U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

49–522 PDF 2008

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 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,Chairman 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

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) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois,Chairman 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Vice Chairman 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, 

Ranking Member 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio) 

(V) 

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 

Page

VI 

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 

(1) 

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 

2 

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 performanceenhancing 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. 

3 

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 

4 

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 efVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:30 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-93 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
5 

fects 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. 

6 

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. 

7 

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 performanceenhancing drugs is high. Time will only tell how high. We know the 

8 

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 

9 

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. 

10 

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 

11 

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 

12 

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 hapVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:30 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-93 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
13 

pening 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 

14 

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. 

15 

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 barVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:30 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-93 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
16 

gaining 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 nontesting 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 yearround 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. 

17 

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. 

18 

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 sterVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:30 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-93 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
19 

oid 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. 

20 

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. 

21 

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 

22 

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 lifeVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:30 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-93 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
23 

blood 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:] 

24 


49522.027
25 


49522.028
26 


49522.029
27 


49522.030
28 


49522.031
29 


49522.032
30 


49522.033
31 


49522.034
32 


49522.035
33 


49522.036
34 


49522.037
35 


49522.038
36 


49522.039
37 

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 WADAapproved 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 

38 

- 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 postseason, 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-thecourt 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 underVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:30 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-93 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
39 

stand 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 ‘‘nonanalytical 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 performanceenhancing 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 AntoVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:30 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-93 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
40 

nio 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 recentlylaunched 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-theart. 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. 

41 

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, 

42 

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 firsttime 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 

43 

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. 

44 

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 

45 

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. 

46 

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 inseason 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, 

47 

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:] 

48 


49522.040
49 


49522.041
50 


49522.042
51 


49522.043
52 


49522.044
53 


49522.045
54 


49522.046
55 


49522.047
56 


49522.048
57 


49522.049
58 


49522.050
59 


49522.051
60 


49522.052
61 


49522.053
62 


49522.054
63 


49522.055
64 


49522.056
65 


49522.057
66 


49522.058
67 


49522.059
68 


49522.060
69 


49522.061
70 


49522.062
71 


49522.063
72 


49522.064
73 


49522.065
74 


49522.066
75 


49522.067
76 


49522.068
77 


49522.069
78 


49522.070
79 


49522.071
80 


49522.072
81 


49522.073
82 


49522.074
83 


49522.075
84 


49522.076
85 


49522.077
86 


49522.078
87 


49522.079
88 


49522.080
89 


49522.081
90 

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 nonotice 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 

91 

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:] 

92 


49522.020
93 


49522.021
94 


49522.022
95 


49522.023
96 


49522.024
97 


49522.025
98 

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, followup 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. 

99 

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:] 

100 


49522.082
101 


49522.083
102 


49522.084
103 


49522.085
104 


49522.086
105 


49522.087
106 


49522.088
107 

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:] 

108 


49522.001
109 


49522.002
110 


49522.003
111 


49522.004
112 


49522.005
113 


49522.006
114 


49522.007
115 


49522.008
116 


49522.009
117 


49522.010
118 


49522.011
119 


49522.012
120 


49522.013
121 


49522.014
122 


49522.015
123 


49522.016
124 


49522.017
125 


49522.018
126 


49522.019
127 

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? 

128 

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. 

129 

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. 

130 

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. 

131 

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 

132 

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 apVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:30 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-93 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
133 

pears 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. 

134 

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 

135 

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. 

136 

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 

137 

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. 

138 

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. 

139 

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. 

140 

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 

141 

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 

142 

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. 

143 

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 

144 

$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— 

145 

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 

146 

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 

147 

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:] 

148 

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 congressionallygranted 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 antidoping 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. HowVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:30 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-93 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
149 

ever, 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 offiVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:30 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-93 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
150 

cer 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-ofcompetition 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 

151 

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 

152 

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 eleVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:30 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-93 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
153 

ment 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 antidoping 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 antidoping; 

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 antidoping 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 antidoping 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 

154 

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. 

155 

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 drugfree 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 performanceenhancing 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 

156 

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 studentathletes. 

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 studentathletes 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 studentathletes 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 drugtesting 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 

157 

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 campusadministered 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. 

158 

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 drugtesting 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 studentathlete 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. 

159 

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. 

160 


49522.026
161 

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 

162 

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 DrugFree 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 comVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:30 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-93 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
163 

panion 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 onethird of high school steroid users do not participate in interscholastic sports. The 

164 

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. AntiDoping 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 wellinformed 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 firsttime 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. 

165 

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. 

166 

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 

167 

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 antiinflammatories. 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 inVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:30 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-93 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
168 

volved, 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. 

169 

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 OlymVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:30 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-93 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
170 

pic 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. 

171 

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 authorVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:30 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-93 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
172 

ity. 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 

173 

terms of potential health hazards and issues with athletes’ rights, 

the blood testing is a much more effective screen for performanceenhancing 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 

174 

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 reVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:30 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-93 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
175 

spond 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 Statemandated testing, if there were Federal legislation regarding the 

impact of performance-using medications on the career of a profesVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:30 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-93 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
176 

sional 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 

177 

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 

178 

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 

179 

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. 

180 

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 

181 

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. 

Æ