Today, we have a program which we believe is both effective
and fair. It was widely praised by Members of Congress in both
Houses when it was implemented in 2005. It is independently
administered, state of the art, random unannounced testing year
round, tests mostly on game days, uses appropriate WADA-
certified labs, has stiff penalties, and it has been subject to
regular discussion and improvement.
Human growth hormone is a difficult and perhaps unique
challenge. That is because there are no commercially available
blood or urine tests which can yet be used. That was the case
when I testified before this subcommittee 3 years ago. It
remains the case today.
So what have we done? We banned HGH. We agreed to test for
it as soon as a scientifically valid urine test exists. We have
agreed to procedures which allow players to be suspended for
evidence other than a positive test for HGH use, and they have
been. And should a scientifically valid, accurate, commercially
available blood test be available to us, we will consider it in
good faith. But, as Senator Mitchell noted, even the blood
tests now under consideration may be of limited practical
utility.
I therefore have a specific suggestion. That would be that
perhaps the Congress could consider requiring that in
prescription HGH some sort of a chemical marker be added to the
drug so that it would be detectable in urine tests.
We can't do this alone. As has been reflected in some of
the opening statements, this is a problem much broader than
professional sports. When we went on Google yesterday and typed
in ``where can I buy HGH'', we got two million options in less
than a quarter of a second. Ads for HGH, or what is reputed to
be HGH, are available nationwide.
I agree that the bills introduced by Representative Lynch,
Senator Schumer, Senator Grassley and others may help. But the
Congress we think can do more. Consideration could be given to
taking action against the unlawful online sales and marketing
of HGH and in particular to examining why so much of this
product seems to be so freely available. And, as I have
previously suggested, perhapves the Congress should do an
examination as to whether the Dietary Supplement, Health and
Education Act is being adequately enforced.
Senator Mitchell was hired to do a report. He did his job
well. We represented our members well, as we are required to do
by Federal law in that process. We don't apologize for that.
But I would just ask everyone to remember that what Senator
Mitchell found was very specific, that after the current
program was implemented we are detecting the steroids capable
of being detected. As the Commissioner testified, in more than
6,000 tests over the last two seasons we had only five steroid
positives.
Now we have been asked once again to reopen our collective
bargaining agreement. No union and no management lightly takes
the suggestion that it ought to be reopened. The contract is
the lifeblood of every union. However, you have my commitment,
as I testified a month ago, that we will discuss all of Senator
Mitchell's recommendations.
And those discussions are in progress. I will begin meeting
with players on individual teams tomorrow in spring training,
which was impossible to do over the winter, to discuss these
various issues, among other things.
There are some things that we want to talk about, too, in
those discussions. Among those would be that allegations
against players ought not to be publicly aired until there is
an opportunity for some due process procedure by which they can
be tested. But the players will engage in these discussions in
good faith.
Last, as the Congress has repeatedly noted over the years,
collective bargaining is the appropriate forum in which to deal
with matters affecting terms and conditions of employment, even
matters as sensitive and controversial as suspicionless drug
testing. We believe that the evidence reflects that we can deal
with the problem when the technology is available, and we
believe that's where it should remain.
Thank you.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fehr follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The next witness is Mr. Stern, Mr. David Stern,
the Commissioner of the National Basketball Association.
STATEMENT OF DAVID STERN, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL BASKETBALL
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Stern. Chairman Rush, Congressman Whitfield, and
members of the subcommittee, I, on behalf of the National
Basketball Association, agree with the sentiment underlying the
opening statements.
I have appeared before this committee and others on this
subject; and what I would say is that we cannot ignore the fact
that young people, especially young athletes, look up to and
attempt to emulate professional athletes. We cannot avoid the
fact that illegal drugs, steroids in particular, go right to
the heart of the integrity of our competition; and, third,
theypose grave threats to the health of the players that ingest
them.
That is why, since our last appearance here in 2005, we
have, with the cooperation of the National Basketball Players
Association, implemented a testing program that provides for
four random tests a year between the beginning of training camp
and the end of the postseason. That is why we have elected to
use an independent agency to do that and to decide when those
tests should occur, which players should be tested. That is why
we use WADA-approved drugs; and that is why, together with our
Players Association and our teams, we work diligently on
educational campaigns both for our players and for the youth
that are affiliated with our League and our teams.
As Chairman Rush pointed out, we have filed detailed
statements that list those programs; and I will refer you to
that if you need more information. And I thank you.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Stern.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stern follows:]
Statement of David J. Stern
Chairman Rush, Congressman Whitfield and Members of the
Subcommittee:
The use by athletes of steroids and other performance-
enhancing substances is an issue implicating the fundamental
integrity of all athletic competition. The NBA, as a result,
has a strong and continuing interest in ensuring that these
drugs are not used by our players and that our games are
conducted on a fair and legitimate basis. Steroids and
performance-enhancing drugs also pose serious risks to the
health of our players, which provides a separate and compelling
rationale for preventing their use in the NBA. Finally, we
cannot ignore the fact that young people - especially young
athletes - look up to and attempt to emulate professional
athletes. It is therefore incumbent on the NBA and its players
to keep performance-enhancing substances out of our game in
order to send the message to all our young fans that these
substances have no legitimate place in athletic competition.
THE NBA'S ANTI-DRUG PROGRAM
Through the process of collective bargaining, the NBA and
the Players Association adopted our first anti-drug program in
1983, with a focus on drugs of abuse - in particular, cocaine
and heroin. In 1999, the NBA and the Players Association agreed
to include steroids and performance-enhancing substances in
that program, and from 1999 to 2004, through agreement with the
Players Association, we added additional performance-enhancing
substances to our list of banned drugs and expanded our on-
going program to educate players about the dangers of these
substances.
I should point out that the NBA, during this time, had no
evidence of even minimal use of steroids or performance-
enhancing drugs by NBA players. Nor are we aware of any such
evidence today. But we believed then - and still believe today
- that a strong and effective anti-drug policy is the best way
to ensure that these substances never enter the culture of the
NBA, and to demonstrate to our fans the collective commitment
of NBA teams and players to fair and legitimate competition.
In May of 2005, I appeared before this Committee and
separately before the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, both of which had questions and concerns
about performance-enhancing substances. Later that year, the
NBA also provided information about our anti-drug program to
the House Judiciary Committee. Not long after these events, the
NBA and the Players Association entered into a new labor
agreement, effective with the start of the 2005-06 NBA season,
that included important modifications to our drug program.
Under our current collective bargaining agreement, all NBA
players are tested four times between October 1 and June 30 of
each season on a random, unannounced basis. Testing is
conducted during the pre-season, regular season, and post-
season, and players whose teams do not make the playoffs or are
eliminated from the playoffs are subject to testing throughout
the entire post-season.
The penalties for violators have also been increased. A
first-time offender of the steroids and performance-enhancing
drugs policy is suspended from his team for 10 games; a second
offense results in a suspension of 25 games; a third offense
results in a suspension of one (1) year; and the fourth offense
results in the player's dismissal and disqualification from the
NBA. Because the average player salary is now $5.35 million,
these suspensions have substantial financial consequences, and,
because suspensions are publicly announced, they can also
affect the player's off-the-court income and standing.
The foregoing penalties, we submit, are strict enough to
punish violators appropriately, deter the use of steroids and
performance-enhancing drugs in the NBA, and provide fair
opportunities for players to conform their conduct
appropriately. Indeed, since these drugs were first added to
our Program in 1999, we have never had a player commit a second
violation.
The NBA utilizes several independent entities and
individuals to oversee and administer the Program. Dr. Stephen
M. Taylor, who was educated at Harvard and Howard Universities
and honed his skills as an addiction medicine specialist at New
York University, is our Medical Director. In this capacity, Dr.
Taylor serves as the medical review officer for all positive
tests, confirms all positive tests, develops and implements
treatment programs for players who need counseling or other
medical intervention, and leads our efforts to educate players
about the dangers of prohibited substances.
All urine specimens collected under the Program are
analyzed by the Doping Control Laboratory at the INRS-Institut
Armand-Frappier in Montreal, which is one of only three WADA-
accredited laboratories in North America. The Director of the
Laboratory, Dr. Christiane Ayotte, has been extensively
involved with the anti-doping efforts of both the IOC and WADA
for more than a decade, including her recent membership on
WADA's Health, Research and Science Committee.
The scheduling and collection of specimens is performed by
The National Center for Drug Free Sport (DFS), an independent
company that also performs collections for the NCAA and other
sports organizations. The NBA and the Players Association have
no involvement whatsoever in DFS's scheduling of random drug
tests or its selection of players for testing, and are provided
no advance notice by DFS of when teams or specific players are
scheduled to be tested. Random tests, which involve no advance
notice to NBA players, are conducted on both non-game days and
game days (both at shoot-arounds and pre-game).
The NBA also utilizes a Prohibited Substances Committee to
review the Program's list of banned substances and address
other anti-doping issues, such as advances in drug testing
science and technology, on a regular basis. The Committee is
comprised of three drug testing experts, as well as one
representative from both the NBA and the Players Association.
Those experts include Dr. Barry Sample, who served as the
Director of the Anti-Doping Laboratory for the 1996 Summer
Olympics in Atlanta, and Dr. Doug Rollins, who served as the
Medical Director of the Doping Control Program for the 2002
Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
The NBA's list of banned substances has also been expanded
to include more than 120 substances, including all of the
steroids made illegal by the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of
2004 and additional steroids, stimulants and other substances
banned by WADA. In addition, the initial threshold for a
possible positive testosterone result was lowered to 4:1 (from
6:1), following a change that was made by WADA.
Human Growth Hormone (HGH), a substance whose use seems to
be increasing among athletes as well as among the population as
a whole, was one of the substances added to our banned
substances list in 2005. Since that time, the Prohibited
Substances Committee has been monitoring the development of a
legitimate and valid urine test for HGH. Currently, such a test
is not available. While we understand that a blood-based HGH
test will be available later this year in certain WADA-
accredited laboratories, our current agreement with the Players
Association does not provide for the collection of blood
samples from players.
The Anti-Drug Program also includes several additional
components that are worthy of mention here. For example, the
Program provides for ``reasonable cause'' testing when evidence
comes to light that a player has used or possessed a banned
substance. This evidence is submitted to an Independent Expert,
who determines whether there is ``reasonable cause'' for an
authorization for testing for the player in question. If an
authorization for testing is issued, the player is then tested
randomly four times over the next six-week period, and these
tests are supplemental to the requirement that the player be
tested randomly four times each season.
The Program also includes a mechanism to discipline players
for so-called ``non-analytical positives'' - i.e., a finding
that a player has used or possessed a prohibited substance that
is not based on a positive drug testing result. Such findings
are made by an independent arbitrator under our labor
agreement, who is also the person who hears and resolves any
appeals filed by players who are disciplined under the Program.
Finally, players are automatically penalized for a criminal
conviction involving the use or possession of a banned
substance.
THE NBA'S EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS
The NBA's Anti-Drug Program contains a substantial
education and counseling component. A brochure describing the
Program is distributed to each NBA player during training camp,
and a poster-sized list of the NBA's banned substances is
displayed in each team locker room. During the season, each NBA
player is required to attend a ``team awareness'' meeting, at
which the Program and substance abuse issues are addressed by
the Medical Director and other members of the Program's
professional staff. In addition, prior to entry into the NBA,
rookie players must attend a week-long ``Rookie Transition
Program,'' during which the dangers of drug and steroids use -
among other topics - are addressed in full. And an anti-drug
presentation is made at the NBA's Pre-Draft Camp in June of
each year, where prospective NBA draftees are gathered.
The NBA and the Players Association have also emphasized
the dangers of dietary supplements, which are not currently
subject to regulation by the federal government. A special
notice regarding dietary supplements is distributed to players
at the start of each season and is displayed as a poster in
each team locker room. The warning states in part:
``Use of supplements has been associated with high blood
pressure, heart attack, stroke, seizure, and sudden death.
These events have occurred in young adults, including elite
athletes, in otherwise good health. . . . Because supplements
are not regulated, their quality and potency may vary
significantly from product to product. In fact, supplements may
be contaminated with ingredients not listed on the label. Some
of these ingredients may be harmful; others may be banned by
the NBA/NBPA Anti-Drug Program, and could lead to a positive
drug test.''
We recognize that one of the Committee's concerns is the
extent to which young people, both athletes and non-athletes,
are using steroids and other performance-enhancing substances
today. The NBA is fully supportive of efforts to better educate
our young fans about the dangers of these substances, as well
as the dangers of drugs of abuse such as marijuana and cocaine.
Indeed, the NBA, its teams, and its players have made numerous
contributions to organizations and initiatives that counsel
against substance abuse.
The NBA has a long-standing relationship with the
Partnership for Drug-Free America, and has generously supported
their anti-drug programs throughout the years -- including
through the regular airing of public service announcements
involving NBA players. The NBA has also worked with the
Partnership in developing its ``Training With Integrity''
materials for members of the Jr. NBA and Jr. WNBA, a nationwide
support program for youth basketball leagues that reaches
approximately 2 million children annually. The ``Training With
Integrity'' materials, which discuss the dangers of both
recreational and performance-enhancing drugs, and encourage
good health and proper training, are distributed to
participating children, parents, and coaches.
Together with the National Federation of High Schools, the
NBA, through its ``NBA Cares'' initiative, has contributed to
the development and creation of a DVD focusing on the dangers
of steroid abuse. This DVD has been made available to the more
than 16,000 high schools nationwide that are Federation
affiliates.
NBA teams are also involved in educating the public,
particularly young people, about the dangers of drug use. For
example, for more than 15 years, the San Antonio Spurs have
sponsored the Drug-Free Youth Basketball League, an eight-week
basketball league which offers over 20,000 at-risk youth the
opportunity to play basketball and learn the importance of team
work, sportsmanship, and discipline in a drug-free and safe
environment. The Spurs also run Spurs Night Hoops, a basketball
league for teenagers, in which volunteer coaches provide
education to the players about the dangers of, among other
substances, performance-enhancing drugs. The Miami Heat have
hosted the Heat Steroids Seminar for middle and high school
students and physical education instructors from the Miami-Dade
County public schools. Heat personnel, including players,
participate in this seminar, which provides an anti-drug
message and focuses on healthy training alternatives. The
Indiana Pacers have recently developed a Be Drug Free grant
fund that is open to all organizations whose mission is to help
young people remain drug-free.
Since 2005, in addition to these educational efforts, the
NBA has become involved in other initiatives intended to
prevent and combat the use of steroids and performance-
enhancing drugs. Last year, for example, we joined with the
other major sports leagues in initiating a dialogue with
several agencies of the federal government, including the Drug
Enforcement Agency and the Department of Justice, designed to
foster additional communication and cooperation about
performance-enhancing drugs. Two meetings were held in 2007,
and the parties intend to continue to work together to foster
stronger relationships and to educate the public about the
dangers associated with the use of these substances.
The NBA has also joined The Partnership for Clean
Competition, the recently-launched collaboration between the
United States Olympic Committee and certain professional and
amateur sports organizations, by pledging an initial
contribution of $500,000. The collaboration's mission is to
support independent scientific research on the scientific
implications of sports doping and the development of the most
effective tests to detect the use of banned substances.
Specifically, the Partnership will fund research concerning the
detection of HGH, the analysis and examination of genetic
technologies in doping, and the development of tests that can
be made available to colleges, high schools, and youth sports
organizations on a cost-effective basis.
COMMENTS ON POTENTIAL LEGISLATION
I believe that the NBA's current anti-drug program is
strong, effective, and appropriate for our sport, and remain
committed to ensuring that it remains state-of-the-art. I am
confident that any necessary modifications to our program can
be made through the collective bargaining process with the
Players Association, as we have successfully done in the past.
Indeed, a drug program that is the product of agreement between
management and labor will always be superior to one that is
imposed from the outside, as the parties to the agreement will
be invested, as we are, in its success.
For this reason, federal legislation in this area is not
necessary for the NBA. Nor do I believe that a uniform,
federally-mandated approach to drug testing for all sports
leagues would be appropriate. For example, while we believe it
is important to prohibit a broad list of performance-enhancing
substances, as we do in our Program, we do not believe that the
entire WADA list of prohibited substances is right for the NBA.
Similarly, while stiff penalties are necessary for the
legitimacy of any anti-drug program, we believe that the
penalties contained in our labor contract - and not the
excessive penalties that were previously proposed by Congress -
are fair and appropriate for our sport. And finally, we do not
believe that the involvement of an entity like WADA will
improve our Program in any respect. As discussed above, the
NBA's Program is already managed by independent entities and
individuals with substantial expertise and integrity. Moreover,
because the NBA and the Players Association jointly created our
Program, NBA players have confidence in its legitimacy and
impartiality, and that trust is critical to making the Program
run smoothly.
I thank the Committee for the opportunity to present the
NBA's views on this matter.
----------
Mr. Rush. The next witness is Mr. Hunter, the Basketball
Players--NBA Players Association.
STATEMENT OF G. WILLIAM HUNTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
BASKETBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Rush, Congressman Whitfield and members of the
committee, I am pleased to be here and to represent the 450 men
and 200-plus women of the NBA and WNBA.
I appreciate the subcommittee's concern about the use of
steroids by professional athletes and others, particularly
young adults and children. As a former State prosecutor and
United States Attorney for the Northern District of California,
I participated in the prosecution of many drug cases and have a
keen sensitivity towards issues involving dug use and abuse.
Based on my experiences in the 12 years I have served on behalf
of NBA players, I firmly believe that the use of steroid and
other performance-enhancing drugs is virtually nonexistent, and
I quote, nonexistent in the NBA. Nevertheless, the players and
I are committed to ensuring that the use of such drugs does not
ever become an issue of concern.
Towards that end, we have put in place a comprehensive drug
program and policy that provides the education, testing, and
discipline with regard to the use of steroids, performance-
enhancing drugs, and masking agents. We were glad to get out in
front of this issue when we put the policy in place in 1999,
long before it generated the national interest that exists
today; and we remain content that our policy, strengthened
significantly in 2005, following my last appearance here, sends
an appropriate message to the world that there is no place for
steroids in professional basketball.
In our 2005 agreement, the players agreed to more frequent
testing, harsher penalties for steroid use and performance-
enhancing drugs, even though the results of our testing over
the prior 6 years did not mandate that such changes be made. I
am pleased to report that the test results since the inception
of our 2005 agreement confirm our belief that steroid use is
not an issue in the NBA.
We have succeeded for a variety of reasons. As soon as a
player enters the League as a rookie, he is immediately taught
about the dangers of steroid use at our week-long rookie
transition program. When he joins his team he must attend
mandatory meetings with trained drug counselors, which include
retired NBA players and a well-qualified medical director as
part of our team awareness programs. Hopefully, the players
will become involved with the union; and, if so, will attend
our summer and winter union meetings, during which we often
give presentations on recent developments and further educate
players with these issues. Finally, the medical director
maintains a nationwide network of medical providers, at least
one in each NBA city, who are available to assist players with
counseling and treatment.
Though we hope to accomplish our objectives through
education and counseling, we have undoubtedly put in place firm
deterrence and a comprehensive testing scheme that effectively
end the issue. All NBA players may be tested up to four times
per season in random, unannounced tests, selected and performed
by an independent agency that is beyond reproach. The test
results are analyzed by an independent lab that is also beyond
reproach.
In addition to the random tests, players can also be tested
if an independent expert determines there is probable cause to
believe the player has used prohibited substances. Our
prohibited substance list is extremely comprehensive and
current, including all steroids made illegal by Congress, plus
other steroids, stimulants, and supplements banned by WADA. The
list is updated regularly by our Prohibited Substances
Committee, comprised of three independent experts and a
representative from both the League and the union.
If a player tests positive or is otherwise adjudged to have
used a prohibited substance, he suffers significant penalties.
The first-time offender will be suspended for 10 games, with
penalties escalating to 25 games for a second offense, 1 year
for a third, and finally dismissal and disqualification for a
fourth use.
Even a first-time offender suffers greatly. An average NBA
player would lose a half million dollars in salary alone if
caught just once using steroids. And perhaps more importantly,
since the player's identity and the substance used are
disclosed publicly, the impact on the player is devastating,
costing millions in endorsements and other revenues.
In sum, we believe our program strikes the appropriate
balance with regard to issues of testing and discipline, and we
certainly have not seen signs that a steroid issue exists in
the NBA. Whether we attribute it to the concern with the health
risk and side effects or the deterrent effect put in place by
our policy or, as I believe is most prominent, the widespread
belief among our membership that steroid use would diminish and
not enhance their skills as a professional basketball player,
it has become clear to me that players in the NBA simply have
no desire to use steroids. The players know and through our
policy have demonstrated to everyone, especially our young
fans, that the only way to succeed as a professional basketball
player is by cultivating and nurturing your talent,
determination and desire, and by working harder than everyone
else.
I am grateful that the committee has allowed us to send
this message through the vehicle of our collective bargaining
policy. Thank you for this opportunity.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the witness.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter follows:]
Statement of G. William Hunter
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is G. William Hunter and I am the Executive
Director of the National Basketball Players Association, the
labor union that represents all NBA players in collective
bargaining.
I appreciate the Subcommittee's concern about the use of
steroids by professional athletes and others, particularly
young adults and children. As a former state prosecutor and
United States Attorney, I have participated in the prosecution
of many drug cases and have a keen sensitivity toward issues
involving drug use and abuse. Based on my experiences in the
nearly 12 years I have served the NBA players, I firmly believe
that the use of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs
is virtually non-existent in the NBA. Nonetheless, the players
and I are committed to ensuring that the use of such drugs does
not ever become an issue of concern.
To that end, in our most recent collective bargaining
agreement executed in 2005 shortly after my last appearance
here, we greatly strengthened the testing protocol for
steroids, masking agents and performance enhancing drugs that
was established in our 1999 Agreement. Our Agreement today
provides for random testing for all players of up to four (4)
times during the NBA season. This testing protocol is a
significant change from the prior policy, which provided for
random testing of veteran players once during the training camp
period.
Additionally, all players remain subject to reasonable
cause testing at any time. If an independent expert finds
reasonable cause to believe that a player is using steroids the
player may be tested up to four (4) times during the following
six week period. The testing during this period may be
administered at any time, without any prior notice to the
player. All drug testing is conducted by an independent
company, with no advance notice given to the players, and all
specimens are analyzed by one of only three WADA-accredited
laboratories in North America.
Our list of banned substances is extremely comprehensive
and current. The list includes all steroids made illegal by
Congress plus other steroids, stimulants and supplements banned
by WADA. The list is updated regularly by our Prohibited
Substances Committee, comprised of three independent drug
testing experts and a representative from both the NBPA and NBA
While our Anti-Drug Program has always had a strong
emphasis on education and treatment rather than punishment,
with a standard of progressive discipline for violators, the
Program does provide for substantial penalties, which were
significantly increased in our current agreement, for those who
are caught using steroids and other performance enhancing
drugs. A first time offender is automatically suspended for ten
(10) games and is required to enter an education, treatment and
counseling program established by the Program's Medical
Director. This suspension alone would cost the average NBA
player half a million dollars in salary. For a second
violation, the player is suspended for twenty-five (25) games
and required to re-enter the education, treatment and
counseling program. For a third violation, the player is
suspended for one (1) year from the date of the offense and is
again required to enter the education, treatment and counseling
program. If there is a fourth violation, the player is
immediately dismissed and disqualified from the NBA. Also, any
player who is disciplined for conduct involving steroids,
performance enhancing drugs or masking agents, will have his
identity, the particular drug used, and the penalty publicly
disclosed. Especially in the current environment, the impact of
being identified as a steroid user could be devastating to a
player, costing him millions in endorsements and other
revenues, and certainly serves as a significant deterrent.
In addition to severe penalties and increased frequency of
testing, our Anti-Drug Program is focused on education,
treatment and counseling. Players attend mandatory meetings
when they first enter the league and then during each NBA
season where the dangers of steroid and performance enhancing
drug use are discussed with drug counselors. At our regular
union meetings, we take the opportunity to further educate the
players on these issues. The program's Medical Director
supervises a national network of medical professionals, located
in every NBA city, available to provide counseling and
treatment to players.
Recognizing the increased scrutiny that steroid and other
performance enhancing drug use has received in society, and
particularly in professional sports, we feel that we have sent
a strong and unequivocal message to society in general and our
young fans in particular that we do not condone, support or
accept the use of steroids and performance enhancing drugs in
our sport. Our willingness to significantly increase the
frequency of testing that our players undergo, and increase the
penalties imposed upon violators evidences the utmost concern
that we have for this societal problem. Indeed, our players
have been active in various events and programs run by their
teams to help spread the word to their communities about the
dangers of steroids.
We continue to believe that collective bargaining is the
most appropriate forum for the resolution of these issues and
are confident that our program addresses in a meaningful way
the concerns of the Committee. Congress has long given
deference to parties operating under collective bargaining
agreements to develop their own solutions to problems, properly
recognizing that the parties bound by a collective bargaining
agreement have a longstanding relationship with unique problems
and problem solving methods that are often difficult to
comprehend by those outside the relationship. We fully believe
in and support the Committees' and Congress' goal of
eliminating the use of steroids and performance enhancing drugs
in sports, and we believe this goal is best accomplished by the
leagues and players working together to accomplish this
universal objective. We think that the players, supported by
the leagues, are best able to demonstrate to everyone,
especially our young fans, that the only way to become a
professional athlete is by cultivating and nurturing their
talent, determination, and desire, and by working harder than
everyone else.
I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to appear
before you today.
----------
Mr. Rush. The next witness is the Commissioner of the
National Football League, Mr. Roger Goodell.
STATEMENT OF ROGER GOODELL, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL FOOTBALL
LEAGUE
Mr. Goodell. Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Whitfield, and
the members of the subcommittee, my name is Roger Goodell. I am
Commissioner of the National Football League, a position I have
held for 18 months. I am pleased to testify today and am
grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, for moving the date of the
hearing so that I could be here today.
We have just completed an outstanding 2007 season, capped
by the New York Giants' thrilling Super Bowl win over the New
England Patriots, a game viewed by nearly 150 million people in
this country. The NFL's popularity did not just happen, and I
don't take it for granted. As Commissioner, my most important
responsibility is to safeguard the integrity of the game and
preserve public confidence in the NFL, particularly for the
next generation of fans. That includes having comprehensive and
effective programs to keep our game free of steroids and other
performance-enhancing drugs.
For the past 15 years, Gene Upshaw and the NFLPA have been
our partners in our fight against drugs. We believe that we
have been leaders in this effort, and we remain fully committed
to continuing our progress.
Our program is founded on a number of key principles,
including the following:
Year-round, random, unannounced testing both in season and
out. We conduct more than 12,000 tests each year for steroids
and other performance-enhancing drugs.
Two, strict liability. Players are responsible for what is
in their bodies. The lack of intent or accidental use of a
tainted supplement is no excuse.
Comprehensive ban list. We prohibit nearly 90 substances,
including steroids, hormones, masking agents and stimulants.
The list is regularly updated; and we have often banned
substances, such as THG, ephedra and andro before the
government or other sports organizations.
Administrative independence. Nobody connected with the NFL,
any NFL club or the Players Association has any prior knowledge
or ability to influence who is tested and when the tests are
given or how the results are reported.
Adherence to the highest analytical standards. All
specimens are collected by independent, specially trained
collectors, who follow a strict chain of custody and
documentation guidelines, and are then analyzed using the best
available technology at one of two U.S. labs certified by the
World Anti-Doping Agency.
Respect for players' rights. Our appeals system provides
due process and confidentiality for players, while resolving
appeals in a timely manner.
Mandatory penalties. Any player who violates the program is
suspended a minimum of four games, 25 percent of our regular
season, without pay and subject to an enhanced testing, up to
24 unannounced times per year, for the balance of his NFL
career.
We regularly review our program to identify ways to improve
it; and in just the last 2 years we reduced the threshold for
positive tests for testosterone greatly, increased our use of
highly sensitive carbon isotope ratio testing, increased in-
season random testing by 40 percent, increased the penalty for
repeat violators, added many new substances to our prohibited
list, and tripled the number of times a player may be tested in
the off-season.
While the vast majority of the key recommendations of
Senator Mitchell's report have long been part of our current
program, our annual review will include exploring ways to
incorporate additional elements of his findings into our
program.
In conjunction with the United States Anti-Doping Agency,
we have created a new research and testing lab at the
University of Utah, only the second certified testing lab in
this country; and we have funded a wide range of research, most
recently committing $3 million to a research consortium led by
the U.S. Olympic Committee.
I know the subcommittee shares our concern about human
growth hormone, which is now widely and unlawfully available
through a variety of sources, including Internet-based
pharmacies and so-called anti-aging clinics. It is by no means
restricted to athletes. To the contrary, it is used by movie
stars, students, and many others.
No urine test has been developed for growth hormone,
although the NFL is supporting a variety of research to develop
improved testing both by blood and urine. A blood test has been
developed, but it has been used in very limited ways.
As Senator Mitchell's report stated, the limitations of the
current blood test are such that its, quote, practical utility,
is doubtful. There are many reasons for this, including that
the existing test is available only in extremely limited
quantities, that no lab in the United States is presently
certified to perform the test, and because the window of
detection is quite limited. This may explain why, to my
knowledge, no athlete has ever tested positive for growth
hormone in the Olympics or any professional sports league.
However, where other information has established the use of
growth hormones, the NFL has taken action and suspended players
and others for using this substance.
We believe that our collective bargaining program does not
reflect a failure to address the issue of performance-enhancing
drugs but should instead be recognized as a comprehensive and
effective program that has effectively detected and deterred
use of these substances in the NFL and kept pace with new
developments. We believe the government actions should support
and respect collective bargaining solutions that are consistent
with public policy and should not displace those solutions. We
would be pleased to work with the subcommittee on ways to
accomplish this as it continues its examination on the subject.
Once again, thank you for allowing me to appear today; and
I look forward to responding to your questions.
Ms. Schakowsky [presiding.] Thank you.
Before I call on Mr. Upshaw, let me just say that the
reason people are cycling in and out is that there is a vote
right now, and the chairman made a decision, rather than to
recess, because I know all of you have valuable time, that we
would just continue. But be sure that your testimony has been
read, and I appreciate your continuance.
So, Mr. Upshaw, proceed.
STATEMENT OF GENE UPSHAW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL FOOTBALL
LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Upshaw. Thank you, Madam Chair.
My name is Gene Upshaw. I am the Executive Director of the
National Football League Players Association, and we are a
labor union that represents all NFL players in collective
bargaining. The issues before this subcommittee are very
important to us, and we are glad that you are holding these
hearings.
When Commissioner Tagliabue and I appeared before the
subcommittee in the last Congress, our testimony reflected a
joint commitment to keep steroids and performance-enhancing
substances out of football and all sports. Today, Roger
Goodell, the new Commissioner, and I share the same commitment,
and our joint statement reflects that.
The Commissioner touched on a lot of issues, but I want to
just sum up just a few that I think are important.
Our commitment comes from a number of concerns. First, the
use of substances that threaten the fairness of the game and
the integrity of the game is very important. That is why we
have taken the position that we have taken, and we started that
in 1987. Second, we have a responsibility to protect our
players from the adverse health effects of performance-
enhancing drugs and steroids. Third, we are serious about our
role as role models, and we understand that educating the youth
is very important to all of us.
The key provisions of our program, the annual tests for all
players, plus unannounced tests, we test 10 players per team
per week during the season. Players have to take or are
eligible to take at least six random tests during the off-
season. So we have both in-season testing and out-of-season
testing.
We have a comprehensive list of banned substances, and our
League and the Players Association meet on a quarterly basis to
consider and update any changes that we might have or should
discuss in the operation of our program. We are now in the
process of rewriting the new policy for 2008. We will provide
that revision to the committee when it is completed.
As far as penalties, we have penalties of a four-game
suspension for the first offense, an eight-game suspension for
the second offense, and up to a year for a third offense. And
you also are not cleared--you have to be cleared to come back
medically, and you have to remain drug free to return.
As an added provision, you are not eligible to be paid any
bonus payments that you might have earned while you were on
performance-enhancing drugs. You are not eligible for the Pro
Bowl. You are not eligible for any NFL or NFLPA awards.
We have a strict liability for players. There is no excuse
for any player that says he was not aware of a banned substance
in what he was taking. That is his responsibility. He is
responsible for what goes into his body.
We have education of both our players and our teams through
programs, literature. We have a toll-free hotline. We have
mandatory meetings.
With respect to human growth hormones, we know that there
is no reliable urine test available, but the NFL is financially
supporting research in trying to develop such a test. As we go
forward, we will continue to be vigilant and support research.
And the NFL spends a tremendous amount of money each year on
the research and development of new tests.
We are proud of our programs and what it has accomplished.
Is it perfect? Does it catch everyone? No. But the players
overwhelmingly support the program, recognize its value, and
believe it applies to all players, fair and evenhanded.
In that respect, our drug testing program has not been
imposed on us. It is something that we decided we needed to do,
as I said, back as early as 1987. The players and teams
recognized the problem, and reached a consensus that certain
substances had to be out of the game.
I believe that the true test of what and how the players
support our program is that to date there has never been one
player to defend or come to the defense of any player that has
tested positive for the use of banned substances. There is no
room for cheaters in the game, and our players have continually
supported that, and we will continue to monitor and improve our
program as we go forward.
I don't believe that Federal legislation is needed. We are
trying to address this issue and have addressed this issue
through collective bargaining. We will continue to do that. And
I think that we have made a strong statement in the past and
will continue to do that in the future, because we really
believe that there is no room for cheaters in the National
Football League or in any sport, and we all ought to address
that in our own forums.
I thank you for this opportunity to appear, and I will
welcome your questions at the end. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Upshaw.
[The prepared statement of Messrs. Goodell and Upshaw
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Gary Bettman.
STATEMENT OF GARY BETTMAN, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE
Mr. Bettman. Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee,
thank you for inviting us here today.
The prevention and detection of the use of performance-
enhancing drugs is a matter that the National Hockey League and
the National Hockey League Players Association take quite
seriously. Indeed, while our historical experience indicates
that performance-enhancing drugs are not a problem in the NHL,
we nevertheless believe that the public at large and our fans
in particular are entitled to have confidence that our games
are being played in an environment free of performance-
enhancing substances.
Accordingly, the NHL and the NHLPA implemented a modernized
drug testing and performance-enhancing substances control
policy that is specifically directed to prevent the use of
performance-enhancing drugs in our game. Consistent with the
principles attributed to any comprehensive policy against
doping, our program places significant emphasis on education
and awareness regarding the use of performance-enhancing
substances.
Since the inception of the program, the NHL and the NHLPA
have monitored the operation of the program and have, when
appropriate, modified it from time to time to ensure that it is
functioning effectively in discouraging and eliminating the
use, however negligible, of performance-enhancing substances in
our sport.
Key features of our program include that the program is
managed by an independent third-party administrator that is
responsible for sample collection, and determining when the
random no-notice testing will occur. Samples are independently
analyzed by a WADA-certified laboratory. An independent third-
party administrator coordinates with the laboratory to create
reports of test results. NHL players are subject to testing for
performance-enhancing drugs designated on the WADA out-of-
competition panel. And, on a random basis, players are subject
to up to three no-notice tests each season.
Positive tests for performance-enhancing substances result
in mandatory discipline, from a suspension of 20 games without
pay for a first offense to permanent suspension without pay,
obviously, for a third offense.
As part of the mandatory educational component, in addition
to the players receiving education, education and training are
also provided to the club athletic trainers and club
physicians. The educational provisions reflect the
comprehensive nature of the program and the belief that
education regarding the dangers of any illegal substances is
perhaps the most effective tool in preventing their use and
abuse.
The NHL and the NHLPA strongly believe that our collective
knowledge regarding our sport has enabled us to develop an
effective and meaningful program. Indeed, since its inception
in 2005, two significant modifications have been made to the
program. First, the program initially provided for two tests
per season. That limitation was modified to provide on a random
basis that teams can be tested up to three times per season.
And, second, the program was modified to create a mechanism
that allows for education and subsequent testing of players who
were added to a roster after training camp, when the preseason
education has been provided to clubs.
As a historical matter, the many years of NHL players being
tested in international competition, as well as the recent
testing under our program, evidences that performance-enhancing
drugs have never been part of the culture of the NHL and that
instances of use by our players have been extremely rare. This
is not surprising when one considers that the alleged benefits
of steroid use, significant large-muscle development, are not
consistent with playing hockey at the highest level of the
sport; and the resulting bulkiness attributable to steroid use
simply is not a desired characteristic of skilled NHL players.
Over the past 12 years, nearly a thousand NHL players have
participated in international competitions, including world
championships and the Olympics, and they were subject to drug
testing under the standards of WADA. Over this time, we are
aware of only two players who were disciplined for taking a
prohibited substance and were suspended from international
competition; and, of the two, one tested positive for Propecia.
The testing results in the first two years of our program
confirmed that there is not a practice of NHL players using
performance-enhancing drugs, as only one player has tested
positive in the past two-and-a-half seasons.
The NHL also recognizes its obligation to educate the
public and our young fans in particular regarding the dangers
of taking performance-enhancing substances. To this end, we
have worked with the National Federation of State High School
Associations to create a video that is being used to educate
high school coaches, student athletes, and their parents about
the dangers of performance-enhancing substances; and we will
continue our efforts in this regard.
The NHL also recognizes its role and responsibility in
helping to promote research on performance-enhancing drugs,
including the ability to detect drugs that currently are not
detectable, such as HGH. The NHL has joined with the USOC and
the others here today in the Partnership for Clean Competition,
as has already been discussed. To the extent feasible and
practical, we believe that it is important to have an HGH
testing protocol that is meaningful and effective.
The NHL appreciates being provided an opportunity to
express our views regarding these issues, and we will be happy
to take your questions. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Bettman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bettman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Paul Kelly.
STATEMENT OF PAUL KELLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HOCKEY
LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Kelly. Madam Chair, Congressman Whitfield, members of
the subcommittee, my name is Paul Kelly; and I serve the as the
Executive Director of the National Hockey League Players
Association. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to
speak on behalf of the players with regard to the important
issue of performance-enhancing substances in sports.
Having served for 10 years as a Federal prosecutor,
including one term as the chief of the New England Organized
Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, I am no stranger to the
hazards and risks associated with drugs; and I want to clearly
and emphatically state that the NHL Players Association
strongly opposes the use of performance-enhancing substances by
anyone in our sport. This issue affects the competitive
integrity of our sport, the personal health of our players, and
indeed the health of millions of young hockey fans across the
world that look up to our players as role models. The stakes
are high, and we are fully committed to seeing that drugs have
no place in hockey.
Fortunately, hockey players have historically steered clear
of performance-enhancing substances. This was, first and
foremost, a credit to our players, but it is also a simple
reflection of the nature of our sport. Anabolic steroids, human
growth hormone and other muscle-enhancing substances do little
to augment the performance of our athletes, whose success
depends primarily on hand-eye coordination, speed, agility,
endurance, communication, and, most of all, teamwork.
Of course, the fact that we have virtually no history of
performance-enhancing substance abuse does not free us of the
responsibility to keep drugs out of hockey; and we are fully
aware that performance-enhancing substances have been used by
some not just to build muscle mass but also as a means to speed
recovery from injury and/or muscle fatigue. It is with that in
mind that the NHLPA and the NHL implemented a League-wide drug
policy that not only tests the players but educates them as
well. Because the results we have seen have been so
encouraging, I would like to an opportunity very briefly to
share the history and details of our policy.
In 1996, as part of the previous collective bargaining
agreement, the NHLPA and the NHL jointly implemented the
Substance Abuse and Behavioral Health Program. This wide-
ranging program was designed to identify and address potential
substance abuse issues among NHL players in a confidential,
fair, and effective manner. We accomplished this by
incorporating education and counseling, inpatient and
outpatient treatment and testing, follow-up care, and, where
appropriate, punitive sanctions, up to and including permanent
suspension from play.
Moreover, NHL players' long history of participation in
international hockey competitions and the accompanying track
record that players have accumulated with respect to drug
testing performed at such competitions provide empirical
evidence showing that performance-enhancing substances are not,
to date, a prevailing issue in our sport.
Over the past 12 years, nearly a thousand NHL players have
participated in IIHF World Championships, the World Cup of
Hockey and the 1998, 2002 and 2006 Winter Olympics, all of
which used testing procedures and banned substance lists
consistent with the World Anti-Doping Agency code. Over this
entire time span, we are aware of only a handful of positive
tests for performance-enhancing drugs; and in more than half of
those cases there were extenuating circumstances that accounted
for the player having tested positive.
In sum, our program doctors, who have had intimate access
and involvement with our players, for more than 10 years of
drug testing performed in conjunction with international hockey
competitions have encountered no steroid or performance-
enhancing substance abuse problem in our sport. Nevertheless,
because the issue of performance-enhancing substances has
gained prominence over the years and in an abundance of caution
with regard to potential problems that might develop in our
sport, we decided with the NHL to update our testing and
disciplinary procedures during the last round of collective
bargaining.
As Commissioner Bettman has just described, in July of
2005, the NHL and the NHLPA implemented a comprehensive drug
testing and control policy that is specifically aimed at
discouraging the use of performance-enhancing substances in
hockey.
In order to keep my testimony from running beyond the
limits, I will refrain from providing a detailed description of
the program or its key features, which Commissioner Bettman has
just touched on. However, I would like to take just a brief
opportunity to share with you the encouraging results that we
have seen over the past 3 years of this program's existence.
The results we have seen have been as follows: During the
2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and the first half of the current
season, 3,570 no-notice drug tests have been conducted on NHL
players. Of that number, only one player was determined to have
violated the terms of our program. That player was suspended
for 20 games without pay. And, since then, no players have
tested positive.
These numbers offer compelling evidence that our program is
comprehensive and thorough; and, even more than that, the
numbers show that our program is working.
As I mentioned before, this track record is a reflection of
our players' integrity, hard work and dedication. It also
speaks to our continuous joint efforts with the League to make
sure that players, trainers and other staff members are
educated about the dangers associated with performance-
enhancing drugs. We are committed to continuing to work with
the NHL to fulfill this mission and to review and consider
modifications and improvements to our existing testing program.
Again, I want to be clear that we recognize that drugs in
sports is a crucial issue to players and fans in all sports and
at all levels and ages; and I greatly appreciate you inviting
the NHL Players Association to be involved in this national
dialogue on this important issue. Thank you again for inviting
me to participate in today's hearing.
Mr. Rush. [Presiding.] The Chair thanks the witness.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of
the subcommittee, Mr. Whitfield, for the purpose of introducing
some documents into the record.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I just wanted to ask unanimous consent that we enter into
the record a number--a multitude of e-mails that I received
from owners and breeders of horse racing around the country,
asking for Federal action to ban steroids in racing. I ask
unanimous consent.
Mr. Rush. Without objection, so approved.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes of
questioning of this first panel.
Let me just indicate that we have 5 minutes, and so I am
going to go down the line and I am just going to ask questions
and ask that you give me a yes or no answer. So, to the best of
your ability, please just answer with a yes or no response.
Starting with Mr. Selig, Mr. Selig, do you support Federal
legislation that would promulgate rules and regulations
requiring professional and amateur sports associations to adopt
the Mitchell Report recommendations?
Mr. Selig. I can only speak for my own sport, and the
answer is yes.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Fehr?
Mr. Fehr. We believe the matter ought to be handled in
collective bargaining. I am not in a position to respond for
any other sport.
Mr. Rush. Okay. For your own individual sport.
Mr. Stern?
Mr. Stern. We believe the matter should be handled by
collective bargaining between the players and the association.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Hunter?
Mr. Hunter. I adopt Mr. Stern's comment.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Goodell?
Mr. Goodell. Yes, we do. We believe, as I stated in my
testimony, that we are doing the vast majority of the
recommendations the Senator made.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Upshaw?
Mr. Upshaw. I agree to the extent that it should be through
collective bargaining.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Bettman?
Mr. Bettman. I believe this should be a matter of
collective bargaining, especially because the Mitchell Report
was focused on one particular sport and did not have the
benefit of looking at the practice and history of the other
sports.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. No.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Kelly, I will start with you. If you don't
believe in mandatory legislation, do you believe that all of
the recommendations of the Mitchell Report should otherwise be
adopted by your Leagues?
Mr. Kelly. Is that a yes or a no again?
Mr. Rush. Yes or no.
Mr. Kelly. Qualified yes.
Mr. Bettman. Subject to its applicability to each sport.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Upshaw?
Mr. Upshaw. Subject to collective bargaining.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Goodell?
Mr. Goodell. Mr. Chairman, again, we believe that we have
adopted most of the vast majority of all those recommendations.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Hunter?
Mr. Hunter. No.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Stern?
Mr. Stern. No.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Fehr?
Mr. Fehr. Senator Mitchell recognized that even his
recommendations, which were general in nature, would need
bargaining to implement. We will be discussing them. I will be
in a position to give you a very precise answer before too much
longer.
Mr. Selig. Certainly , through collective bargaining is the
proper way to go, but, obviously, I have very strong feelings
that this would be in the best interests of baseball.
Mr. Rush. Okay. The next question for all the panelists,
assuming that a reliable blood test can be developed for HGH
and assuming that it can be administered without adversely
affecting the performance of the athlete, do you support the
policy of blood testing for HGH?
I want to just note that Derek Jeter recently publicly
stated his belief that players should be tested for HGH and
that since all players get blood work every year anyway it is
not a big deal to test for HGH.
Mr. Selig, let's begin with you. Would you answer that
question with either a yes or a no.
Mr. Selig. Well, I wish I could answer it by yes or no. I
have been on record as supporting it, but we are a ways away. I
hope that a urine test will come first. You know, there are
significant problems in the development of it. But let me say
to you if at the end of this long process that's the only way
we can deal with HGH, then the answer is yes.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Fehr?
Mr. Fehr. What we have indicated is, if a valid test is
developed, we will take a hard look at it. I want to reaffirm
that commitment today. You would need to look at the potential
effect on performance but also on the health and sanitary
conditions that would be necessary to surround any such test.
They are fundamentally different in that respect to urine
tests.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Stern?
Mr. Stern. No.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Hunter?
Mr. Hunter. No.
Mr. Goodell. Mr. Chairman, if there is a valid test, we
will certainly consider that. We certainly want to make sure it
is effective, practical and safe for our players.
Mr. Upshaw. No.
Mr. Bettman. To the extent that there is no other
alternative but there is a reliable blood test for HGH and
that's the only way to detect it, then yes. Short of that, no.
Mr. Kelly. I would agree with Mr. Bettman's statement.
Mr. Rush. I will get this one in. Assuming the accuracy of
the test, do you support saving urine samples in order to
retroactively test for, quote, designer steroids, end of quote,
that are accurately--or that are currently undetectable but may
be detectable in the future?
Mr. Selig. Chairman Rush, I have been told by our experts--
one of them, Dr. Green from UCLA, is sitting behind me here
today--that this would not be possible and they don't believe
that it would be valid.
Mr. Fehr. My understanding is that there are significant
scientific reliability questions that would attach to that. You
would have to look at the system.
Mr. Stern. No.
Mr. Hunter. No.
Mr. Goodell. We would also agree that the science seems to
indicate there is a great deal of controversy in the integrity
of those samples.
The other practical problem we have is we conduct 12,000
tests per year.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Upshaw?
Mr. Upshaw. I agree with the Commissioner.
Mr. Bettman. No.
Mr. Kelly. No.
Mr. Rush. That concludes my time.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member for 5 minutes.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to thank the witnesses for being with us today.
We genuinely appreciate your opening statements and welcome
your experience in this very important issue.
Mr. Selig, in the Mitchell Report, which has already been
stated related only to baseball, he focused now on the
independence of the testing mechanism, and he called for
greater independence. And yet I believe that baseball feels
like you already have an independent testing in place. Is that
correct or not correct?
Mr. Selig. Well, we do feel that we have it, but he makes
recommendations that would increase its independence and its
transparency. We are in the process of talking to the Players
Association and collectively bargaining the remaining six or
seven things which deal with that issue. I believe if we adopt
all of the Senator's recommendations in that area that we
really--that really does guarantee us an independent program;
and I think Dr. Smith, who is our administrator, would agree
that at that point he really does have independence. But we
need to finish it off and adopt his recommendations.
Mr. Whitfield. When he says ``transparency'' what is he
actually referring to when he says it's got to be transparent?
Mr. Selig. Well, I think the transparency of the program
and things that go on. I think he believes that increases the
trust--the public trust and internal trust--and I think if you
take a look at his recommendations they do. They increase both
the transparency and the independence.
Mr. Whitfield. But I take it there are some issues with the
players themselves; and so you, Mr. Fehr, are having
discussions about that. Is that correct?
Mr. Fehr. Senator Mitchell recognized I think pretty
clearly in the Report that the current agreement calls for
independent administration and that we have allowed that
individual to act independently. We haven't rejected any of his
recommendations. And he also said the precise form of any
amendment would be best left to bargaining. We are in
discussions on that. We have a proposal. We will be discussing
it with the players, along with the other issues that are
there.
Mr. Whitfield. And all the test samples, my understanding
in baseball you have two labs that you use. Is that correct?
Mr. Selig. That's correct.
Mr. Whitfield. And one is in Canada?
Mr. Selig. We use the two Olympic labs, the WADA labs, one
at UCLA and one at Montreal.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. That's right.
And in the other sports do you also use only two labs or do
you use more than two or--in hockey, Mr. Bettman?
Mr. Bettman. We use the WADA lab in Montreal.
Mr. Whitfield. Montreal.
Mr. Goodell?
Mr. Goodell. Excuse me, we use the UCLA facility and the
Utah facility, which are both approved by WADA.
Mr. Whitfield. And the Utah facility as well?
Mr. Goodell. Yes.
Mr. Stern. We use the WADA-certified laboratory in
Montreal.
Mr. Whitfield. So all of the sports are basically using the
same labs, which I think probably speaks well for that.
Mr. Selig, one other question I wanted to ask you, you
mentioned this Partnership for Clean Competition and
relationships with other sports on this. Would you elaborate on
this partnership?
Mr. Selig. The Partnership for a Drug-Free America? Is that
what you are--
Mr. Whitfield. My notes said Partnership for Clean
Competition. Maybe it's--
Mr. Selig. That is the USOC effort. I am sorry. That's the
USOC effort with the National Football League. We certainly
have engaged in an effort to increase not only the knowledge
about testing, but about everything else related to performance
enhancing substances. And so that, along with all the other
things that we are doing, the Partnership for a Drug-Free
America, the Hooton Foundation, which incidentally came out of
this hearing--I remember hearing Mr. Hooton talking about what
had happened to his son--so that's really a grassroots program.
And then we joined with the USOC and the Partnership for Clean
Competition. I think we are doing the things that people have
asked us to do.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. Mr. Upshaw, would you mind, if I am a
football player and I have been accused of using illegal drugs
through testing, briefly explain the appeals process that would
be available to me.
Mr. Upshaw. Well, the appeals process allows a player to
see whether test results in an ``A'' bottle is confirmed in a
``B'' bottle. And the ``A'' bottle is the one that will reveal
the positive test. The player has a right to come in and test
the ``B'' bottle with his own people, someone that is not
affiliated with our program, just to see the test is confirmed
with the ``B'' bottle.
Mr. Whitfield. Does he ultimately have a right to go into
the courts?
Mr. Upshaw. No.
Mr. Whitfield. Does not?
Mr. Upshaw. No.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the vice chairman of the
subcommittee, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
I wonder if you could just each briefly tell me what you
tell your kids or grandkids when yet another story breaks about
another star athlete using some kind of performance-enhancing
drug, particularly if it is in your sport. Why don't we start
on this end this time.
Mr. Kelly. Again, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we
have been fortunate in professional ice hockey not to have had
a significant problem. Although I do have four children, and I
guess in response to your question I would say that, you know,
effectively what is going on there is a couple things. One, it
is cheating. Two, it is jeopardizing the health. That person is
jeopardizing his or her health by using those substances. And,
three, obviously I counsel my kids to never consider not only
performance-enhancing drugs but any type of illegal substances.
Mr. Bettman. I have three children, and for the reasons
that Mr. Kelly has just articulated, I have consistently told
them that it is unacceptable.
Mr. Upshaw. I also have three children, and they know very
well how strongly I feel about cheaters and how we all feel
about cheaters in the National Football League. We stress that
there is no shortcut to victory and to success, and we carry it
even farther. Many of our players, through their efforts try to
educate the public that there is no room for cheaters and there
are no shortcuts and you can't get there by using performance-
enhancing substances.
Mr. Goodell. My comments are based on two levels. First
off, there are very serious health consequences to take any
performance-enhancing drugs and other drugs; and I make that
very clear. Second would be the importance of competing within
the rules. And if you don't do that, there are consequences for
doing that.
Mr. Hunter. My three children are adults. I have a 6-month-
old grandson. So maybe I will eventually get to the place where
I have to talk to him about it.
But our general position is that the use of steroid and
performance-enhancing drugs are prohibited. And I don't know if
you are aware, we have an individual, Alonzo Mourning, who had
a kidney transplant. And several years ago, when Alonzo
experienced his illness, he and another player, Shaquille
O'Neill, spoke out very adamantly about the use of steroids or
any other drugs. And, in that instance, it was a case of
players having to use anti-inflammatory drugs--or medications,
rather--that were prescribed by physicians. And the players
tended to relate or associate the side effects with those
medications. So, consequently, I think if there was a tendency
on the part of any player in the NBA to want to use
performance-enhancing drugs and/or steroids, that for the most
part nullified it.
Mr. Stern. Both of my adult sons are educated as lawyers,
and I emphasized to them that we can't get lost in the rush
here with respect to recognizing the rights to some intelligent
due process for the players who are tested and that these
samples have to be well tested. And that basically of the last
4,000 tests that were done since our new procedures in 2005,
there has only been one test where a player was suspended, even
though he accidentally took a pill that was there for his wife
in a diet supplement.
Mr. Fehr. Ms. Schakowsky, I think either you or
Representative Blackburn asked me this question 3 years ago;
and I think my answer is about the same. First thing is you
tell them the truth. Second thing is you tell them what the law
is. The third thing is, and to me the most important advice
that I give, is you don't take anything, lawful or unlawful,
that is a pharmaceutical without it being done under a doctor's
care. There are very severe health risks. And the last thing is
that all kids today, especially in high school and college,
just like it was when I was there 40 years ago, are subject to
a lot of peer pressure and they are subject to an enormous
amount of advertising and availability of product and they have
got to be really careful and they have got to be really
vigilant.
Mr. Selig. I have three daughters and five granddaughters,
so I guess the answer is simple. The health consequences are so
devastating that they certainly are the first things that one
should explain not only to their children and their
grandchildren, but to people in the sport.
Two, it clearly affects the integrity of the sport in every
way. So the damage that performance drugs do manifests itself
in so many different ways, and there should never be any
misunderstanding about that.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. It just does seem as if we are
making progress, and yet the advantages of being a star player
it seems for some kids still is outweighing the costs to them.
And, you know, we have to continue to look for ways to do
better among our professional athletes who are still the role
models for our kids. But I thank you for all those comments.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the ranking member of the
full committee, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
I am reminded of the movie Casablanca, where at the end of
the movie Humphrey Bogart is out at the airport and the German
Gestapo officer comes and tries to arrest him, tries to stop
the plane, and Bogart says, don't touch that phone. And, of
course, the officer does, and so Bogart shoots him. And then
Claude Rains arrives on the scene and looks at Bogart, and
Bogart has got the gun in his hand and, you know, Bogart knows
that if Rains does what he is supposed to do as the French
Police Commissioner that he will be arrested. But Claude Rains
says the famous line, ``Round up the usual suspects''.
Well, we got the usual suspects here. We did this hearing 3
years ago. Most of you gentlemen--I don't remember everybody by
name, but most of you were here, and we on a bipartisan basis
developed a bill that passed the subcommittee, the full
committee, and was discharged to the floor, but it didn't get a
vote on the floor of the House and it didn't come up in the
Senate.
Last time as this time, another committee held hearings
with star players and got all the headlines, and this committee
moved the bill that didn't become law.
So we are in a similar situation. We have all the
commissioners and the Players Association reps. My question,
since most of the problem apparently--I don't want to pick on
baseball, but it appears that you guys have got more of the
problem. Mr. Selig do you--and Mr. Fehr on behalf of the
Players Association--do you all support Federal legislation, a
Federal legislative solution or do you prefer another voluntary
testing program?
Mr. Selig. Well, as I said in my statement, Congressman,
there are four or five bills here that deal with the problem
that we would not only support but support aggressively. I
believe that our history the last 4 or 5 years has shown that
the collective bargaining process has worked. We have come a
long way since that hearing that we had both at the Major
League level and at the Minor League level and with all the
other things that we are doing. But there are four or five
bills that I believe would be--
Mr. Barton. But you do--the owners support a Federal
legislative solution? Is that--
Mr. Selig. There are four or five bills here that we would
support, yes.
Mr. Barton. What about you, Mr. Fehr?
Mr. Fehr. As I indicated in my prepared testimony, a number
of the pieces of pending legislation may well be worth
consideration, whether it is making HGH schedule 3 or limiting
the sale of DHEA to minors or prohibiting it to minors. I don't
believe it is necessary for purposes of an overall program. I
think the Mitchell Report demonstrates that, with respect to
substances which can be detected, that we have got a handle on
that now.
Having said that, let me repeat something I said in my
opening statement. HGH is a problem because for a whole host of
reasons it can't be detected, or can't be detected easily, or
can't be detected with testing which is available. If the
Congress could consider requiring that some sort of chemical
marker be added to prescription HGH, which is manufactured by
the pharmaceutical companies, so that it would be detected in
urine, that might well go a long way toward solving a lot of
problems.
Mr. Barton. Okay. Let me ask a question of the chairman,
Mr. Rush. Is it your intent, if the hearing shows consensus, to
move a bill?
Mr. Rush. It is my full intentions to move a bill. A
bipartisan bill, I might add.
Mr. Barton. Okay. Let me ask the other Major League sports,
are you all also supportive of a Federal piece of Federal
legislation? Or is there anybody that's not? Anybody that's
not?
Mr. Upshaw, you got ready to say something.
Mr. Upshaw. Well, I believe that this whole area should be
dealt with in collective bargaining. That is the proper forum
to do it. I don't see how legislation would be effective,
because each of our sports, everything we do is all so
different. We have handled it this way. We will continue to
handle it this way.
And when it comes to performance-enhancing drugs or
substances, it is never a subject of trading one thing for
another. It is something we want out of the game, something we
started to get out of the game in 1987 and will continue to do
so in the future. If there is a new substance that comes on, we
will add it to our banned list.
We totally agree. The players totally support the program
that we have in place, and I would hate to see us move in a
direction that would take that confidence out of what we are
already doing.
Mr. Barton. We will work with the sport. You know, we can
fine tune the bill for each professional sport, but I would
hope--Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back--but I would
hope--let's get it right this time, and let's try to get our
friends in the Senate and the President on board so that,
instead of just getting it through this committee, let's go
ahead and get something into law that is acceptable. It is no
fun having this hearing every 2 to 3 years when we have another
scandal. So let's try to get it right.
And I would certainly be willing to cooperate would you and
Mr. Dingell to try to craft a piece of legislation that meets
the standard of the interest groups and yet protects the
integrity of the sports.
And with that I am going to yield back.
Mr. Stern. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that,
actually, based upon the statements and the testimony here, the
sports leagues have pretty much gotten it right in the
intervening 3 years. What we have heard described here is a
series of random testing, WADA-approved laboratories,
independent drug testing, and long lists of prohibited
substances added to by independent commissions that have
happened since the 2005 hearings, which I was privileged to
participate in.
Mr. Stern. So, actually, I think you have gotten it right.
And I think also the sports leagues have gotten it right. And
despite all of the public attention that was given to other
committee hearings, they were dealing with facts that were
relevant to years like 1998 to 2001. There is a very different
story here, and so I would say that this is an area where
Federal legislation is not necessary. And on behalf of the
National Basketball Association, I would urge that it be
allowed to be bargained out between committed parties, all of
whom at this table have stressed their commitment to the
committee to make sure that it is improved up to and including
and asked by--to the committee of making HGH detectable in a
urine test rather than requiring players to go through blood
tests, needles and the things that might be of a valid concern.
Thank you.
Mr. Barton. We will certainly work with everybody.
And again, thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
Mr. Selig. Congressman, I said in my statement, there are
four bills that--Representative Lynch's, Senator Schumer's,
Senator Grassley's, and Senator Biden's--that deal with it.
This is a societal problem. Those bills we would support
because they do deal with the genesis of this problem in every
way. But, other than that, I agree with Commissioner Stern. I
think that the last 4 or 5 years have proved that the
collective bargaining process has worked well and will continue
to work well.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Tennessee,
Mrs. Blackburn, for 5 minutes.
Mrs.Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And again, thank you to each of you.
Mr. Stern, I would suggest that we have not gotten it right
enough in the past 3 years. If we had gotten it right--if you
all had gotten it right, we would not be here again today. But
we need to start looking at what we are going to do
proactively. And I think that that is--we appreciate the
strides that you have made. The setting here in this room is
much better than it was 3 years ago. But sir, with all due
respect, I think what we need to know is what you all are doing
at the grassroots level. What are you doing with these new
recruits that are coming out of college? What kind of interface
is there? How are you going to get in front of this? You know,
everything that we are discussing today is reactionary. And
what we need to do is begin to turn this page and say, on a
proactive basis, what are you all going to do? And you have the
ability to do that. And your actions are going to speak louder
than your words.
And obviously you all have been very well coached. We have
got about three rows of lawyers behind you who are here to help
you through this process as you try to come in front of us. So
you all have been very well coached. And I don't know if you
have a players union for that. But anyway, we appreciate that
you are trying to work with us through this. But you know,
let's begin to get it--to get on the proactive end of this and
to try to get a little bit further down the road with this and
be aware of the message that this is sending. Congress has to
take its time to come in and work on this. And even though
there is legislation that you all would support, the fact that
we are having to do this, that it has to take an act of
Congress rather than you all policing it yourselves, so let's
let's try to turn that around.
Mr. Stern. With all due respect, Congresswoman Blackburn,
if you look at the statements that have been submitted here but
we haven't burdened the record with regurgitating them, the
amount of grassroots opportunities that all of us participate
in from the Partnership For a Drug-Free America to the videos
that we distribute to the schools to the week-long coaching
that we do to our rookies, the amount of work that is done by
the table here, union and management alike, is very extensive.
And it is contained in the voluminous uncoached record which
has been prepared in 2003, in 2005, in 2008. And we would be
happy to submit yet additional things. So I stand by my
original statement that enormous progress has been made,
coached in some significant part by Congressman Stearns's
chairmanship, Congressman Rush's chairmanship and the other
committees with which we have met. So it would take a longer
time without coaching to go through the voluminous things that
we do that fit exactly the strictures that you would like us to
do. We do it. We can always do more, and I think I have heard
commitments here that we will do more. But I am happy, as the
senior member here in terms of length of service, to say I am
proud to be here at the table with my uncoached colleagues who
are dealing extensively on this subject.
Mrs.Blackburn. Well, and we appreciate those. We hope the
next time if we are--you all are before us again, that we are
dealing more on the proactive end and not on what we are doing
on the back end to clean up a problem, but what we are doing to
prevent it from having become a problem in the first place.
And, sir, that is the area where we need to be shifting our
focus.
Just a couple of questions that I want to have. I have less
than a minute.
And Mr. Fehr, I may submit my questions. But I did want to
come to the Mitchell Report recommendations that you all have
not implemented but that have to go through the negotiating,
the collective bargaining and renegotiating process. Which
specific recommendations are you prepared to recommend that
your association accept?
Mr. Fehr. Representative Blackburn, there were seven
general categories of recommendations which Senator Mitchell
identified as being susceptible to collective bargaining. There
may be a couple others. They have to do with independence
transparency; adequate year-round testing flexibility; appeal
rights and due process for players; and to a certain extent,
funding. We have already opened discussions on those. I will be
discussing those with players. I won't make recommendations to
the players until I have a specific agreement that I can say,
this clause on this issue I am prepared to recommend or not
recommend. Because of the off-season and the inability to
contact players--and we do something I am sure you are very
familiar with, we do retail politics--we have to see everybody,
and I haven't had the opportunity to do those discussions yet.
Down the road, I hope that those questions will not only be
answered but answered satisfactorily and not before too long.
Mrs.Blackburn. So you don't have any specifics at this
point?
Mr. Fehr. No. Not that I am prepared to talk to today.
Mrs.Blackburn. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Stearns for 5
minutes.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bettman, when these original hearings started, I don't
think you had a drug policy at all as I recollect. So now you
do have one in place?
Mr. Bettman. Well, we had a drug policy dealing with the
substance abuse drugs, more recreational drugs.
Mr. Stearns. Right.
Mr. Bettman. I believe the last time we were here it was
just during or after a lost season due to a work stoppage.
Mr. Stearns. Right. I understand. Do you know what the
policy is at the NFL or the NBA?
Mr. Bettman. Sure.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Upshaw, do you talk to David Stern at all
about his drug policy and what it is? I mean, do you have your
counsel call his counsel and say, ``look, this is what we are
doing, we are having three strikes''?
Mr. Upshaw. Actually, I talk to Billy Hunter. I don't talk
to David. I think I would have a more productive idea of what
the players are doing. I know where Mr. Stern will be. So I
interact mainly with the executive directors of the other
unions.
Mr. Stearns. I think what I am, as I said in my opening
statement you know before we drop a bill, my preference would
be to see you folks come up with a standard transparent and
consistent policy patterned after what they do in the Olympics.
Now the Olympics has all different kinds of athletes, so
obviously you could make the same argument. Is there any
objection to you folks having the same policy, which is like
the Olympics? I mean, any one of you? Or do you feel, Mr.
Upshaw, that yours is comparable to the Olympics?
Mr. Upshaw. Well, we feel that our program is better than
the Olympics in many ways. And I think we do what we feel is
best for the players in the National Football League. That is
why it is so difficult when you try to legislate or try to get
conformity and everyone to agree because, as we talk about
these issues, they are so different. Every sport is so
different. Every season is so different.
Mr. Stearns. But every Olympics--
Mr. Upshaw. But they don't have a union over there either.
So that is a big concern of mine. I think if they had a union,
they might look a lot different. And I don't ever tell Don Fehr
what is best for the baseball players.
Mr. Stearns. No. I understand.
Mr. Upshaw. And I have to trust his judgment and his
players. What I have to do is represent the NFL players and--
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Fehr, is there any reason why the Players
Association couldn't accept the standards that the Olympics--
Mr. Fehr. What we have an obligation to do is to bargain
standards that we believe are appropriate and fit with our
sport. I think that people will be able to make their own
judgments as to whether it is effective.
Mr. Stearns. I am coming to that. It is not the question I
am asking you.
Mr. Fehr. There are some differences, for example, which
cause us and cause me some real problems. Where you have a
circumstance in which, for example, the Congress of the United
States decides that certain substances as a practical matter
are legal and may be purchased and may be purchased by
children, then it is hard to go back to the players and say,
``it is legal here, but for some reason you can't do it.''
There are differences. That is why we--that is why our
prohibitive substance list is pegged to U.S. law.
Mr. Stearns. So, at this point, you could not adopt the
Olympic standards for the Players Association?
Mr. Fehr. Not in that regard, no.
Mr. Stearns. Not in that regard. Okay, I guess Commissioner
Selig, what steps have you taken to find a significant reliable
test to screen for HGH, the human growth hormones?
Mr. Selig. Well, I think we have done, frankly, as much as
anybody. We started funding a program with Dr. Catlin at UCLA,
or when he was at UCLA. The National Football League joined us
in that. So he is very hard at work. Everybody told us he was
the right person to go to, best in the country. So we have done
that. And we will continue to fund that until hopefully he
comes up with a test.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Stern, NBA, have you folks addressed this
or looked at this or are concerned about the testing for HGH?
Mr. Stern. Yes. We have made a substantial pledge to the--
what is it called? The clean competition, the committee--
together with the USOC, and I know Major League Baseball and
the NFL. So we are actively engaged in trying to get a better
test, a reliable test.
Mr. Stearns. Right, because right now, none of you have a
reliable test. That is true?
Mr. Selig. There is no reliable test.
Mr. Stearns. Nobody does. So if professional athletes were
using this today, there would be no way to detect it, and most
likely, it is probably a case where athletes are probably using
it today.
Mr. Goodell. Well, Congressman, let me address that,
because we are a league that suspended four of our individuals,
three players and one coach, for use of HGH which was detected
through law enforcement, in fact, and our cooperation with law
enforcement. So there are other ways of being able to detect
it. It is certainly a big issue for us. We would support
testing. We have done that financially along with many of the
other sports up here.
Mr. Stearns. Have you talked to the Olympics? I understand
they have attempted, and they actually test athletes for HGH.
They seem to think they have some kind of test. So the question
is, if they are testing, why aren't the professional sports
testing?
Mr. Goodell. Let me try to address that.
Mr. Stearns. Why don't you talk to the Olympics and say,
``look, what are you doing? Let's test the way you are doing,
at least start it.''
Mr. Goodell. We have talked to the Olympics. In fact, we
think, in fairness to your earlier question, we think we have
gone beyond the Olympic standards. We test far more individual
athletes than the Olympics do at this point in time. We have
been doing it for over two decades. We do 12,000 tests a year,
and I believe that we work with WADA and USADA to determine any
new changes in technology, science that can help improve our
program, and we have made changes along the way to improve
that. And I think we have done that very effectively.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Selig, do you want to respond to that?
Mr. Selig. I was just going to add to that, not only have
we supported the work with Dr. Catlin but, with the other
leagues, and with the USOC we are involved in the Partnership
for Clean Competition. But the thing that I keep hearing,
Congressman, over and over, there is a test for HGH, and they
use it in the Olympics. That is not so. They took tests. They
have never released the results of that test. Nobody knows
where it is. And there is not a test today for HGH.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Nebraska, Mr. Terry, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Terry. Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I
have the pleasure of representing the home of the College World
Series, and it is going to stay that way. There is a little
issue with that, but--
Mr. Fehr. Mr. Brand is on the next panel.
Mr. Terry. I have to get it in continuously. It is about
repetition.
Mr. Chairman, you rightfully called out Vince McMahon. You
know, someone that flips his finger at this committee or at
Congress deserves to be called out. On the other hand, we have
a really esteemed panel. And in my personal opinion, Vince
McMahon does not belong at this table with these people.
So let's move on to the issue at hand. And I am a laissez-
faire, hands-off type of guy. That is economy, and that is
legislation. To put my philosophical reference or beliefs and
lay it over the issue at hand, it means that I do believe each
sport should handle it themselves. And when you were in here 3
years ago, you said we would do it by collective bargaining. I
have seen progress in that. So I do appreciate that you are
addressing it. Let me be clear though, if we can't elevate the
level of testing and rid sports of the steroids, the
performance-enhancing drugs, if we can't rid professional
sports of that, then I don't think we have much of a choice but
to come in and set the standards for you.
So, Mr. Fehr, take that back to your players because,
frankly, baseball has been the focus--maybe rightfully, maybe
wrongfully. But it appears to the normal sports fan that it has
been the baseball players that have dragged their feet and
really created this issue. That is just a personal observation.
I am a sports fan. I listen. And so baseball has put themselves
in a position where they have to take more of a lead, set the
bar much higher to try and correct the perception about
cheaters in baseball.
And Mr. Selig, in your statement, one quote really stood
out to me. Marsha, my colleague from Tennessee, hit on it. But
the quote is, ``I have adopted all of the Mitchell
recommendations that can be accomplished without collective
bargaining.'' Can you quickly just go through what you can do
unilaterally and what has to be done by way of the Mitchell
Report by collective bargaining?
Mr. Selig. Well, what has been accomplished, Congressman,
up to this point, and what we have done, we have established an
independent Department of Investigations; two of our people are
here today. We require club officials to certify that they have
reported information of performance-enhancing substances. We
had some experience, which was unfortunate, with packages being
sent to the Major League clubhouses. We now conduct background
checks on clubhouse personnel. We drug test clubhouse
personnel. We have established a hotline for reporting
anonymous tips, and we have clubhouse posters and a rather
significant educational program there.
Now, the things that we are still bargaining collectively
go more to the independence and the transparency. And I think,
once we do that, we have really tightened up our program. But
we have not--those are--
Mr. Terry. What did you say? The independence? I am sorry.
I couldn't hear you.
Mr. Selig. I am sorry. The other proposals deal with
independence and transparency.
Mr. Terry. Independence means what?
Mr. Selig. Independence of the program, the program. The
administrator--in other words, you would give the administrator
full administrative authority, hired for a longer term. He can
really be dismissed only for violation of explicit provisions
of the drug agreement. The whole point of those Mitchell
recommendations was to increase the level of independence. And
I think, if we do all those things, I am very satisfied that
any objective person will say we have really tightened the
program. And that is what is under discussion now.
Mr. Terry. Mr. Fehr, any resistance from the players?
Mr. Fehr. As Senator Mitchell pointed out and as I
indicated in the response to a question from one of your
colleagues, Senator Mitchell's recommendations were
extraordinarily general. You have to look at the specifics. And
he did specifically indicate, for example, that the precise
form of a given recommendation would have to take account of
collective bargaining. We will be discussing all those
recommendations. We have already begun them with the
Commissioner's Office, discussions with the players. We can't
really start until actually tomorrow when I can get down to
Florida. We couldn't do it off-season because we can't find
everybody. And in response to your prior comment, I appreciate
it is a personal observation. But I think you can, from my
experience, count on the fact that the players pay attention to
these hearings.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Burgess, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it is fair.
I agree with you; people do pay attention to the hearings. But
a lot is written in my local press back home about--not the
hearings in this subcommittee but the hearings in the other
subcommittee. But, again, let me stress that this is the
Legislative Subcommittee. This is the committee that has the
obligation to do something if indeed something needs to be
done. And I believe it does. And I think I have heard that
sentiment from all along the table today--well, almost all
along the table today. And I am appreciative of that because I
think it is important.
Mr. Fehr, you indicated that we have got a handle on the
problem.
Mr. Fehr. I am sorry. I didn't hear you.
Mr. Burgess. You indicated in one of your answers to
another question that we, you and the Players Union, have got a
handle on the problem. I hope you are correct. I am not certain
that you are. And, again, as I said in my opening statement,
this is a hearing that really should be focused on the future,
not what has happened in the past. There is no point in
revisiting the stuff that has already been revisited. But I
have an article here from the Boston Globe from February 19, so
it is fairly current. And in this article, the estimate is that
3 to 6 percent of students nationally have tried anabolic
steroids. So, at a minimum, that is hundreds of thousands of
high schoolers. So that is a big problem for us. And then they
go on to say a recent report by the Oregon Health and Science
University using data from the CDC said that over 5 percent of
teenage girls admitted to using anabolic steroids, mostly for
body-enhancing reasons or self-protection, not athletics. And
also according to data from the Centers for Disease Control in
2003, seventh grade girls were the fastest growing group of
steroid users with more than 7 percent using them. So, again,
it is a big deal. And this article is actually dealing with two
teenagers and has significance for me because they are both
from Texas. Dionne Roberts, who is the focus of the article,
used anabolic steroids until it drove her to a suicide attempt.
And just down the road at a Plano High School, a young man
named Taylor Hooton actually did commit suicide, and his dad
Don Hooton has been here to testify before our committee in the
past and has been a very outspoken advocate about us doing
something to turn the tide on this.
From an article in the Fort Worth Star Telegram back home
in Texas, and this is actually from today's paper, by Linda
Campbell. The article ends up: Pressures to get bigger, faster
and stronger to gain an edge are inherent in competitive sports
in all levels. As long as performance enhancers are accessible
to the pros without sufficiently serious penalties, they will
trickle down to amateurs.
And then, again, I reference back to this rather disturbing
data from the CDC and Oregon Health University about the
numbers of teenagers who are using these. So I guess what
concerns me is that the kids see that it is okay because their
heroes are using these compounds. It is not important for us to
beat up on someone who may or may not have used this or may or
may not have been truthful on a national news program. What is
critical for us to get right is that we put the parameters in
place so that you all have the tools you need in your self-
policing of your sports, your entertainment industry, if you
will, and that the correct message--so we don't have the
message trickling to our youngsters that it is okay to use
these things, that it is a good idea to use these things. But
the message trickles down that it is wrong; it is cheating, and
it is dangerous to your health. Do you have any comment on
that?
Mr. Fehr. I sure do. And I hope you will give me a minute
or two to respond. I said in my prepared testimony and in my
opening remarks, that this is a society-wide problem, and I
think you have put your finger on it, in large part, that it
is. Forget high school male athletes. I just don't think it is
terribly likely that teenage girls are using steroids because
they want to turn into Major League pitchers or to linebackers.
There has got to be something else that is going on there.
Where you have a circumstance in which the product seems to
be widely available, easy to find, you have massive
advertising, you have online sales, you have pharmacies that,
according to the press reports, dispense drugs without
individual doctors examinations, those are the kinds of things
that no matter what we do, that is the environment we can't
solve.
Now having--to turn to Major League players, I think the
Mitchell Report makes clear that with respect to things that we
can detect, we are now detecting them. I don't know anybody
that thinks that a player who has been identified as having
used a performance-enhancing substance in baseball in the last
2 or 3 years has been subject to anything other than shame and
ridicule. And to the extent that that is a helpful message to
kids, that is good. We don't have any problem with that. And we
hope they get it.
That is not going to do it all by itself. And you picked up
a line--and maybe they even picked it up from me--that I used
at the January 15 Government Oversight Committee hearing, and I
think personally--this is not a statement on behalf of the
players; this is simply a personal opinion--that if we maintain
a culture in which every time a potential junior high school or
high school or potential college athlete goes in to see a coach
complete with all the pressures for scholarships and the
message is ``just not big enough, just not strong enough, you
are just not fast enough'' and that message is repeated ad
nauseam, people are going to look for ways to get bigger and
stronger and faster. By the time they get to the pros, whatever
message they have in that regard, they already have. So that is
why I suggested in my testimony that we need some help from the
Congress in a lot of these other areas. And it is going to be
tough. You know, it has taken us 40 years to make meaningful
impacts on discouraging tobacco use. But we have to start.
Mr. Burgess. Yeah. And I appreciate your work in this
regard. I do feel obligated--in case anyone is watching this
hearing, it does go on to say in the article that this teenage
girl developed a very deep voice, and that may not be
reversible. So there is another thing to add to the list of
reasons not to--
Mr. Fehr. May I say, women are not supposed to have
testosterone, that we know.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Selig, in your opinion, does the Mitchell Report
recommendations go far enough, or is there more that should be
done in your opinion?
Mr. Selig. I think they do. The Senator spent 19 months
interviewing thousands of people. I think he really had, in the
end, a very good handle on what happened and why it happened. I
am really confident that if we adopt all of his
recommendations, we will have really strengthened a program
that is already working. Now we must remember, we were down to
two positive tests in 2006; three in 2007. We have banned
amphetamines in the meantime. And by the way, I want to say
this again: No one asked us to ban amphetamines. The idea came
to me from team doctors and trainers who urged me to do it
because they were very concerned about the health
ramifications. And so I think, if you take all of that, take
all the progress we have made in the last 4 years through
collective bargaining and other things, and then you add the
Mitchell recommendations onto that, I think that really
tightens our program up. And I am very confident to go ahead
with that. And I believe, again, when you concern yourself with
independence and transparency, I am quite satisfied that these
are--
Mr. Pitts. Mr. Fehr, your reaction?
Mr. Fehr. As I think I have indicated in my previous
testimony, we had a strong program. We have made regular
modifications for it. We have had open discussions on the
Mitchell recommendations, and we will see where they go. They
all require fleshing out, in terms of an agreement. I don't
question the motivation behind them or the ideas behind them.
We will be discussing them with the players beginning tomorrow.
Mr. Pitts. Would any others of the panel like to respond to
that question? Is there more that should be done? Or does the
Mitchell Report go far enough?
I will yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New
York, Mr. Fossella, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fossella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your patience and your efforts. I
believe you are all awarded in good faith, so I would urge you
to continue to do so. I don't know if you have talked about it
earlier, but perhaps, we could shift gears a little bit and
talk about--maybe Mr. Fehr provides the segue. By the time the
young people become eligible to play, what is happening in high
schools, kids that we know are taking some of these steroids
and human growth hormones. My understanding is that the rates
of that age group are growing higher than any other group. And
several States have taken it upon themselves to provide for
mandatory testing. Texas, New Jersey. Do you all have an
opinion? State Senator Andrew Lanza of New York has introduced
legislation modelled after that. Do you have an opinion as to
whether there should be mandatory testing at the high school
level? And if so, is there a way that Major League sports can
help provide for not just education and awareness but also
maybe support some of the financing of that testing? Gentlemen?
Anybody? How about, if nobody answers, I would assume you all
don't like the idea. If somebody does answer--
Mr. Fehr. Let me--I will take a shot at it. Let me say,
first of all, you do have, as I understand, the second panel
representatives from high school here that may be in a position
to respond on an informed basis to those kinds of questions. I
am not. And I don't want to speculate about things that I am
not knowledgeable enough on to have a considered opinion.
Having said that, let me make a slightly different point
that I do think is important. Whether or not you have testing
in high schools, that testing is likely to be, if it occurs,
for individuals involved in athletics. If the numbers are as
Mr. Burgess suggested and as the newspaper article and the CDC
report suggested and that use transcends athletics by large
numbers, then I am not sure what the effectiveness of the
testing program, if you had one limited to athletics, would be.
And in the end, this comes down to persuasion. People have to
be persuaded not to do it. And that is tough for teenagers.
Mr. Selig. The only thing I would say to you is, through
the Hooton Foundation and the Partnership For a Drug-Free
America and other things that we are doing, we are trying,
through the educational process, to explain to kids and help
them understand what they are doing. We are going to do a lot
more of that. And I think, in the end, the people, whether they
are from New York or Missouri or anywhere else, will have to
make their own judgment. And I think they will know all the
facts better than we do. But as our programs work more
effectively and we do more grassroots educational programs, I
think that will be where we make our greatest contribution.
Mr. Goodell. Congressman, let me respond a couple ways.
First, I think the NFL and other Major League sports have
already helped to some extent because I think they have proven
that random unannounced testing is effective and a deterrent to
using steroids. Second of all, we have all engaged in our own
efforts to make sure that young children and kids growing up
playing sports understand that this is not part of professional
sports and that we don't encourage it. We discourage you from
doing that. We spent $10 million alone, the National Football
League, on our testing program. So we are spending a
significant amount of resources. So I understand the challenges
that States are going to have in putting together their own
testing programs. It would be a significant burden to put that
on top of professional sports in addition to that.
Mr. Fossella. Well, while I have you, Mr. Goodell, I don't
want the moment to pass. You have deep, and I know proud, roots
in New York. A lot of happy Giants fans. Still some unhappy
Jets fans. I don't want to put you on the spot. Is there
anything you want to share--between you and me--regarding any
efforts--still a lot of unhappy Jets fans in New York. Anything
happening on that front with respect to the videotape of Coach
Belichick of the Patriots? This is just between you and--
Mr. Goodell. Just between--
Mr. Rush. Let me remind the gentleman before you ask that
question, that is really beyond the scope of this hearing. I
don't want--
Mr. Fossella. I think it is my time, Mr. Chairman. I have
11 seconds left, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. All right. If the gentleman really wants to
persist with that question, you have 3 seconds to answer it.
Mr. Fossella. Would you like to answer that, Mr. Goodell?
Mr. Goodell. I would be happy to. I will be very brief. We
have dealt with this very effectively in the sense that we--as
soon as we got information, we addressed this issue with the
team. We had a full admission from the team. We disciplined
them in an unprecedented fashion. We disclosed it to everyone
publicly. And I think the discipline that was taken will send a
very clear and loud message that you are not to break the rules
in the NFL.
Mr. Fossella. Thank you for your honesty. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. Let me remind the gentleman, we all have our
problems. I wanted to ask Mr. Selig about, when are the Cubs
going to win the World Series? But we all have our issues.
Okay. I really want to thank the--
Mr. Burgess. I just want to--while we have the panel here,
the issue came up about testing for human growth hormone. Did I
hear someone mention that there is a commercial test available
for human growth hormone? And it is a peptide hormone. It
almost is going to be broken down by the body. So the products
of it are going to be amino acids, which are almost impossible
to detect for other amino acids that appear there normally; is
that correct?
Mr. Fehr. I can't comment on the science with that degree
of precision. I am certainly not competent to do that. But I
think we have all indicated, and Mr. Goodell did in his opening
statement with some specificity, that a commercially available
test is not out there for us to use. Having said that, I don't
know if you were here when I made this comment before, but I
will take the opportunity to suggest it again: If the Congress
could consider requiring some sort of a chemical marker in
prescription HGH that would be detectable in urine tests, that
would go a long way towards solving a whole lot of the problems
in this area.
Mr. Burgess. Some sort of isotopic labelling on the
molecular structure--
Mr. Fehr. I will leave it to you to put the scientific
wording on it. That is the best I can do.
Mr. Rush. The Chair has been very liberal with the
gentleman--
Mr. Burgess. The Chair is very liberal. I will agree with
that.
Mr. Rush--in allowing him to question beyond the time. I
want to just thank the panel. You have indeed performed quite a
service for this subcommittee. And I would just like to say in
the area of--with respect to the World Wrestling Entertainment,
you know, it seems to me that the cream has really risen to the
top, and the other stuff has stayed down at the bottom. And I
really want to thank you and commend you for taking the time
out to be a part of this hearing. And as we proceed further, we
want to get your full input. And there are some issues right
now that remain about whether or not legislation is needed. You
know, we will keep those questions open. But, again, I really
want to commend you for taking the time out. Thank you so very,
very much for your participation.
Mr. Selig. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. There is a vote that occurs on the floor--three
votes that occur on the floor. We are going to recess the
hearing for 30 to--we will reconvene at 1:00 for the second
panel. So we will reconvene at 1:00 here in the committee room
for the testimony from the second panel.
[Recess from 12:23 p.m. To 1:12 p.m.]
Mr. Rush. We want to welcome you and thank you for taking
the time out from your very busy schedules to come to appear
before this subcommittee. And we had pretty invigorating
discussion with the earlier committee, and we look forward to
even more of an invigorating discussion with the panel from the
second committee.
Mr. Rush. Let me introduce the panel.
From my left, Mr. Jim Scherr is the chief executive officer
of the United States Olympic Committee. Mr. Travis T. Tygart is
the chief executive officer of the United States Anti-Doping
Agency. Mr. Myles Brand is the President of the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. Mr. Robert Kanaby is the
executive director of the National Federation of State High
School Associations. And Mr. Alexander M. Waldrop is the CEO of
the National Thoroughbred Racing Association.
We want to extend to the witnesses 5 minutes of opening
testimony. If you have opening testimony, would you please take
5 minutes, no more than 5 minutes in order to exchange, and to
deliver your opening testimony.
We will begin with you, Mr. Scherr. Welcome. And we look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JIM SCHERR, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S. OLYMPIC
COMMITTEE, COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
Mr. Scherr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. My name is Jim Scherr. I am the chief executive
officer of the United States Olympic Committee. And my
experience goes beyond the management of this organization,
which oversees all Olympic activity in the United States. I am
also a former NCA championship wrestler. I was an Olympic
competitor in 1988, and I have experienced the pressures and
challenges that confront athletes on all levels, which is at
the heart of our discussion today.
I am pleased to have been invited here to appear before
you, because this subject, the use of certain dangerous and
prohibited chemical substances to improve athletic performance,
is one about which we have considerable concern on many levels.
But it is also an area, thanks in large part to USADA and Mr.
Tygart on my left, that the USOC has made significant strides
through development of an anti-doping program that has become a
model for the world.
Let me begin briefly by explaining who and what the USOC
is. We are chartered by Congress through the Ted Stevens
Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, and we have numerous
responsibilities that impact the national interest, among the
most obvious being the fielding of teams that compete for the
United States in the Olympics, Paralympic and Pan American
Games. And as we seek to fulfill that congressionally mandated
role, we are guided by a provision of the USOC's mission
statement that proclaims we are committed to preserving the
Olympic ideal. The heart of the Olympic ideal is to participate
with fair play and respect for fundamental ethical principles
universally understood by the world. The use by any athlete in
the Olympic movement of any banned drug to improve his or her
athletic performance is a gross betrayal of the Olympic ideals
and those principles on which the ideals are founded.
In discussing what has contributed to our progress and
success, I should note that the USOC operates in a unique
environment. Participation in the international events we
oversee is governed by rules and protocols that are put in
place at the international level, which impact the dynamics
between us and the athletes we oversee. We do, however, have
congressionally granted control over who is named to the U.S.
Olympic team. In order to be eligible for membership on an
Olympic team, we require that every athlete comply totally with
the USOC's anti-doping policies and programs which include
unlimited and unannounced out-of-competition tests.
I won't go into the details of the mechanics of those tests
and the manner in which the positives are adjudicated because
those subjects are better addressed by Travis Tygart, the CEO
of USADA, the United States Anti-Doping Agency. However, I
believe it is important to highlight for the subcommittee that
USADA was created by the USOC and established by the USOC in
2000 to function as an externalized, independent drug testing
and adjudication entity. I will further comment about certain
of USADA's characteristics, which I am pleased to say are
consistent with the generally accepted best practices for anti-
doping programs and encompass those recommendations that were
contained in the Mitchell Report.
USADA today is jointly funded by the USOC and the Federal
Government. It is operationally independent of the USOC and any
of our national sports governing bodies whose athletes are
subject to the testing. And we are pleased with the progress of
USADA to date and the success of our stringent anti-doping
program. But we also recognize that more must be done if we are
to win the battle against doping in sport.
Two areas which I would like to address briefly for those
additional efforts which I believe would be beneficial are
research and education. Research: Effective drug testing is
dependent not only upon the willingness of the individual to
submit to those examinations but also to the efficacy of a test
to determine whether the individual's body is carrying one or
more prohibited substances. Athletes who cheat are increasingly
sophisticated in identifying methods of beating anti-doping
programs. Better, more reliable tests are needed, and those
will require considerable research. However, the resources that
to date have been devoted to research are limited, and many
organizations are pursuing this independently in an
uncoordinated fragmented fashion. It was because of this that
we proposed the Partnership For Clean Competition that was
addressed earlier. And we thank those organizations that have
joined us in that effort--National Football League, Major
League Baseball--as founding partners and others on the panel
that were participating partners. This new collaborative area
that we are launching will invest more funds targeted more
directly towards research. But what is accomplished will still
be limited, and we would like to expand the resources of that
partnership. In light of this, perhaps there is an opportunity
for the Federal Government to consider support of these efforts
through Federal grants and other contributions. Additionally,
we would welcome an exploration by the government of whether
there may be government health-related organizations that may
be able to help with this effort.
The last area I would like to address briefly is education.
People, and particularly young people in this country, are
educated by observing what happens more so than even what is
presented in the classroom. And certain athletes as role models
using banned substances impact their education and send a
terrible message on many levels. And implicitly it condones
cheating, which above all is against the Olympic principles.
The use of banned or illegal substances to improve that
athlete's performance simply is cheating in any terms. And
there is no room for it in athletics in our country, the world
or the Olympic movement or professional sports. And secondly,
there is the perception that, aside from ethical concerns, the
negative health consequences of using these substances are
often overlooked by young people, if they see celebrities and
athletes and others utilizing these substances. We would like
to join with the leagues, with the professional sport entities,
government agencies, such as the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, and other private coalitions to launch more
thorough campaigns to educate young people against the dangers
and ethical contradictions of using banned substances to
improve athletic performance. These efforts have been effective
in the past, but there are still gaps. And society does not
seem to be getting the message through in large measure. And
with proper support, I see an opportunity for us to join these
others.
Let me close with this thought: We offer no opinion on the
professional leagues and what they might do in their own
testing programs. We believe the recommendations in the
Mitchell Report are sound. We would consider their adoption.
They have been sound for us. And we believe they would work
across other sports as well. Thank you for the opportunity to
present.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scherr follows:]
Statement of Jim Scherr
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Jim Scherr and I am the Chief Executive Officer of
the United States Olympic Committee. My experience goes beyond
the management of an organization overseeing all Olympic
activity in the United States. I am a former NCAA championship
wrestler and an Olympic athlete, and have experienced the
pressures and challenges that confront athletes on all levels,
and which is at the heart of the discussion today. I am pleased
to have been invited to appear before this subcommittee because
the subject, the use of certain dangerous and prohibited
chemical substances to improve athletic performance, is one
about which the USOC has considerable concern on many levels.
But it is also an area where the USOC has made significant
strides through the development of an anti-doping program that
has become a model for the world.
Let me begin by briefly explaining who and what the USOC
is. Chartered by Congress through the Ted Stevens Olympic and
Amateur Sports Act, we have numerous responsibilities that
impact the national interest, among the most obvious being the
fielding of athletes to compete for the United States in the
Olympic, Paralympic, and Pan American Games. In reach and scope
we are a large organization, overseeing the governance of
forty-five national sports governing bodies and have in our
membership numerous educational, community, military, and
disability groups whose activities collectively involve and
impact millions of Americans of all ages and all levels of
athletic competency.
In addition, we are guided by a provision of the USOC's
mission statement that proclaims that we are committed to
``preserving the Olympic ideal.'' The Olympic ideal, as
enumerated in the Olympic Charter to which all participating
Olympic nations must subscribe, stresses the attributes of fair
play, and the respect for fundamental ethical principles. The
use by any athlete in the Olympic Movement of any banned drug
to improve his or her athletic performance is a gross betrayal
of those principles.
In discussing what has contributed to our progress and
success in the fight against doping in sport, I should note
that the USOC operates in a unique environment. Participation
in the international events we oversee is governed by rules and
protocols that are put in place at the International level
which impact the dynamics between us and the athletes we
oversee. We do, however, have congressionally-granted control
over who is named to the U.S. Olympic Team. In order to be
eligible for membership on a U.S. Olympic Team, we require that
an athlete comply totally with the USOC's anti-doping policies
and programs, which include unlimited and unannounced out-of-
competition examinations.
I won't go into the details of the mechanics of these tests
and the manner in which positives are adjudicated because those
are subjects that are better addressed by Travis Tygart, the
CEO of the United States Anti-Doping Agency, otherwise known by
its acronym, ``USADA.'' However, I believe it is important to
highlight for the Subcommittee that USADA was created by the
USOC and established by the USOC in 2000 to function as an
independent drug testing and adjudication entity. Further, I
will comment about certain of USADA's characteristics which, I
am pleased to say, are consistent with the generally accepted
best practices for anti-doping programs. Although USADA today
is jointly funded by the USOC and the federal government, it is
operationally independent of the USOC and any of the sports
governing bodies whose athletes are subject to the anti-doping
programs USADA conducts and the USOC requires. Dedicated to the
fulfillment of a mission that concentrates on testing,
adjudication, education, and research, USADA conducts its
business in a highly transparent manner that virtually
eliminates any question of conflict of interest.
The USOC is pleased with the progress made by USADA and the
success of the USOC's stringent anti-doping program, but
recognizes that more must be done if we are to win the battle
against doping in sport.
Two areas which I would like to address where additional
efforts and improvements should be made are in the areas of
research and education.
First of all is the matter of research. Effective drug
testing is dependent upon not only the willingness of an
individual to submit to an examination, but also to the
efficacy of a test to determine whether that individual's body
is carrying one or more prohibited substances. Athletes who
choose to cheat, are increasingly sophisticated in identifying
methods to beat anti-doping programs.
Substances such as human growth hormone as well as other
``designer'' drugs being developed and refined on an ongoing
basis by those who would seek to cheat are complicated and
difficult to detect through current testing protocols. Better,
more reliable tests are needed and those will require
considerable research. However, the resources that have been
devoted to research are limited, and while other organizations
may be independently pursuing work in this area, the efforts
tend to be uncoordinated and fragmented. It was because of this
that the USOC proposed a collaborative effort in the area of
research, the ``Partnership for Clean Competition''. I am
pleased to recognize those organizations who have initially
joined in this effort and thank them for their leadership and
commitment.
The new Partnership for Clean Competition that we are
launching will invest more funds, targeted more directly and,
presumably, more effectively, toward research that may result
in more reliable, non-invasive, and cost-effective tests that
will easily reveal the presence of a variety of substances in
an individual. But what is accomplished will still be limited
and we need to expand the resources of our partnership. In
light of this, perhaps there is an opportunity for the federal
government to consider support of these efforts through federal
grants or other contributions. Additionally, we would welcome
an exploration by the government of whether there may be
government health-related organizations that can also help with
this effort.
The second area I would like to briefly address is
education. People, particularly young people, are educated as
much by observing what happens in their world as what is
presented in the classroom. And when it is disclosed that
certain athlete role models have used banned substances to
improve their performance, it sends a terrible message on many
levels.
First of all it implicitly condones cheating. The use of
banned or illegal substances to improve athletic performance is
nothing more than cheating. Secondly, there is the perception
that aside from the ethical concerns, there are few, if any,
deleterious health consequences of using these substances. Both
children and adults are exposed to a constant barrage of
advertising, news stories regarding how celebrities have used
certain drugs to retain or renew their youth, and suggestions
that certain exotic ``natural substances,'' readily available
in health food stores, offer a panacea for health, fitness and
well-being. Such information often masks reports of the tragic
consequences that can lead to depression, suicides, and the
development of other fatal conditions, all of which appear to
have resulted from the use of certain of these substances.
On the education front the leagues, certain government
agencies such as the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
private coalitions, and others have launched campaigns to
educate society against both the dangers and the ethical
contradictions of using chemical substances to improve athletic
performance. These have all been quite effective but there are
still gaps and the message still seems not to be getting
through at least to some segments of society. With proper
support, I see an opportunity for the USOC to join with others
in the area of education. In this way we might fill a gap in
communicating an effective message that is otherwise eluding
some young people.
Some observers have questioned the legitimacy and
advisability of the federal government involving itself in
matters that may be better addressed by and are the province of
the private sector. We offer no opinion regarding what is best
for the professional leagues but would note for the
Subcommittee that we believe that the USOC's and the Olympic
Movement's stringent system far surpasses any program that
could readily be required by the federal government. If the
USOC has the ability to address these issues without government
oversight, we fully believe that the professional leagues have
the ability as well. It is only a question of when and how. But
we nevertheless recognize that there are areas such as research
and education where we need to work together as a team. That, I
am convinced, is the appropriate role for the government to
play in this important challenge and ask my colleagues in the
professional leagues to join the United States Olympic
Committee in extending this invitation to the federal
government to partner with us in this area.
Thank you for your consideration of these thoughts but more
importantly, thank you for your attention to this issue which
poses a considerable threat to American society if left
unchecked.
----------
Mr. Rush. Thank you. Mr. Tygart.
STATEMENT OF TRAVIS T. TYGART, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S.
ANTI-DOPING AGENCY, COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
Mr. Tygart. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, good
afternoon. My name is Travis Tygart. I am the chief executive
officer of the United States Anti-Doping Agency. USADA
appreciates the opportunity to appear before you today in your
long-standing interests and the rights of clean athletes and
the integrity of competition.
I speak with you today not only as the head of USADA but
also as the father of three young children, all ages 6 years
and under. And I hope, probably like many of you with your
children and your grandchildren, that one day they can obtain
the lessons of life only obtained through competition played
with honor and with integrity and without the use of
performance-enhancing drugs.
USADA's sole mission is to protect and preserve the rights
of clean athletes and the integrity of competition and the
well-being of sport through the elimination of doping. Congress
has officially recognized USADA as the independent Anti-Doping
Agency in the United States for Olympic and Paralympic sport.
Why does USADA care so much about the professional anti-doping
policies?
First of all, whether fair or not, the world draws little
distinction between professional and Olympic athletes. Our
clean Olympic athletes want to distinguish themselves from
dirty athletes. And our Olympic athletes frequently want to
distinguish themselves from the professional athletes because
they are too frequently viewed through the lens of the
professional sports leagues in this country.
Second, we test many of these professional athletes when
they decide to compete in the Olympic games. 12 months prior to
such Olympic games, these athletes do fall under our
jurisdiction and our testing programs. It is important for this
committee to understand professional basketball players, tennis
players, hockey players willingly subject themselves to the
highest standards that we have in the Olympic movement,
including no-advance-notice out-of-competition year-round
testing, including 2-year suspensions.
Thirdly and possibly most importantly, our kids and the
next generation of Olympic athletes are watching. The doping
crisis is not just a public image problem for a group of owners
or certain professional athletes. It is a health and an ethical
problem that reaches right to the heart of our grade schools
and our high schools.
Finally, USADA's perspective on the current anti-doping
climate comes from living the history of the fight against
doping that has occurred within the international Olympic
movement over the past 10 years. The Mitchell Report echoes a
similar process undertaken by the International Olympic
Committee and the United States Olympic Committee in the late
1990s in this country. In the 1990s, the system of regulation
by the various sports led to perceptions of conflict and
allegations of attempts to cover up doping behavior among U.S.
athletes. The USOC formed a task force to investigate and
consider the best approach to fighting doping in the Olympic
movement. The key finding of that USOC task force was that the
fight against doping in sport needed to be led by an
independent and transparent entity. Accordingly, USADA was
formed in 2000. The creation of USADA triggered a radical
transformation in the world's perception of the anti-doping
efforts by the United States Olympic Committee.
The USOC and the 45 national governing bodies took this
courageous step because it was clear that the sports cannot
both promote and police themselves. In addition to independence
and transparency, the matrix of effectiveness agreed to by all
the experts, including Senator Mitchell after his review, that
anti-doping policies must be evaluated includes: out-of-season
and out-of-competition no-advance-notice testing; an exhaustive
and evolving list of prohibited substances and methods;
implementation of best legal and scientific practices;
significant investments into education to truly change the
hearts and minds of would-be cheaters; significant investments
into research for the detection of new doping substances and
techniques; partnerships with government, particularly law
enforcement, to ensure that, in addition to holding athletes
accountable, those who illegally manufacture, traffic,
distribute, and otherwise sell these dangerous drugs are also
held accountable for their illegal behavior. We saw powerful
examples of this cooperation in the BALCO investigation and
others like it, such as Operation Raw Deal.
The U.S. Olympic movement is fortunate to have a strong
group of athletes who recognize the importance of clean sport
and are looking for ways to become even more involved. Our
Olympic athletes support USADA's efforts because they trust us
as an independent group to independently and evenly apply the
rules to all athletes. We support congressional efforts to
encourage effective anti-doping programs at the elite level of
sport. There are other important steps that I have outlined in
my submitted testimony that I would like to you see. I am more
than happy and would request the opportunity during the
question and answer to clarify some of the misinformation that
I think was presented to you previously, specifically
concerning the human growth hormone test and the scientific
validity of saving samples for retesting at a later date. Thank
you for your interest.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tygart follows:]
Statement of Travis T. Tygart
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good morning. My
name is Travis Tygart and I am the CEO of the United States
Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). I want to thank this committee for
its long-standing interest in clean sport and for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss this
important ethical and health issue.
As a father of 3 young children all ages 6 years and under,
I hope that one day they will all learn the valuable lessons of
life only obtained by participating in sports played with
integrity, honor and without prohibited drugs. In its purest
form sport builds character and promotes the virtues of
selfless teamwork, dedication and commitment to a greater
cause. True sport is built on the idea of honesty and respect.
It is these core principles of sport that bring our
communities together to cheer athletes and empower athletes to
pursue their dreams and to inspire others through the
accomplishment of those dreams. Doping eats away at these
important attributes and compromises everything valuable about
sport.
Accordingly, we welcome and appreciate this Committee's
focus on the harms that are caused by performance enhancing
drugs in sport. USADA has been recognized by Congress as the
independent, national anti-doping agency for Olympic and
Paralympic sport in the United States. Our sole mission is to
protect and preserve the health of athletes, the integrity of
competition, and the well-being of sport through the
elimination of doping. Stated another way, every day that the
independent USADA Board of Directors and employees of USADA go
to work we are focused only on the very issue that we are all
here to discuss.
We are all gathered here today, in part, because the
recently released Mitchell Report confirmed what has been
suspected for many years - that some in Major League Baseball
have succumbed to doping. Specifically, Senator Mitchell found
that ``[f]or more than a decade there has been widespread
illegal use of anabolic steroids and other performance
enhancing substances by players in Major League Baseball, in
violation of federal law and baseball policy.''
While the recent struggles of professional baseball may be
the current impetus behind this hearing, the issues involved
extend well beyond any one professional sport. The issue of
drugs in sport strikes at the very heart of the question of
what role sport will play in America's future. USADA's interest
in this discussion is driven by a motive to not only protect
the rights of today's Olympic athletes to play drug free but
just as important to protect America's next generation of
athletes. The doping crisis described in the report by Senator
Mitchell is not just a public image problem for a group of
owners or certain professional athletes. Illicit steroid use is
illegal and an ethical and public health problem that reaches
right to the core of our collective values and our future,
because it adversely affects today's high school, junior high
school and even grade school athletes.
America's future Olympic Gold Medalists in Track and Field,
Swimming, Bobsledding, Basketball and every other Olympic
sport, are out there right now learning from the example set by
today's Olympic athletes and professional athletes. The
question is, what lessons are they learning? Are they learning
that athletic success justifies whatever means are required to
achieve it? Is the lesson that cheating to win is okay as long
as it sells tickets and raises profits?
USADA's mission is to make sure that in the context of
Olympic sport, today's Olympians are allowed to compete clean
and those who decide to cheat are caught and punished. In that
way, tomorrow's Olympians will know that there are no shortcuts
to true achievement on the playing field.
USADA's perspective on the current anti-doping climate
comes from living the history of the fight against doping that
has occurred within the international Olympic movement over the
past ten years. That history is important because the questions
faced and the answers offered by the Mitchell Report echo a
similar process undertaken by the International Olympic
Committee and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) in the
late 1990's.
In the 1990's, the world did not view the United States as
being committed to preventing doping among its Olympic
athletes. The system of self-regulation by the various sports
led to perceptions of conflict of interest and allegations of
attempts to cover up doping behavior among United States'
athletes. The USOC formed a task force to investigate and
consider the best approach to fighting doping in the Olympic
movement. That task force faced many of the same questions
confronted by Senator Mitchell in his analysis and, not
surprisingly, the recommendations of Senator Mitchell are very
similar to the recommendations of the USOC task force.
The key finding of the USOC's task force was that fight
against doping in Olympic sport needed to be led by a truly
independent and transparent entity. Accordingly, USADA was
formed in 2000. The creation of USADA triggered a radical
transformation in the world's perception of anti-doping efforts
in the United States Olympic Movement. We are now viewed as a
world leader in Olympic anti-doping and it is universally
acknowledged that our athletes are subject to one of the
world's most rigorous anti-doping programs in the world.
Moreover, USADA's willingness to pursue investigations of
athletes and coaches and hold them accountable for cheating
based on evidence other than a positive test has reinforced the
world's view of our commitment to clean sport. For these
reasons, other national anti-doping agencies, such as the
Russian agency, travel to the United States to meet with USADA
and learn from our practices and programs. Significantly, this
dramatic shift to independent administration of anti-doping
efforts was also accomplished on a world level when the
International Olympic Committee after reviewing the issues also
externalized its anti-doping efforts to the independent entity,
the World Anti-Doping Agency. Other nations have followed the
paradigm shift and it is now universally accepted that true
independence is the hallmark of an effective anti-doping
program.
It was an extremely courageous decision for the USOC and
the 45 or so national governing bodies to fully externalize
their efforts to USADA, but they took the stand because it was
clear that the sports themselves could not simultaneously
promote and police their sports. And, since they all desired an
effective program, there were no reasons not to externalize
their anti-doping efforts. Similarly, in recommending a path
forward for Major League Baseball, Senator Mitchell concluded
that independence was a threshold component of a state-of-the-
art anti-doping program that ``should be administered by a
truly independent authority that holds exclusive authority over
its structure and administration.''
It is important that ``independence'' not be dismissed as
simply window dressing designed to remove perceived conflicts.
Instead, USADA's experience has established that true
independence is a functional and fundamental requirement of an
effective anti-doping program. In fact, true independence is
the single most important element of the USADA model because it
provides us with complete authority over all areas of the
entire anti-doping program. Simply put, USADA's mission is to
protect clean sport and preserve the rights of athletes to
compete clean. In accomplishing that mission, USADA does not
have a conflicting duty to also protect the image of the sport
it serves or of commercial factors such as obligations to
sponsors, owners or other investors. This true independence
frees USADA to take the steps necessary to accomplish its
mission without worrying about the possible negative impact on
the financial interests or the image of the sport.
Ultimately, by keeping a steadfast focus on the sole goal
of clean sport, USADA has improved the image of Olympic sport,
but that victory has necessarily come at the price of exposing
the dark side of sport along the way. When the path to
redemption requires that individuals once thought to be heroes
must be exposed as frauds, it takes a strong resolve to walk
that path. Unfortunately, experience establishes that where
that resolve may be impacted by a duty to protect the image of
the sport or its profits then the mission will be easily
compromised. This point is made resoundingly clear in the
Mitchell Report.
The history of anti-doping efforts in the Olympic movement
and the experience of other sports, establish that partial
independence is not an effective model for fighting doping in
sport. The fight against doping in sport cannot be a part-time
job and true progress will not be achieved through anything
less than the full commitment and dedication of a team of
experts.
In addition to true independence and transparency, the
matrix of effectiveness agreed to by the experts and also
detailed in the Mitchell Report by which all anti-doping
policies can be evaluated must include:
Effective out of season and out of competition, no advanced
notice testing;
A full list of prohibited substances and methods that would
capture new, designer drugs as they are developed;
Implementation of best legal and scientific policies and
practices as they evolve which must include adequate sanctions
and due process protections for those accused of doping
violations;
Significant investments into education to truly change the
hearts and minds of would be cheaters and to teach the lessons
of life that can be learned only from ethical competition;
Significant investments into scientific research for the
detection of new doping substances and techniques and for the
pursuit of scientific excellence into anti-doping;
Partnerships with government particularly law enforcement
to ensure that in addition to holding athletes accountable,
those who illegally manufacturer, traffic and distribute these
dangerous drugs and who are typically outside of sports
jurisdiction are also held accountable for their illegal
behavior. It is the success of this very cooperation seen
through the BALCO investigation and others like it such as,
Operation Raw Deal, which has directly led us all here today.
Ultimately, this fight for the soul of sport, most directly
impacts the clean athletes. The U.S. Olympic movement is
fortunate to have a strong group of athletes who recognize the
importance of this issue and are looking for ways to become
even more involved. Our Olympic athletes support USADA's
efforts because they trust us to evenly apply the rules to all
athletes including high profile, high dollar superstars; they
want us to protect their right to compete clean and they want
American sports fans to be able to once again believe in their
Olympic heroes. Our clean Olympic athletes also are desperate
to distinguish themselves from dirty athletes as well as those
athletes who play in professional sports because too frequently
the international sports world views our Olympic athletes
through the lens of the professional leagues and their anti-
doping policies.
Our duty to these clean athletes and our mission require us
to advocate for the most effective anti-doping policies at all
levels of sport even when that means offering candid
assessments of the programs of other sports entities. While no
anti-doping program is perfect until the matrix of
effectiveness discussed above is fully realized by all elite
level sports organizations their programs will not be as
effective as they should be. In the Olympic movement, we did
this on our own and without federal government scrutiny or
legislation. And, while the professional leagues anti-doping
policies have significantly improved over the past several
years, they still fail to fully implement all the basic
elements of the most effective programs. USADA supports efforts
to encourage anti-doping programs implemented at the elite
level of all sport.
Additionally, there is more that we strongly believe the
federal government can do to assist the goal of protecting
athletes and the integrity of sport at all levels. First, in
2004 Congress passed the Anabolic Steroid Control Act that in
addition to scheduling many of the steroid precursors and
designer steroids on the Controlled Substances Act at Section 4
also authorized $15 million annually for school based education
efforts. Regrettably, this program has never been funded.
Appropriating funds for an in-school program would provide a
broad based educational foundation to our children of the
importance of healthy living, ethical decision making and the
dangers of using dangerous performance enhancing drugs.
Second, there is currently legislation before the House and
Senate, HR 4911 and S. 877, that would add Human Growth Hormone
(HGH) to the Controlled Substance Act. Passage of this bill
would quickly strengthen the law enforcement efforts to enforce
the illegal distribution and use of HGH. Third, there is
additional legislation, S. 980, the Online Pharmacy Consumer
Protection Act, that would prohibit an online pharmacy from
selling a controlled substance over the Internet without a
valid prescription. Passage of this bill would further enhance
the control of these dangerous drugs and make it more difficult
for these drugs to end up in the hands of our children via the
internet. Fourth, while scientific research efforts must be
fully supported by sport and we are pleased that Major League
Baseball and the National Football League have agreed to
partner with the USOC and USADA to fund research into this area
through the Partnership for Clean Competition, the federal
government can assist this effort by appropriating additional
funding to further this anti-doping research.
I would like to thank this Committee for its time and its
interest in this important ethical and public health issue and
for inviting me to share USADA's experience and perspectives.
We look forward in assisting you as needed as you move forward.
----------
Mr. Rush. Thank you so very much.
Dr. Brand, welcome again. And you have got 5 minutes
please. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MYLES BRAND, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETICS ASSOCIATION, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
Mr. Brand. I want to thank you for holding this hearing and
for the opportunity to appear before you. The issue of
performance-enhancing drugs in sports is a serious and
pernicious threat to the health of those who participate and to
the integrity of intercollegiate athletics. It is one that NCAA
and higher education takes seriously and has addressed
earnestly for more than three decades.
There is ample evidence that the use of the more potent
performance aids presents a significant health risk for
athletes. In the case of other aids, such as supplements, not
enough evidence is available to determine the long-range
effects. But in all cases, the sustained and habitual use of
performance enhancers presents an abuse of healthy best
practices. Furthermore, from the viewpoint of governing bodies
charged with the responsibility to ensure fair play and the
ethical conduct of athletics competition, the use of
performance-enhancing drugs is cheating, pure and simple. It is
an attempt to create an artificial advantage that the abuser
hopes is not available to or will not be used by opponents. The
prohibition of such use, therefore, is necessary both for the
protection of sports and especially the good health of
athletes.
Over the past 20 years, the NCAA has aggressively addressed
what it saw as an emerging problem and the willingness of some
student athletes and trainers and coaches to put their health
and the integrity of the sport at risk. The association's
approach has been three pronged: education, testing and
sanctioning. Since the 1970s, the NCAA has developed and
mandated education for student athletes on the risks of
performance-enhancing drugs. This emphasis on education is part
of the unique relationship between the NCAA and the student
athletes.
Each fall, almost 400,000 student athletes--not the 450,
for example, compared to the NBA--400,000 athletes who compete
in intercollegiate athletics must document that they have been
so informed and attest that they will not use such drugs. The
NCAA began its first drug testing program in 1986 and today
conducts such testing at all its 89 championships in every
sport at every level. In addition, the association conducts
random out-of-season testings in Divisions I and II. In fact,
80 percent of the NCAA drug tests are outside the association's
championship testing. Division III is also engaged in a major
pilot for drug testing out of season.
In the same way as USOC operates, our efforts are carried
out under the strictest protocols using independent
laboratories and under the guidelines of WADA, the World Anti-
Doping Agency. Over the past two decades, hundreds of thousands
of student athletes have been tested. The NCAA drug testing
program is supplemented by member colleges and universities in
Divisions I and II. Approximately 78,000 student athletes are
tested annually through these efforts.
When a student athlete tests positive through an NCAA drug
testing effort for the use of performance enhancers, the
consequences are swift and harsh. The first offense results in
a loss of eligibility of 1 year, which is 25 percent of the
total student athlete's eligibility. The second offense results
in permanent loss of eligibility. The offenders are out of
college sports entirely. One strike and you are out. These are
penalties that leave no question about the seriousness of
intercollegiate athletics' expectations for drug-free
competition or the intent of higher education to influence the
behavior of those inclined to cheat.
Although it is impossible to totally eradicate the use of
performance-enhancing drugs, I am confident, based upon over
two decades of data, that the association's practices of drug
education, testing and penalty have resulted in a very serious
decline. In 1990, when the NCAA began testing for anabolic
steroids, approximately 10 percent of football players,
Divisions I and II, reported use of such enhancers. By 1993,
that number had been cut in half. Today, the number of student
athletes who test positive to all banned substances in all
sports is less than 1 percent. There is no question the NCAA's
drug testing efforts have been both punitive and a deterrent.
Now, America loves sports and makes heroes of those who
compete with skill and precision. In higher education, we
firmly believe there is educational value in athletic
participation. But it can all be undone in a heartbeat if those
of us charged with the governance of intercollegiate athletics
neglect our responsibility to protect the health of student
athletes and the integrity of college sports. I can assure this
committee that the NCAA and all higher education are committed
to an aggressive prohibition of performance-enhancing drugs and
meaningful consistently enforced and applied sanctions.
The NCAA and its member colleges and universities spend
nearly $10 million annually on drug testing and considerably
more on drug education. We take this issue very seriously, have
a track record of aggressive efforts to eliminate such use and
are resolute in our intent to protect both student athletes and
college sports. And again, I thank you for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brand follows:]
Statement of Myles Brand
Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Whitfield, and other
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
National Collegiate Athletic Association, as president of the
NCAA, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and inform
you of the Association's drug education and drug-testing
programs.
The NCAA has worked diligently for more than 35 years to
provide leadership and resources to its member schools in
partnership for effective drug abuse deterrence. The NCAA is a
private association of approximately 1,200 four-year
institutions of higher education and athletics conferences.
There are more than 380,000 student-athletes competing at these
NCAA member schools. According to the NCAA Constitution, under
the Principle of Student-Athlete Welfare, intercollegiate
athletics programs ``shall be conducted in a manner designed to
protect and enhance the physical and educational welfare of
student-athletes.'' The NCAA manual makes clear that it is the
responsibility of each member institution to protect the health
and safety of and provide a safe environment for each of its
participating student-athletes.
The NCAA Drug-Testing Program is an aggressive initiative
now in its third decade working to ensure that intercollegiate
athletics is as free of performance-enhancing drugs as
possible. The NCAA and its member institutions have taken a
strong stand to deter doping in sports and have long
established serious penalties for those who violate these
policies. Under the NCAA testing program, athletes who test
positive are withheld from competition in all sports for at
least one year, and lose one of their four years of collegiate
eligibility. Athletes who test positive a second time for
steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs lose all
remaining eligibility and are permanently banned from
intercollegiate athletics competition.
The NCAA testing program has proven to be effective in
dramatically reducing the use of such drugs by collegiate
athletes. And the proof is verified by the longitudinal study
of NCAA athlete drug use, administered every four years since
1985. In the 1989 Study of the Substance Use Habits of College
Student Athletes, 9.7% of NCAA Division I football student-
athletes reported using anabolic steroids. In 1990, the NCAA
began testing for anabolic steroids during the academic year in
all Division I football programs. In the 1993 study, 5.0% of
Division I football student-athletes reported using anabolic
steroids, and subsequently, 2.2% reported steroid use in the
1997 study. In the most recent study (2005), 2.3 % of football
student-athletes reported steroid use.
This impact is the result of a comprehensive approach and a
number of key factors in our drug-education and testing
programs:
A strict drug-testing protocol, reviewed and published
annually;
A national drug-testing program where student-athletes
are subject to testing at any time through a random and short
notice selection process;
The use of an outside independent third-party drug-
testing administrator;
Standardized serious penalties for violations: a first
positive drug test results in the loss of one of the four years
of eligibility and withholding from all sports; a second
positive for a performance-enhancing drug permanently removes
the athlete from intercollegiate sports;
Transparency in publishing aggregate drug-testing results
and the report of survey data on drug use;
And a broad-based educational effort combining the
expertise, resources and programs of the NCAA national office,
the athletic conference offices and the individual schools.
In order to promote student-athlete well-being and create
an environment that does not permit drug use, the NCAA has
developed a collaborative and comprehensive approach of strong
policy, effective education and detection. This approach is
strengthened by the effort and support of member schools.
Critical to success is the philosophy embedded in the NCAA
Constitution whereby member institutions adopt common values
and commit to the principals that assure student-athlete health
and safety and protect the integrity of collegiate athletics.
Member schools are required to conduct annual compliance
meetings where every student-athlete signs a drug-testing
consent form and is educated about banned drugs and products
that may contain them. NCAA regulations require that member
schools respond to any knowledge of banned drug use, and the
ethical code of conduct prohibits athletics staff from
providing banned drugs to any student-athlete, or providing
prescription medication outside of medical standards of
practice.
The NCAA formalized its national drug-education program in
the 1970's, and started its drug-testing programs in 1986. The
NCAA drug-testing program has earned a reputation as a model of
quality and professionalism. The NCAA spends more than $4
million annually for the national drug-testing programs, and
this effort is supported by another $4.8 million spent by
member institutions on campus-administered drug testing.
Overall, the NCAA has spent over $50 million dollars in testing
and countless millions in additional resources in educating
collegiate athletes to avoid drug use. The majority of member
schools have developed institutional policies to conduct drug-
education and drug testing programs for their athletes, as
measured through the biennial Drug-Education and Testing survey
of the membership. This partnership - national office and
Association member -- provides a strong anti-doping message
throughout intercollegiate athletics programs.
Drug Testing
The NCAA sponsors two national drug-testing programs for
college athletes - during NCAA championships and randomly
throughout the year. The NCAA believes that drug testing is an
integral part of drug-abuse prevention. NCAA drug testing was
established to protect student-athlete health and safety and to
ensure that athletes are not using performance-enhancing drugs
to gain a competitive advantage.
The NCAA first introduced drug testing at its championships
and postseason football bowl games in 1986. Since 1986, any
NCAA athlete competing in these events is subject to NCAA drug
testing, and approximately 2,000 athletes are tested each year
through championship drug testing. NCAA testing is conducted by
an independent third-party drug-testing administrator.
Selections and notification are completed via direct
communication with the athletics office of the selected school,
with no notification provided to the NCAA. Selections are done
through short notice of randomly selected subjects, and
functions under a strict, published protocol. The NCAA utilizes
only World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) certified laboratories.
As part of its drug-prevention efforts, the NCAA publishes
a list of banned drug classes.This list bans more performance-
enhancing drugs than what is banned under federal law, and
includes the anabolic steroid precursor DHEA and the stimulant
synephrine.
To deter the use of training drugs such as anabolic
steroids, the NCAA implemented a second drug-testing program in
August 1990. Today as part of this program, approximately
11,000 athletes, including incoming freshman and transfers, are
tested by the NCAA all through the year. Athletes in all sports
in Division I and II, and all athletes participating in NCAA
championships, are subject to NCAA year-round drug testing.
Sanctions for positive drug tests are automatic and defined for
the student-athlete in the annual signing of the NCAA drug-
testing consent form.
Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports
The NCAA Association-Wide Committee on Competitive
Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports, CSMAS, provides
expertise and guidance to the NCAA on issues pertaining to
student-athlete health and safety. CSMAS is comprised of
experts in sports medicine practice and research, sports law,
and athletics administration. A member of the National
Federation of High School Associations sits on this committee
in order to facilitate communications on safety and drug
deterrence policies. A current roster of these members is
attached to this statement [Attachment 1]. Committee members
have been published in their respective fields, and are looked
to as important resources for sports science information. These
dedicated professionals contribute their time and expertise to
assist the NCAA in the development of drug-education and
testing policies, and provide medical and policy review and
adjudication through a ``blind'' appeal for any student-athlete
who wishes to appeal a positive drug test. In addition, a
committee panel of medical experts provides review of medical
documentation to determine if an exception will be allowed for
the use of any medication that contains a banned substance.
NCAA policy requires that a non-banned alternative be used if
medically appropriate. Approval to use a prescription
medication that contains a banned substance is granted only
after documentation of the diagnosis, course of treatment, and
current prescription is submitted and deemed medically
necessary. This committee annually reviews the NCAA drug-
testing program protocol and list of banned drugs, which is
published annually to the entire membership.
Drug Research
Since 1985, the NCAA has conducted a national study of the
drug use habits of college athletes. The NCAA is the only
sports governing body that has this longitudinal research to
provide data regarding the effectiveness of its drug-deterrence
programs. The study is replicated every four years and five
replications have been conducted since the original study. The
study is designed to obtain data on the substances and use
patterns of college athletes through the use of anonymous self-
report questionnaires. This data assists us in developing
policy and practices to deter drug use by collegiate athletes.
More than 20,000 student-athletes completed the survey in the
2005 study. The 2009 study will be administered in the upcoming
academic year. Copies of the last two published studies are
available at www.ncaa.org/health-safety
NCAA Membership Requirements and Support of Drug Deterrence
To support and promote drug education for student-athletes,
NCAA bylaw requires that each institution's Director of
Athletics or the director's designee educate student-athletes
about NCAA banned substances and the products that may contain
them. Student-athletes are required to sign a student-athlete
statement and a drug-testing consent form that alerts them to
the NCAA drug-testing policies and the list of banned
substances, and requires their agreement to abide by these
regulations and be tested when selected anytime during the year
or during any championship play. The NCAA publishes guidelines
for institutional drug-education programs, and annually
provides more than a million dollars in resources to its member
institutions to help them conduct campus drug-education and
prevention efforts. Some of the other resources provided to
assist our member institutions to enhance student-athlete
health and safety and deter drug use are:
Health and safety specialists. The NCAA national office
employs staff members who oversee the NCAA's health and safety
initiatives.
The NCAA Sports Medicine Handbook. A set of sports
medicine guidelines compiled by leaders in the field of sports
science that includes the NCAA's recommendations on educating
athletes about drugs and supplements.
The NCAA-sponsored APPLE Conferences: promoting substance
abuse prevention and student-athlete well-being. These
strategic planning workshops train teams of athletics staff and
student-athletes to identify needs and enhance drug education
on individual campuses.
Educational information via bookmarks, posters, and Web-
based resources.
Educational conferences for coaches and administrators on
deterring supplement use by athletes.
A national speaker's bureau of experts on drug use in
sport.
The Dietary Supplement Resource Exchange Center (REC).
All NCAA athletes and staff may use this service funded by the
NCAA and housed at Drug Free Sport, the company that manages
the Association's drug-testing efforts. The REC provides a
toll-free number and Web site for athletes to get reliable
information about NCAA banned substances, medications and
supplements. Inquiries are treated in a confidential manner.
Articles and alerts through its electronic publication,
The NCAA News, which has featured a number of articles on drug
use in sports.
A special advisory memorandum sent periodically to the
senior athletics administrators at every NCAA institution to
alert them to the potential risks of banned drugs in dietary
supplements.
Proven Results and Continued Growth
The NCAA has been active in the fight to eliminate steroid
and other performance enhancing drug use for over 35 years.
Through collaborative educational efforts with sports medicine
and athletics organizations, the NCAA has been a champion in
deterring the use of these substances by young athletes. The
establishment of drug testing, NCAA support for drug-testing
research, the strengthening of NCAA and campus policies to
deter drug use, and the combined educational efforts from the
NCAA national office and campus athletics staff have had a
positive impact on steroid use.
In the last two years, the NCAA has added testing through
the summer months, expanded testing for masking agents, and
engaged in a two-year pilot testing program in Division III. In
addition NCAA honors USADA/WADA suspensions by withholding
athletes from any NCAA competition for the duration of the
suspension.
Next Steps
The NCAA was vocal and supportive of legislative efforts to
remove steroid precursors from the dietary supplement market
through the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004. We support
further government efforts to control steroids and human growth
hormone, including HR 4911 and SB 877 that identify HGH as a
Schedule III Controlled Substance, and SB 2470 that restricts
the sale of DHEA, a steroid precursor. The NCAA supports drug-
testing research, and annually reviews the literature and data
to determine trends and effective strategies to deter use. We
support our colleagues in their efforts to address drug use at
the high school and professional leagues, and offer our
cooperation to those who share in our commitment to ensure
safe, drug free sport. As we have for over two decades, we will
continue to enlist the expertise of sports scientists to
provide us guidance in our drug-testing programs. The important
next steps involve expanding resources for research in the
areas of more cost effective steroid testing, detecting new
performance enhancing substances as they emerge, and
identifying and implementing effective prevention strategies.
Though we have had success in reducing the use of performance-
enhancing drugs, we recognize the continuing challenges posed
by emerging drugs. We urge funding support for drug-testing
research and implementation of programs that have been able to
demonstrate a positive impact on youth decisions to enhance
performance through healthy and fair strategies, by hard work,
dedication and practicing healthy behaviors.
On behalf of the NCAA, I would like to thank the
subcommittee for the opportunity to speak before you today and
express the NCAA's willingness to assist in moving forward in
this monumental and critical task to eradicate drugs from
sports.
NCAA Drug-Education and Testing - Ensuring the Health and Safety of
Student Athletes
The NCAA has worked diligently for more than 35 years to
provide leadership and resources to its member schools in
partnership for effective drug abuse deterrence. The NCAA
utilizes a comprehensive drug-education and testing program,
coupled with serious penalties to deter drug use by student-
athletes. Athletes lose one of four years of eligibility for a
first positive, and are permanently removed from collegiate
sport for a second positive drug test.
Best Practices: Key factors in our drug-education and
testing programs:
A broad-based educational effort combining the expertise,
resources and programs of the NCAA national office, the
athletic conference offices and the individual schools.
A strict drug-testing protocol, reviewed and published
annually;
A national drug-testing program where student-athletes
are subject to testing at any time through a random and short
notice selection process;
The use of an outside independent third-party drug-
testing administrator;
Standardized serious penalties for violations: a first
positive drug test results in the loss of one of the four years
of eligibility and withholding from all sports; a second
positive for a performance-enhancing drug permanently removes
the athlete from intercollegiate sports;
Transparency in publishing aggregate drug-testing results
and the report of survey data on drug use;
Regular evaluation of NCAA drug-education and testing
policies by an NCAA Association-Wide Committee composed of
experts in sports medicine practice and research, sports law,
and athletics administration.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kanaby.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT KANABY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF STATE HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS, INDIANAPOLIS,
INDIANA
Mr. Kanaby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee for this opportunity to be here with you today.
Let me underscore right at the outset our willingness to
cooperate, on behalf of our member State high school
associations, with Congress, with any of the organizations that
have been here at these hearings throughout today in terms of
providing two working relationships that will gain
opportunities to provide educational materials to our network
of more than 18,500 high schools across this country and access
to more than 7.3 million student participants and their
respective coaches as well as their parents.
The federation, just very quickly, has three main purposes.
One is to increase participation of young people in sports
because we know--in this country's high schools--because we
know they profit by these educational experiences, and we have
done that for 18 consecutive years. Secondly, we work hard to
minimize the risks of participation. And third, and most
importantly, is to protect and promote the fact that sports
experiences should contribute to the educational development of
young people and not be a detraction towards their development
as productive citizens in our society.
Certainly the issue of steroids threatens the integrity of
sport. But to us, the much more important issue, and I have
heard it voiced throughout today by even members of the
subcommittee, is what happens and what occurs to the health and
welfare of the young people who get involved in these kinds of
things, and that is our paramount concern.
According to studies, more than 1 million young people in
the United States have used steroids at least once in their
lifetime. At least a third of those are said to not even be
involved in interscholastic sports. But the most recent data
released by the National Institute of Drug Abuse in December of
2007 reveals a steady decrease in the use of steroids by 8th,
10th and 12th graders since 2004. Quite frankly, we look
towards the efforts of this subcommittee as shining a spotlight
on this issue that has helped bring about those particular
statistical results.
In addition to that are our own efforts by our own member
State associations and the federation with the inauguration of
a Make the Right Choice Program, begun in 2005, that has
distributed materials, posters, pamphlets, booklets targeted
towards coaches, targeted towards student athletes, targeted
towards their parents, et cetera, on the dangers and risks of
steroid abuse. We have arranged for a packet of this
information to be delivered to each of the members of this
subcommittee. And we would be more than happy to respond to any
questions you might have regarding that.
Coaches are also a very, very critical key and important
factor towards dealing with this issue at the high school
level. And we have endorsed and adopted through our coach
education program, which speaks about the steroid issue, to--
adoption by 40 of our member State associations, 51 in total--
to make use of this program that can be done for them in that
regard. One can say obviously that these are initiatives that
seem to be having good results. But by the same token, I sit
here and say to you that more needs to be done, that more
should be done, and that, again, we are most willing to
cooperate in any way to attempt to do that.
State athletic associations are sovereign entities with the
National Federation. They are not subject to our control or
influence beyond their voluntary decisions to work together
with us. But many of them have made their own decisions on
steroid testing. We heard earlier about the program that has
recently been implemented in Texas with the University
Interscholastic League that announced a 2-year program with the
National Center For Drug-Free Sport, which also conducts
testing for the NCAA and two other State associations. Prompted
by a $3 million a year appropriation by their State
legislature, they will be doing random testing that will affect
40,000 to 50,000 young student athletes over the next two
academic years in Texas.
Mr. Kanaby. Two other State athletic associations, Florida
and New Jersey, have already established testing programs, and
both of these also utilize the services of the aforementioned
National Center for Drug Free Sport. New Jersey pioneered the
testing of high school athletes in 2006 and -7 targeting 5
percent of its State championship competitors, and although
only one in 500 participants tested positive, the association
has praised the deterrent effects of this program. Florida's
policy is more random at the individual level, and targets
athletes in the sports of football, baseball, and weight
lifting. The Illinois association, as mentioned by the Mrs.
Schakowsky at the earlier testimony this morning or earlier
hearing this morning, Illinois will come on board in the '08-'
09 year, and again like the New Jersey counterpart will test at
their State championship level.
Many of our other State associations have independently
done other things. Connecticut has endorsed a program of 1 year
of ineligibility for any school that discovers a youngster that
deals with steroids. In addition to that, they have constantly
updated information on their Web sites and distributing to
their member schools our materials, as well as other materials
that provide information on an ongoing basis to them.
As previously indicated, we have no authority to demand
that State associations implement steroid testing. Absent a
federally mandated or funded program or some other plan,
economic pressures are going to keep many of our State
associations from being able to afford these kinds of high-tech
quality testing programs. Such programs, as we know, are
extremely expensive.
For the aforementioned reasons, we would make this
suggestion and offer once again our cooperation, that any help
that Congress could provide should be provided on a two-fold
strategy. One is to provide the opportunity for States to gain
resources in order to do the random testing that is presently
underway in four of our member States at this time. It has
proven to be a deterrent.
We just heard the deterrence statistics from the NCAA. It
can work and it can help. But at the same time, too, we are
educators, all of us, and there must be, there must be in our
judgment a companion piece that in addition to making testing
available that we should also provide and make available more
and more resources to educate our young people, to educate our
coaches, to educate their parents, et cetera, on the dangers
associated with these kind of things and eradicate the problem
completely at the outset.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kanaby follows:]
Statement of Robert F. Kanaby
Introduction
Thank you Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Whitfield, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity
to testify today on the issue of steroid use among our young
athletes. My name is Robert Kanaby and I have served as the
Executive Director of the National Federation of State High
School Associations (NFHS) for the past 15 years. Prior to
that, I served 13 years as the Executive Director of the New
Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association. I have also
served as a high school teacher, coach, vice principal and
principal. In my role as NFHS' Executive Director, I am aware
of the health risks attendant to participation in
interscholastic athletics.
The Problem
Steroid use threatens the integrity of competitive sport,
but even more disturbing is the risk posed to the health of
teenage athletes. The ``bigger, faster, stronger'' mentality
glorified in our society leads a small percentage of youth to
experiment with steroids and performance enhancing drugs for an
``edge.'' Unfortunately, those athletes remain oblivious to the
long-term health consequences of their actions. The
availability of such illegal supplements is undeniable, yet I
emphasize that the overwhelming majority of student-athletes
subscribe to the education-based mission of high school sports.
The lure of performance-enhancing drugs is usually outweighed
by efforts of coaches, administrators, and organizations such
as the NFHS with an educational interest in drug abuse
prevention. Even so, several member state associations of the
NFHS have recently enacted drug testing programs to combat the
use of steroids within interscholastic athletics.
Who Are We?
Before further discussing these measures, let me provide
some context on the role of the NFHS within the high school
community.
The NFHS is the national organization for high school
athletics and performing arts programs in speech, debate,
theater and music. Its purpose is to provide leadership and
coordination of these activities to enhance the educational
experiences of high school students and to reduce the inherent
risks of participation. The NFHS promotes inclusiveness and
sportsmanship, and its paramount goal is to develop good
citizens through sport and activities. Its 51 members,
consisting of the high school associations in each state and
the District of Columbia, conduct championships and enforce
eligibility rules in their respective jurisdictions. Unlike the
NCAA, the NFHS does not perform enforcement functions. The NFHS
promulgates voluntary rules of play for the nation's 7,000,000
high school student-athletes in sixteen different sports, in
addition to another 4,000,000 students in performing arts
programs. Another critical function of the NFHS is to obtain
and disseminate health and safety-related information. The
Sports Medicine Advisory Committee is one facet of the
Federation that addresses the medical issues relevant to
interscholastic athletics, including steroid use.
Facts on Steroids
According to the American College of Sports Medicine,
``anabolic steroid use has been implicated in early heart
disease, including sudden death.'' The ACSM also notes the
potential for further damage to the heart, liver, and growth
plates. Behavioral side effects, highlighted by the National
Institute on Drug Abuse, include paranoia, delusions, and
increased irritability and aggression (i.e. ``roid rage'').
According to studies, more than one million young people in
the United States have used steroids at least once in their
lifetimes. Other studies indicate over one-third of high school
steroid users do not participate in interscholastic sports. The
most recent data released by the National Institute on Drug
Abuse in December 2007 reveals a steady decrease in the use of
steroids by eighth, tenth, and twelfth graders since 2004.
Compared to the 2004 statistics, lifetime usage of steroids
among today's eighth graders has dropped from 1.9% to 1.5%,
from 2.4% to 1.8% among tenth graders, and from 3.4% to 2.2%
among twelfth graders. This data is more optimistic than the
numbers offered in the Mitchell Report, which relied on a CDC
report from 2001 that cited usage of steroids among high school
student-athletes between 3-6%.
NFHS Educational Resources
This statistical improvement is one indication of a growing
awareness among student-athletes of the dangerous consequences
of steroid use. Such awareness may be attributed in part to the
NFHS' enhanced educational outreach efforts that commenced in
2005 through an initiative titled ``Make the Right Choice.''
The program offers brochures, DVDs, and posters for state
athletic associations to distribute among their member schools.
Separate resources are also available for coaches/athletes and
parents.
By way of contrast, consider the story of Corey Gahan
(featured in the January 21st, 2008 issue of Sports
Illustrated). Although he did not formally participate in
interscholastic athletics as a competitive in-line skater,
Corey was injected by his father with steroids and human growth
hormone for several years, starting at age twelve. The unique
circumstances now confronting the eighteen year-old, including
a father in prison and a recently expired two-year suspension
from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, are the byproducts of
uninformed and ill-intentioned parents. The NFHS' ``Make the
Right Choice'' educational materials aim to elevate the level
of awareness in such difficult situations.
Coaches are another segment of the high school community
that should be well-informed on the risks associated with
performance-enhancing drugs. The NFHS' Coaches Education
Program has rapidly expanded in recent years, and forty state
associations have either adopted or endorsed it. The
cornerstone of the initiative is to educate coaches on
emphasizing ``teachable moments'' that arise in the course of
interscholastic competition. One ``teachable moment'' addresses
steroid use, education, and prevention; the module includes a
discussion between a football coach and student-athlete on the
use of steroids.
State Association Testing Policies
State athletic associations are sovereign entities; they
are not subject to the control of the NFHS, and they make their
own decisions about steroid testing. In January 2008, the Texas
University Interscholastic League announced a two-year, $5.6
million deal with the National Center for Drug Free Sport,
which also conducts testing for the NCAA and two other state
associations. Prompted by a $3.0 million/year appropriation
from the state legislature, the random tests are projected to
affect between 40,000 to 50,000 student-athletes by the
conclusion of the 2009 school year. The Texas policy results in
a 30-day suspension following the first positive result (which
is triple checked to ensure accuracy), while a subsequent
violation results in a one-year suspension.
Two other state athletic associations, Florida and New
Jersey, have already established testing programs, and both
entities also utilize the services of the aforementioned
National Center for Drug Free Sport. New Jersey pioneered the
testing of high school athletes in 2006-2007, targeting 5% of
its state championship competitors. Although only one of five
hundred participants tested produced a positive sample (at a
cost of $150/test), the association has praised the deterrent
effects of the program. Florida's policy is ``random'' at the
individual level, but targets athletes in sports more prone to
steroid usage (e.g. football, baseball, and weightlifting). A
first-time offender in Florida would receive a 90-day
suspension, although the scope of the program is considerably
smaller than Texas, including only a $100,000 budget.
The Illinois High School Association is the most recent
state to adopt steroid testing procedures. In January, its'
Board of Directors approved a plan effective for the 2008-'09
academic year, and similar to New Jersey, testing will be
conducted on participants in state finals competitions. A
number of other state associations address steroid use without
a comprehensive testing plan. For example, Connecticut adopted
a regulation that denies athletic eligibility to student-
athletes if their respective local school districts discover
steroid use. Many other associations, such as the Iowa High
School Athletic Association, distribute educational resources
through their web-site for parents, coaches, and students.
Legal Authority and Proposed Legislation
The Drug Free Sports Act of 2005 appears to offer a
foundation for federal legislation aimed at the testing of high
school student-athletes. Section Five of the Act directs the
Comptroller General to investigate testing measures utilized in
high schools in order to assess potential expansion of the
legislation to interscholastic athletics. It should be noted
that the legal authority for the testing of high school
athletes and performing arts competitors has been firmly
established by the United States Supreme Court. The landmark
case granting school administrators the discretion to test
students in the context of athletics is Vernonia School
District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995), while Board of
Education of Independent School District No. 92 Pottawatomie,
et al. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002) approved the testing of
high school students engaged in other extra-curricular
activities.
However, a direct application of the Drug Free Sports Act
of 2005 to the interscholastic community raises several
concerns. Several fundamental differences between
interscholastic athletics and professional sports limit use of
the Act at the high school level. For example, random testing
of student-athletes in the off-season, as mandated under the
Act for professional athletes, is too burdensome on state high
school associations. Instead, testing student-athletes in the
state championship series is a preferred method, as reflected
in the policies adopted by Illinois and New Jersey. The logic
of such tests during the post-season is two-fold: (a) state
championship events bring together a wide variety of student-
athletes, often from different regions of the state. The ease
in administration of tests is greatly enhanced with a
concentrated sample population in one location. (b) Further,
the competitors at state championship events qualified as a
result of intense competition and in most instances are upper-
echelon athletes. The overwhelming majority of high school
athletes do not use performance-enhancing drugs, but the class
of students participating at state finals and using
performance-enhancing drugs may be greater than at a typical
regular season contest. Thus, the deterrent value of testing
would be stronger at the championship level.
Of course, another consequence of implementing more
aggressive measures at the high school population would be an
increase in costs. As previously mentioned, the NFHS has no
authority to demand that state associations implement steroid
testing policies. Absent a federally mandated and funded
program, economic pressures will keep many state legislatures
from adopting testing programs. The consequences of ``false
positives'' are so severe that only the highest quality testing
programs are acceptable. Such programs are very expensive.
Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, I urge that any help from
Congress would be focused on a two-fold strategy. The first
would be to support the deterrent that random testing provides
and the second, very critical companion is a strong educational
outreach designed to support the deterrent with accurate and
effective educational initiatives. An example would be funding
the development of deterrence strategies which target not only
student-athletes, but non-athletes as well. The sad stories of
youth like Corey Gahan are proof that this problem extends
beyond the realm of athletics conducted by the nation's high
schools. I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to be
here today. I look forward to answering your questions.
----------
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much, Mr. Kanaby. Mr. Waldrop,
please for 5-minute.
STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER M. WALDROP, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
NATIONAL THOROUGHBRED RACING ASSOCIATION, LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY
Mr. Waldrop. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Whitfield,
members of the subcommittee, I am Alex Waldrop, President and
CEO of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association. The NTRA
member racetracks and horsemen conduct about 90 percent of the
thoroughbred races in North America. While I represent the
NTRA, the medication and testing information contained in my
remarks is industry-wide in scope, and includes statistical
data from standardbred, quarter horse, and thoroughbred racing.
Mr. Chairman, the horseracing industry tests every winner
in every race every day. That translates to 130,000 horses
every year. We screen for up to 200 drugs in each sample. Our
labs test for a variety of drugs, including stimulants,
narcotics, bronchodilators, and anti-inflammatories.
Collectively, racing spends some $36.5 million annually on
equine drug testing and on research and development. We do this
because all industry stakeholders agree that equine medication
and testing are national issues that are central to our
industry's integrity. Horseracing and its 38 State regulatory
bodies provide oversight for drug testing under the model rules
of the Association of Racing Commissioners International.
The RCI develops its model rules in conjunction with the
Racing Medication and Testing Consortium. The RMTC is comprised
of 23 industry stakeholders, groups including regulators,
veterinarians, chemists, horse owners, trainers, breeders, and
racetracks from all racing breeds. The model rules include a
classification system, which defines five classes of drugs and
therapeutic medications. Class One drugs are nontherapeutic and
have a high probability of affecting performance. There were
only three Class One drug positives in the entire country in
2006. Most drug positives are caused by mistakes in judging
withdrawal times for prescribed medications, which have a
relatively low probability of impacting performance. These are
the Class Four and Class Five medications.
RCI and RMTC have also jointly developed model penalties
based upon classifications of the drugs involved. In 2007, the
RMTC and RCI completed development of a model rule that will
effectively prohibit the use of anabolic steroids in
racehorses. While FDA-approved anabolic steroids may have some
therapeutic value in treating racehorses, horsemen, tracks, and
breeders all agree that racehorses should not compete on
anabolic steroids. In practice, that means that anabolic
steroids must be withdrawn from a horse's medication regime at
least a month before its next race. This ensures that any
effect on the horse will be eliminated by the time of the race.
The purpose of the model rule regarding steroids is to
ensure that these medications are used solely for therapeutic
purposes, and none is used in a manner that enhances the
performance of any horse in any race. The model rule has been
or is being adopted by Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, New York, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and Washington. Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, and
Texas are among the many other States that are expected to
support the model rule as well. We continue to work with the
remaining jurisdictions to secure their support.
The RMTC is conducting additional research that will
provide further scientific support for the model rule. The
practical issues of adoption and uniform enforcement of the
model rule still remain, but the NTRA, the RMTC, the RCI, on
behalf of the thousands of industry constituents they represent
or regulate, are united in saying be in compliance with the
model rule by December 31, 2008.
The RCI and the RMTC provide the horse industry what every
sport needs, a credible, scientifically-based, industry-led
forum for drug and medication issues. Is our testing protocol
perfect? No. Can it be improved? Absolutely. But the major
industry stakeholders are united in their commitment to address
drug and medication issues on a national basis through the RMTC
and the RCI. The RMTC has served as a catalyst for the adoption
of many significant drug and medication rules in racing States,
and it is providing that same leadership in the regulation of
anabolic steroids.
We thank the committee for this opportunity to report to
you on the progress made by the horse industry. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waldrop follows:]
Statement of Alexander M. Waldrop
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Whitfield and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am Alex Waldrop, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association. The
NTRA is a not-for-profit trade association for Thoroughbred
horseracing. Its members include 65 racetracks and 40 national
and state horsemen's groups drawn from 23 states. NTRA member
racetracks and horsemen account for about 90 percent of all
races run in North America.
In 2007, nearly 107,000 U.S. horses made 918,000 starts in
116,000 races. Our industry tested at least one horse from
every one of those races. We test every race, every day,
screening for up to 200 drugs in one sample. Our labs test for
a vast array of drugs, including stimulants, narcotics,
bronchodilators and anti-inflammatories. Collectively, racing
spends between 30 and 35 million dollars annually on equine
drug testing at 18 private or university laboratories. In
addition, the industry annually spends almost $1.4 million on
research and development into new tests and testing procedures
necessary to stay current in the detection of performance
enhancing drugs and medications.
The horse industry has defined five classes of drugs and
medications. Class One drugs have no accepted medical use in
the racehorse and a high potential for performance enhancement.
These drugs have no place in racing. Class Two drugs are not
generally accepted as therapeutic agents in racing horses and
have a high potential to affect performance. Class Three drugs
may or may not have generally accepted medical use in the race
horse, but their pharmacology suggests they have less potential
to affect performance than Class Two drugs. Classes Four and
Five are reserved for therapeutic medications with less
potential affect performance than those in Classes One, Two or
Three. Class Five medications, for example, are therapeutic
medications that are used to treat common ailments such as
ulcers, and have established concentration limits.
Only three Class One positives were returned in the 130,000
samples tested across the United States in 2006 (the latest
year for which complete statistics are available). Only 27
positives were returned for Class Two or Three drugs in the
same sample group. Most drug positives are caused by human
error in judging withdrawal times for prescribed therapeutic
medications - Class Four or Five medications - prior to a race.
While NTRA is not a ``league office'' with the power to
sanction teams or players, the organization uses its convening
authority to address a broad range of initiatives of national
importance to the horseracing industry. Equine medication is a
national issue that all stakeholders agree is central to our
industry's integrity.
As such, racing and its 38 state regulatory bodies have
been proactive in identifying and banning illegal, performance-
enhancing drugs and regulating the use of prescribed
therapeutic medications that may affect a horse's raceday
performance.
As a sport and a pari-mutuel wagering industry, horseracing
is regulated at the state level by individual racing
commissions. These organizations provide oversight for drug
testing under the model rules of the Association of Racing
Commissioners International, known as RCI. RCI develops its
model rules in conjunction with the Racing Medication and
Testing Consortium, or RMTC.
The RMTC is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of
23 industry stakeholder groups including regulators,
veterinarians, and chemists, as well as horse owners, trainers,
breeders, and racetracks from all racing breeds including
Thoroughbreds, Standardbreds and Quarter Horses. In addition to
serving on the Board of the RMTC, the NTRA provides funding for
RMTC and communicates and endorses RMTC policies to its
membership.
The RMTC together with RCI have done important work in the
area of therapeutic medications and drug-testing policy. These
organizations are largely responsible for the development of
the drug classification system I alluded to earlier. They also
jointly develop model penalties for drug violations. The nature
and severity of penalties for drug violations are determined by
the classification of the drug involved, with due consideration
for aggravating and mitigating circumstances, such as the
potential of the drug to influence a horse's performance or
whether the trainer acted under the advice of a licensed
veterinarian.
Traditionally, penalty guidelines have applied to the
trainer as the ``absolute insurer'' of a horse's welfare and
safety. However, penalty guidelines have recently been
reinforced and extended to include sanctions for owners and
veterinarians as well as trainers.
The RMTC and RCI have worked closely over the past several
months on a policy regarding steroids. With the full support of
our industry, they have called for the adoption of model rules
that would effectively prohibit the use of anabolic steroids in
racehorses by the end of 2008.
Let me be clear, anabolic steroids have therapeutic value
in treating racehorses. They are most often prescribed when a
horse is recovering from illness or surgery. However, horsemen,
tracks and breeders all agree that racehorses should not
compete on anabolic steroids.
In practice, that means that anabolic steroids must be
withdrawn from a horse's medication regimen at least a month
before its next race. This ensures that any benefit the animal
received as a result of the administration will be gone by the
time of the race. In addition, minute levels of only four
individual anabolic steroids will be permitted in post-race
samples. Two anabolic steroids, stanozolol and boldenone, are
approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for
use in horses. Boldenone and two other accepted anabolic
steroids, nandrolone and testosterone, are also naturally
occurring substances. The model rules state that no more than
one of these anabolic steroids may be present in any given
sample. Any other anabolic steroid is simply illegal.
The purpose of the model rule is clear: to ensure that
these medications are used solely for therapeutic purposes and
none is used in a manner that enhances the performance of a
horse in any race.
The model rule has been or is being adopted by Washington,
Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, California, Indiana, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, New York and Virginia. Kentucky, Texas, Florida and
Maryland are among the many other states that are expected to
support the model rule as well. The states mentioned here
account for nearly 60 percent of races run in the United States
and we continue to work with the remaining jurisdictions to
secure their support.The current rule is based on 30 years of
science and testing in European and Asian countries utilizing
urine samples. Our industry supports further research to
provide threshold levels and withdrawal times in both urine and
blood plasma. Testing in plasma may be more accurate and less
expensive. RMTC currently is funding research at the University
of Florida that will provide guidelines for plasma samples.
Similar research is underway in New York, Texas and
Pennsylvania.
What remains at issue is the very practical concern of
uniform enforcement of the model rule while we await additional
research. As previously mentioned, a number of states have
already adopted the model rule. Others want to wait until the
science is more complete. NTRA, RMTC and RCI are united in
saying, ``be in compliance by December 31, 2008.''
Working in conjunction with the RCI, the RMTC provides the
horse industry with something that every sport needs - a
credible, scientifically based, industry-led forum for
addressing the multitude of drug and medication issues
presented by modern day veterinary medicine. The RMTC has
proven to be the best way to balance the legitimate interests
of our industry's numerous constituencies. The horse industry
is united in its efforts to protect the health of our equine
athletes and the integrity of our sport.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to speak to
this committee on this important issue and welcome your
questions.
----------
Mr. Rush. At this point, before we begin questioning, I
would like to acknowledge Mr. Frank and Ms. Brenda Marrero.
They are in the audience. Their son Efran tragically died as a
result of steroid use. Mr. and Mrs. Marrero founded the Efran
Anthony Marrero Foundation, dedicated to educating young people
and others on the dangers of steroids. We want to acknowledge
them, please. Thank you so much for taking your time out to be
a part of this hearing. Thank you for the fine work that you do
on behalf of America's young people. Thank you so much.
I want to begin the questions as I recognize myself for 5
minutes of questioning, and I want to ask each panel to respond
with a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer to the following questions.
There are three of them.
Do you support Federal legislation mandating uniform
testing procedures for all sports? Beginning with Mr. Scherr.
Mr. Scherr. Yes.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Tygart?
Mr. Tygart. Yes.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Brand?
Mr. Brand. Yes, with a condition. And the condition is that
we are concerned that a generalized Federal regulation will
weaken our program. For example, I can imagine that penalties
would be such that they would be less stringent than we have
now. So under those conditions, when you try and treat everyone
the same, those who have a very strong program in place may
actually find their program weaker.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Kanaby?
Mr. Kanaby. We would support the exact same comments of Dr.
Brand. In addition to that, there must be some consideration
given at our level, due to the total numbers involved with our
level in terms of any mandated program that would be
underfunded.
Mr. Rush. Yes, sir.
Mr. Waldrop. Mr. Chairman, we think the public-private
partnership between the Racing Commissioners International and
the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium provide the right
model today to address these issues on an industry-wide basis,
with the scientifically-based, industry-led approach to this
problem.
Mr. Rush. Is that no or yes?
Mr. Waldrop. That would be not now.
Mr. Rush. Not now.
Mr. Waldrop. Not at this time.
Mr. Rush. Not at this time. Okay. All right.
Mr. Tygart, in your written testimony you state that while
the professional leagues' anti-doping policies have
significantly improved over the last several years, they still
fail to fully implement all the basic elements of the most
effective programs. Can you please elaborate? And what basic
elements do they fail to implement?
Mr. Tygart. Yes, sir, Chairman, I think the basic elements
I outlined in my oral testimony and also my submitted
testimony, what I think I dubbed the matrix of effectiveness.
It is independence; it is transparency; it is effective out of
competition, out of season, no advance notice testing; it is
funds devoted to research; it is funds devoted to education; it
is partnerships with law enforcement that would allow the
bringing of nonanalytical cases, or in my mind and I think the
experts' mind, including Senator Mitchell, the matrix of
effectiveness of the most effective programs in the world.
Mr. Rush. I want to ask you, Mr. Tygart, and Mr. Scherr,
can you please tell us the current state of a test for HGH? Is
it accurate and reliable? How soon must it be administered
after injection? Is it commercially available?
Mr. Tygart. There is a reliable test for human growth
hormone. It is a blood-based test. It has been used at the
Athens 2004 Olympic Games, it has been used at the 2006 Torino
Olympic Games, we fully expect it to be used also this summer
in the 2008 Beijing Games. The data from those tests has been
shared amongst the WADA Working Group. It convened in April of
'05, convened again in April of '07, have a meeting scheduled
for April of this year. It is not yet worldwide available
because there is a kit, and Congressman Burgess, it is an amino
assay kit, actually a sandwich kit if you are familiar with
that assay. It is in production. Production has not been--has
been slower than we all expected, slower than we all wanted,
but we fully expect that that will be available in the next
coming months.
And let me make one more point about human growth hormone.
It is a strategy to address it. And you don't limit your
strategy just to the ability to test for it in the event, like
we see there is only a blood-based test. You have to have a
broader strategy. And I think that broader strategy includes
testing for other things, and having other prohibited
substances on your list like insulin. Because all of us in the
trenches know athletes who use human growth hormone are also
going to use insulin. And so you have to prohibit insulin in
your list. And there is a test that is becoming quickly
available for insulin. Other things like IGF-1 similarly are
being stacked with human growth hormone, and you have to
prohibit those also.
And then the second strategy is to have the ability to
bring nonanalytical positives. When you have evidence--we have
suspended athletes for human growth hormone. When you have
reliable evidence and you have a process by which that evidence
can be introduced, challenged, a full due process, you ought to
then be able to suspend and discipline athletes for their use
of human growth hormone even if you don't have a positive test
for it.
Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The chairman yields back and now recognizes the
ranking member of the subcommittee for 5 minutes of opening
questioning, Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I
want to thank the panel for being with us today. We appreciate
your time, and look forward--we enjoyed your opening statements
and your comments that you might have to assist us. And Alex
Waldrop, I certainly want to congratulate you on being
appointed the new President and CEO of the National
Thoroughbred Racing Association. I know you haven't been there
very long. But I want to ask you a couple questions.
In my opening statement I referred to a comment made by
D.G. VanClief, who was the former President and CEO of the
National Thoroughbred Racing Association. He said this a few
years ago. We have endeavored to adopt uniform rules governing
the use of medications for years without success, despite the
clear need to do so. Do you agree with that statement or not?
Mr. Waldrop. I do not agree with that, Congressman.
Mr. Whitfield. And why is that?
Mr. Waldrop. Well, since that statement was made a great
deal of progress has been made by our industry. Before you I
have placed a document, it is entitled Racing Medication
Timeline.
Mr. Whitfield. I don't have a lot of time. I have got about
4 minutes, and it goes quickly.
Mr. Waldrop. Well, refer to that document.
Mr. Whitfield. But basically, to stipulate, I guess you
would say that 32 out of 38 racing jurisdictions have adopted a
uniform rule. Is that correct?
Mr. Waldrop. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. And in our discussions yesterday we
did also stipulate that every State had a variation of that
rule, and that the penalties were not always the same.
Mr. Waldrop. I would not stipulate that. I would say that
the variations are very slight, and that we are making progress
on model penalties.
Mr. Whitfield. But not every racing jurisdiction has
adopted it?
Mr. Waldrop. No, sir. You are correct.
Mr. Whitfield. And in fact, the State senate in Louisiana
just a couple of days ago reversed the adoption of this rule by
the racing authority. Is that correct?
Mr. Waldrop. Congressman, I think they did that on a
procedural technicality that was adopted under an emergency--
Mr. Waldrop. All I know is that the newspaper says that the
Louisiana Racing Commission adopted the model rule in December,
and the Louisiana Senate Commerce Committee reversed the
Commission's adoption of the regulations for failure to follow
procedural rules. So whatever the reason, they reversed it. And
now there has been a lot of discussion that government should
not be involved, legislative bodies should not be involved in
setting guidelines, and yet that is precisely what happened in
Louisiana. They made the decision that no, there won't be a
model rule here for now. And I know from personal experience
that in Kentucky when they strengthened the rule in Kentucky,
which had one of the most lenient in the country, the HBPA,
after fighting it all the way, went to the legislature and
tried to reverse it in Kentucky. But because of Jim Bruce
particularly, they were not successful in doing so.
So we know that in Europe and in Asia and Australia and
Japan and Hong Kong and Dubai, not in South America, but in
those jurisdictions they do not allow anabolic steroids in
horseracing. In fact, England adopted that policy like 30 years
ago. So would you agree that there is a need to abolish
steroids in horseracing in the U.S.?
Mr. Waldrop. There is a need to remove steroids from
competition, absolutely. The model steroid rule that has been
proposed is exactly what needs to be done.
Mr. Whitfield. And none of us object to using steroids for
therapeutic reasons.
Mr. Waldrop. Correct.
Mr. Whitfield. But if a horse is going to show positive for
steroids and he is racing then he shouldn't be racing?
Mr. Waldrop. That is correct.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, the industry came to Congress a number
of years ago and asked to pass the Interstate Horseracing Act
so that simulcasting could go into effect. And simulcasting
provides a large portion of the wagering for horseracing today.
The handle. And Congress did not set any kind of guidelines
with that authority. So do you think it would be unreasonable
for Congress to say if you are going to benefit from
simulcasting, and we know that your organization cannot mandate
anybody to do anything, so would it be unreasonable for
Congress to mandate that if a State does not adopt some of
these uniform rules by a date certain that they would lose
their simulcast opportunities?
Mr. Waldrop. No, that would not be unreasonable.
Mr. Whitfield. Sir?
Mr. Waldrop. No, sir, it would not be unreasonable.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. Thank you very much. My time has
expired. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska,
Mr. Terry, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Terry. Thank you. Mr. Scherr, I have to ask you
questions just as to where you went to college. Would you
please state that, please?
Mr. Scherr. University of Nebraska at Lincoln.
Mr. Terry. Thank you. That makes you the brightest of both
panels.
Mr. Scherr. I will concur.
Mr. Terry. Mr. Scherr, by the way, is a legend in Nebraska.
So we call him the legendary Jim Scherr, some of us sports fans
do. Even though you stated in your testimony that you are not
here to compare, and I don't want to do it in a na-na-na type
of way, but can you outline for me from what you understand of
at least the NFL or baseball, how their program, drug testing
program does compare to the U.S. Olympics? Because the Olympics
is kind of the, no pun intended--well, yes, it is--gold
standard. They get the gold medal for being out there, and so
does the NCAA. So how does it compare? What do they need to do
to mirror your standards?
Mr. Scherr. Without getting into the minutiae of the
specific differences in all elements of the program, the
penalties for having a positive test are certainly much more
lenient across the board than those in the Olympic movement.
For example, our first offense is 2 years. A second would be a
lifetime ban. And those certainly would seem to be much more
effective as deterrents to the use of performance-enhancing
drugs. And I think the major differences could be categorized
in degree of independence of the testing agency, the degree of
transparency in the operations of the testing agency, and the
numbers of true no advance notice testing, both in-season and
out of season.
Mr. Terry. We had a discussion earlier about the
transferring from urine to blood. What is your understanding of
the science as it exists at this moment in time in using blood
to be able to do a better job of finding HGH or other
performing-enhancement drugs that may be masked in urine?
Mr. Scherr. Well, as a University of Nebraska graduate, my
understanding of the science is pretty limited.
Mr. Terry. But far more advanced than most others.
Mr. Scherr. Yes. Yes. You know, there is not an effective
urine test at this time for HGH. I think certainly one of the
goals of the Partnership for Clean Competition will be to
develop a more readily, easily used test for HGH should that be
possible. I think, though, that while it is more invasive and
much more difficult in terms of potential health hazards and
issues with athletes' rights, the blood testing is a much more
effective screen for performance-enhancing substances than
urine tests at this time.
Mr. Terry. Do the Olympics do any blood testing?
Mr. Scherr. Very limited at this point in time, though WADA
and the HGH tests that Travis had referred to previously in
some initial majors is moving in that direction. And I think as
long as the testing stays as it is, we will try and move in
that direction. And I could refer that to Travis for probably a
more thorough answer.
Mr. Terry. Dr. Brand--well, just in my few seconds that are
left, how about the NCAA? Looking at blood testing?
Mr. Brand. We have discussed it. We do not use blood
testing right now. I think our members may find some privacy
issues in it. We would prefer to wait for, for HGH, a urine
test. We are supportive of what the Olympics is leading in
terms of movement towards that test, and once it is developed
we will certainly adopt it. But at this point we do not have
blood testing.
Mr. Terry. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The chairman recognizes now the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Stearns, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask you folks,
you perhaps heard the first panel when I tried to indicate that
it would be important that they adopt the United States anti-
doping policy, the USAD's stringent testing system. And they
all seemed to hem and haw, and they didn't say they wanted to
do that. In fact, they thought--one of them said they thought
theirs was better. And then when I talked to the players
association for baseball, they indicated that they couldn't,
and that there was some peculiarities about the way the sport
is configured that they couldn't do it.
So I guess the question I would have for you folks is, is
it possible for professional sports to adopt the stringent
testing system of USADA, and if not, why not? Anybody like to
answer that?
Mr. Tygart. This is Travis from USADA, CEO of the United
States Anti-Doping Agency. I don't see any reason why not. In
fact, the players mentioned in my oral testimony frequently
play under our regulations 12 months before the games. You are
going to see this summer in Beijing the USA basketball team. It
has the NBA all-stars that played 2 weeks ago down in New
Orleans.
Mr. Stearns. Good point.
Mr. Tygart. They live under these rules without complaint.
And it includes--we have their whereabouts. We show up at their
houses 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year without
notice. And they don't complain. They give us the samples. In
fact, our experience has been with whether it is those
professional athletes that want to represent their country in
Olympic sports or our day-to-day Olympic athletes, they want
the world to know--if they are truly clean, they want them to
know that they are clean. And they have no problem agreeing to
the toughest standards in the world.
Mr. Stearns. So they are already complying, most of them
are already complying when they do those games. Now, I asked
you the question about HGH and testing of it. And they said
that there is no way to test for it today. So the question is
can you test for it today? Is there any credible test for it?
Mr. Tygart. We answered this previously, but there is
currently a reliable blood-based test.
Mr. Stearns. Okay.
Mr. Tygart. As I indicated previously, we used it at the
2004 Athens Games the, 2006 Torino Games. And we fully expect
it to be available for the Beijing Games in 2008. The reason it
is not yet available in the United States is the kits that are
required for use in the laboratories to analyze the blood for
HGH, the production of those kits has been slower than
anticipated. We expect those to be hopefully available in the
next coming months for worldwide distribution.
Mr. Stearns. Have there been any positive tests when you
test for HGH? I mean any negative tests rather?
Mr. Tygart. There has been no positive tests for HGH. As I
indicated previously, there has been suspensions for use of
HGH, but not based on a positive test.
Mr. Stearns. Okay. Okay. I guess the feeling is that if you
are a professional athlete you could use HGH today with
impunity. You couldn't be caught. Isn't that true?
Mr. Tygart. I think it depends on the league. I believe
some of the leagues have the ability to bring nonanalytical
positives, and that you can discipline someone for use,
particularly if they are convicted in a State or Federal court
of distributing or possessing or using that substance. But you
have to look at--and I don't know off the top of my head the
different policies in the leagues, but I know that the NFL, for
example, I believe has the ability to discipline someone on a
what is known in our world as a nonanalytical positive.
Mr. Stearns. I guess nonanalytical positive means based
upon procedures, and not based upon testing.
Mr. Tygart. It is just evidence. It could be
circumstantial, it could be direct, but it does not include a
positive test.
Mr. Stearns. Right. Okay. And so I think what you are
telling me is that the Olympic standard is probably stronger
than the professional sports, and the sports could adopt yours,
but they want to keep theirs separate and individualized. So
for that reason we in Congress just have to take their word for
it that they are having a high standard like the Olympics. Is
that a fair thing to say, I have to take their word for it that
they are using a high standard like the Olympics?
Mr. Tygart. It is a tough question to answer, but I think
that's fair. I mean the policies are available to a certain
extent, so you can make some conclusions based on the policies.
But the question previously about the transparency of how those
policies actually work in practice, it is really difficult to
see.
Mr. Stearns. Particularly when you have the adversarial
union and the Commissioner trying to do things sometimes at
odds with the players wanting their privacy?
Mr. Tygart. I think the best place to find that answer,
Congressman, is I think it is about page 86 of the Mitchell
Report, when you see the day-to-day struggle of what to do with
evidence that comes up between the players and the unions, and
how they respond to that evidence. Whether it is a reasonable
suspicion test or turning something over to law enforcement
that is discovered is a pretty good, I think, description of
that day-to-day conflict and negotiation that happens between
management and unions.
Mr. Stearns. The bottom line is we have had 16 years of
this in which steroids have been used pretty aggressively in
sports, and nothing was done about it, and now we have had
hearings and we finally get their attention, and they are doing
it. Now, unfortunately we have all these athletes that are of
dubious achievement based upon these steroids, and we are
trying to establish forward a positive plan, and I think we
have something in place.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts--I am sorry, the gentleman from Texas,
Mr. Burgess, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Dr.Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't use the entire
10 minutes, but Mr. Kanaby, if I could ask you, you referenced
some of the State legislation that has gone forward. I
mentioned the Texas law that was passed the last legislative
session in Texas. Do you think that is--is that a reasonable
approach that some of the States are taking as far as their--
the testing of students at the high school level or athletes at
the high school level?
Mr. Kanaby. I would think that is a very reasonable
position to take. They are doing what we suggested in our
opening statement. Basically, they are not only going to be
testing and using that test as a deterrent, because young
people need an opportunity to say to their friends, no, I might
be picked at random, so I am not going to do that, and resist
that kind of pressure. And it becomes a very, very good thing
for that young person to be able to do that. But in addition to
that, they have also mandated an educational program, both for
coaches and also for individual young people to go through.
So I think that combination presents the best approach
towards dealing with this situation in terms of changing the
mindset and changing the culture of sport along these lines.
Dr.Burgess. Yeah, I think the Texas law did include that
educational component. I would agree with you that that is
terribly important.
Now Mr. Fehr mentioned in his response to a question that
because the usage and the availability in fact of some of these
compounds is so widespread and so ubiquitous in society that
simply this committee providing legislation dealing with the
use of performance-enhancing medications at the professional
level would not have the impact at the high school level, or
that impact might be diminished. But still that is a worthwhile
thing to pursue, would you not agree?
Mr. Kanaby. In the discussions that we have had with the
three States that are--the two States that have been active and
with our folks at the UIL, that they feel very, very strongly
that the deterrent factor of a potential test is a strong,
strong proponent towards limiting and discouraging use.
Dr.Burgess. But in addition to the deterrent factor of the
State-mandated testing, if there were Federal legislation
regarding the impact of performance-using medications on the
career of a professional athlete, would that also not have an
additional effect as far as discouraging someone from the use
of those compounds?
Mr. Kanaby. It could have that, again depending upon what
form and format the Federal legislation takes, which is why we
suggest, if anything is going to be done, that there be a
strong link to both the deterrent factors as well as the
educational programs involved.
Dr.Burgess. Point well made.
Now, in the Boston Globe article of February 19th that I
referenced, I got the impression from your testimony that
perhaps their figures are a little bit dated. But I mean they
gave some pretty astoundingly high figures for females in high
school and middle school who might be inclined to use
performance-enhancing medications. Is it your opinion or did I
understand it is your opinion that this has improved from the
time that these figures were quoted from the CDC and from
Oregon?
Mr. Kanaby. We believe so. I think those statistics, sir,
were back to 2003, study that was done in 2003. I cited some
statistics as far as December of 2007. And is the trend right?
Yes. Is the problem solved? Absolutely not.
Dr.Burgess. To what do you attribute the reduction in usage
that you have observed?
Mr. Kanaby. Well, quite frankly it has been a very high
visibility item as a result of the work of this committee, for
one thing, as far as the general public is concerned. There are
also, through our member State associations, as well as our own
organization that have undertaken very, very strong initiatives
to develop materials that are applicable to both young people--
for example, we distributed and the UIL distributed to all its
member schools throughout the State, and it was mentioned in
the State Legislature in Texas the program that we developed
for parents, providing to them using the--working with the
Hooton Foundation, for example, as well as our own folks. We
very graciously had the services of Tony Dungy, the coach of
the Indianapolis Colts, who prepared a video for us for high
school coaches, and talking to them about what it meant and
cheating and et cetera. And we used a NFL quarterback to speak
to student athletes in a separate DVD.
So all of these resources, the other kinds of things that
our member State associations, we do believe are having an
impact. And it is encouraging to us, and we think that if we
redouble, triple our efforts along these particular lines we
can really start to see even greater inroads in this regard.
Dr.Burgess. So you attribute a lot of that to the
educational effort that you put forth?
Mr. Kanaby. Yes, we do. Young people, they are sharp, and
when presented with facts that basically are not unreasonable
in terms of not necessarily just being scare tactics, but
hearing their coach talk about these things, hearing people
that they respect and represent, strengthening their parents to
be more observant in terms of things that they see in the
development of their young people, it is a multi-faceted
approach that can have good, positive results.
Dr.Burgess. Maybe we ought to turn the anti-tobacco efforts
over to you and your crew, because it sounds like you have been
much more effective. But thank you very much, and I will yield
back.
Mr. Kanaby. Thanks.
Mr. Rush. Now the Chair recognizes Mr. Pitts of
Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Waldrop, I was
interested in your response to Congressman Whitfield's question
about the Interstate Horseracing Act that gives benefits in
interstate wagering. Would you just reiterate again? The
question, as I understand it, was is there any compelling
reason why we should continue this benefit in the absence of
real movement to a uniform testing and enforcement policy?
Mr. Waldrop. Well, yeah, I believe that was the question.
My response was it would not be unreasonable to make compliance
a condition for being able to utilize the Interstate
Horseracing Act. The lawyer in me would hasten to point out
that the Interstate Horseracing Act does acknowledge that its
primary purpose is to uphold States rights in controlling what
happens within its borders where parimutuel wagering is
concerned. So you have to balance the interests of the States
with the Federal Government's interests in interstate commerce.
And that is what really this is all about. It is looking to the
States to step up first. And if and when they don't step up,
then it is incumbent upon the Federal Government to step up.
My point this afternoon is to say that we think finally we
are getting that confluence of activity, that group of States
that are getting behind the model rules, and we are seeing
compliance and support that we have never seen before not
because of the pressure of Congress so much as the pressure of
our owners, who spend billions of dollars a year to buy horses,
and the pressure of our horseplayers, who last year wagered
almost $15 billion. They are demanding that our game be on the
up and up. And that's where the RMTC and RCI are coming from.
We are listening to our fans, we are listening to our owners,
and we are trying to respond privately in the public-private
partnership with RCI, State regulators, and with the RMTC in a
fashion that makes sense and that convinces the industry that
we are serious and we are going to get real.
And I can tell you the NTRA, our charge is to be a fan-
based organization, to grow this business. And without
integrity we can't grow it. And that is why I am here today.
And that is why, since I have been at the NTRA, medication has
been at the top of the list of our issues, because we have got
to get a handle on this. We have got to get serious as an
industry about adopting the model rules nationwide. And I think
we are doing that.
And we appreciate Congress' interest. We appreciate your
scrutiny in this matter. I think we have a good story to tell,
and it gets better by the day, and I am proud to say that.
Mr. Pitts. Now, when you state that some States will not
adopt the model rule until more science is available, what
science or research are they waiting for? Is this just an
excuse not to adopt the model rule?
Mr. Waldrop. It is interesting to hear the discussion about
human growth hormone and the distinction between testing urine
and testing blood plasma. That is exactly the situation we find
ourselves in horseracing where steroids are concerned. The
model rule was based upon European science, and European
science relies upon urine as the medium for the test. There is
evidence, and some reasonable people believe that the right way
to test for steroids is in plasma. That test is not yet
available. It should be available by this summer. In fact, some
preliminary data should be available before then. If and when
we get the model rule with withdrawal times and threshold
levels in both urine and plasma, you will see wholesale
adoption of that model rule. And you will not see people
dragging their feet. I believe what horsemen are telling us is
we want a rule, we want a bright line, we want to know exactly
what we need to do to comply, and we will comply.
I have read every bit of the--I read all the clips. I know
what people are saying around the country. I have yet to hear a
horseman say we do not want to stop the use of steroids. What
they say is we want to test in plasma. That is a reasonable
position. And I think we ought to--and the RMTC is taking steps
and they will have that research so that by the end of the year
we think we can get full compliance nationwide.
Mr. Pitts. Now, can States forbid a horse to enter their
races if they have competed in other States that have not
adopted the model rule?
Mr. Waldrop. I suppose they could. That would be
unprecedented. I believe that the most important reason for the
model rule is to get uniform and nationwide compliance so that
horses can move freely from State to State. That would be a
detriment to racing in both States, the State that doesn't come
on board and the State that puts up that barrier. I think the
more important point here is as more and more States adopt the
model rule on steroids, other States that don't comply have to
if they want their horses to compete. Because you can't use
steroids in one State and take that horse to a State--to
another State if that Stateis banning steroids because you are
going to test positive.
Mr. Pitts. I don't have much more time. Do you keep
statistics to ensure you have the information to protect the
health of the racehorses? And how many horses die annually at a
track or as a result of a race?
Mr. Waldrop. I don't have that data.
Mr. Pitts. Do you keep those statistics?
Mr. Waldrop. Those statistics are being developed. We as an
industry are working to collect that data. But right now that
data isn't freely available. A group is working with the Jockey
Club to make sure that we have that available so that we can
rely on it. But today I can't tell you definitively how many
horses are injured or who die on the racetrack, no, sir.
Mr. Pitts. My time is up. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Pitts. The Chair will allow for a
second round of questioning. I recognize the ranking member,
Mr. Whitfield, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Whitfield. I just want to clarify just a couple of
things. Mr. Waldrop, you had mentioned that a lot of the
horseowners have come to you and are insisting on the plasma
test. I presented today in my opening statement e-mails
received from a lot of owners around the country who actually
are asking for a Federal ban of anabolic steroids. And I was
reading an article the other day up at New Bolton at the
University of Pennsylvania where they said basically we are
trying to reinvent the wheel on this testing because the
testing that has been used in Europe has worked fine for many
years. And I certainly appreciate the position you are in with
a lot of different interests that you represent. But when you
said not now, we don't need Federal regulation not now, it does
remind me once again of after Senator Mathias gave his 1981
speech in which he was advocating a uniform rule that was clear
so everyone understood precisely what was allowed and not
allowed, and afterwards all the States came running up to his
office, and even there, and saying you don't need to act, we
will take care of it. And now here we are 27 years later, and
basically I don't think it has been taken care of. That is just
my view and that is the view of a lot of people in the
industry. And I am glad that Mr. Pitts had asked this question
about how many horses do die on the track? That is a figure
that we really don't know the answer to. Because they are not
keeping track of it because it is an unpleasant part of this
business. And we do know that the drugs has an impact on that
because it impacts the horse.
And the previous panel, baseball, football, basketball, I
think they made great strides, I think they are doing a pretty
good job, but they talked about the necessity of random
testing, the necessity of a hotline for tips. And particularly
when you have a situation where an animal, a horse has no say-
so in this whatsoever, and there is so much money involved in
winning these races, we can understand people wanting to get an
advantage.
But is there random testing in the industry like before a
race while horses are at the stable getting ready to race? Is
there random testing in any jurisdiction that you know of?
Mr. Waldrop. There is out of competition testing performed.
There was extensive out of competition testing conducted this
year prior to the Breeders Cup. In fact, I believe most all
horses that were entered in the Breeders Cup were required to
submit to or agree to submit to random testing. That is not the
norm. It is expensive. Our horses travel a great deal. They are
hard to locate. And we believe that post-race testing has
proven to be--and for the most part has proven to be very
accurate. Now, out of competition testing would help with EPO,
and we acknowledge that. There is more work to be done.
Mr. Whitfield. But there is a problem with just the expense
of testing. That is a problem. I mean the cost of doing it, I
am sure.
Mr. Waldrop. Well, there is.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, let me ask you, do you all have a
hotline for tips of people who may be taking advantage of the
system that is in existence?
Mr. Waldrop. That is done on a State by State basis. I
suspect there are States. I can't answer that for sure. I don't
know. I can find out for sure. Yeah, I believe the USTA and the
Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau, which is a security
group that overlooks--
Mr. Whitfield. They have a hotline?
Mr. Waldrop. They do have a hotline, yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. I wasn't aware of that. Okay. Well,
thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. Chairman, thank you
for allowing me to ask those few.
Mr. Rush. I have one additional question that I would like
to ask the panel in its entirety. This is again, we will return
to the ``yes'' or ``no'' format. Do you support saving samples
of athletes for retroactive testing? And if you would just
along with the ``yes'' or ``no'' just take a couple of seconds
to explain or to hit upon the accuracy of such retroactive
testing? Starting with Mr. Scherr.
Mr. Scherr. Yes, we do support that. We believe that
currently and in the future there will be accurate ability to
store those samples and to have effective tests of those
samples.
Mr. Tygart. We do. We currently have a policy in place
developed in conjunction with our athletes. They support it
wholeheartedly. It depends solely on what you are looking for
when you retest it after the fact, or a retesting situation. If
it is a steroid it is relatively stable and you can do it--as
long as that sample is frozen, you can do it years down the
road. Human growth hormone, you save it, freeze it, you can do
it down the road. They are relatively stable. Some compounds
aren't so stable. So it really depends on what you are going to
reanalyze it for later. We have the policy. Big deterrent
effect. And we also do it in practice, so it has a detection
ability as well.
Mr. Rush. Dr. Brand?
Mr. Brand. The NCAA does save samples. We tend to follow
the WADA approach as much as possible. We still have the same
kinds of questions that were asked. We are looking forward for
more research to know how long and how best to store those
samples.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Kanaby?
Mr. Kanaby. Again, in the previous responses and our
relationships with these groups here at this panel level table,
I see no reason why not to support that.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Waldrop?
Mr. Waldrop. We would absolutely support that. In fact,
some States are already doing that in our business.
Mr. Rush. This concludes our hearing for this day. I
certainly again want to thank this panel, Panel II, for your
patience, for your participation. You have really done this
committee and the American people a great service by your being
here and by your great and open testimony. We thank you so very
much. And now the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Statement of Hon. John D. Dingell
I commend Chairman Rush and Ranking Member Whitfield for
their leadership in bringing this important issue before us
today. I also extend special thanks to our distinguished
witnesses who will present testimony about what they have done
and what remains to be done to address the problem of drug use
in competitive sports.
In the 109th Congress, this Subcommittee held careful
hearings and wrote the Drug Free Sports Act, legislation that
was favorably reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
We deferred further action on that bill in order to give the
professional sports leagues and players associations an
opportunity to act decisively. We look forward to their
testimony this morning on the progress that they have achieved.
The professional league's anti-doping programs have
significantly improved in recent years, but the testimony of
the United States Anti-Doping Agency states, ``they still fail
to fully implement all the basic elements of the most effective
programs.'' What remains to be done, and what is the most
effective means of achieving it?
The Subcommittee also will hear today from the
organizations representing college and high school sports. What
special challenges do they face, and how can we help them
establish and maintain effective drug-testing and education
programs?
Using steroids, human growth hormone, and other performance
enhancing drugs to gain a competitive edge is cheating, plain
and simple. It undermines the integrity of the game, unfairly
disadvantages honest athletes who refuse to use them, and calls
into question outcomes and records. The use of these substances
carries with it potentially serious negative side effects for
the human body. Adolescents place themselves at risk of more
serious physical harm than adults. Along with the health risks,
there is the risk of going to jail. Last year, disgraced
Olympian Marion Jones pleaded guilty to three counts of lying
to Federal agents about her steroid use, and she was sentenced
to prison. Home run king Barry Bonds was indicted on charges of
lying to a Federal grand jury about his own alleged use of
illegal steroids. Sometimes the outcome is incomprehensively
tragic, such as the tragic event last summer when World
Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) wrestler Chris Benoit killed his
wife and 7 year old son, and then committed suicide. Shortly
thereafter, WWE suspended 10 WWE performers tied to an alleged
steroid ring. This has to stop.
I look forward to working with all parties to see to it
that this country has the most effective testing and
educational programs possible. While all of us recognize that
someone is always going to try to beat the system, we have an
obligation to continually reassess what we have, and to provide
the necessary tools to prevent as many as possible from risking
their health and undermining the integrity of athletic
competition.