Opinion ID: 1235436
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Effects of the Drug Testing Program

Text: In considering whether the NCAA's drug testing program violated plaintiffs' state constitutional right to privacy, the trial court and the Court of Appeal required the NCAA to demonstrate that its drug testing program advanced a compelling state interest by proving each of the following: (1) the program furthered its stated purposes, i.e., to safeguard the integrity of athletic competition and to protect the health and safety of student athletes; (2) the utility of the program manifestly outweighed any resulting impairment of the privacy right; and (3) there were no alternatives to drug testing less offensive to privacy interests. Much of the trial was devoted to a debate among scientists, physicians, and sports professionals regarding the merits of the NCAA's list of proscribed drugs and the general efficacy of its drug testing program. There were sharp differences in professional opinions on a wide range of subjects, including what substances should be banned, as well as the attitudes and behaviors of athletes and coaches toward certain drugs (e.g., steroids) that some may regard as enhancing athletic performance. The trial court's findings, sustained by the Court of Appeal, heavily favored plaintiffs' side of the professional debate. The trial court found in part that the NCAA drug testing program invades the privacy interests of student athletes by requiring them: (1) to disclose medications they may be using and other information about their physical and medical conditions; (2) to urinate in the presence of a monitor; and (3) to provide a urine sample that reveals chemical and other substances in their bodies. The court further found that college athletes do not use drugs any more frequently than college students as a general class. It observed that in 1986-1987, the first year of the NCAA's drug testing program, 34 of the 3,511 athletes tested for drugs were declared ineligible because of proscribed drug use. Of the 34 athletes declared ineligible, 31 were engaged in football, 1 was in track and field, and 2 were in basketball. Of the football players, 25 had tested positive for use of steroids. The track and field athlete tested positive for steroids, the two basketball players for cocaine. From its findings, the court concluded there was no compelling need for drug testing to protect the health of college athletes or the integrity of athletic competition. According to the court, the NCAA program was overbroad because it banned useful over-the-counter medications and prescription drugs designed to improve the health of the athlete. The court observed the NCAA had not been completely consistent in its professed concern for the health of athletes as shown by its failure to require measles vaccinations of athletes despite previous measles outbreaks at postseason competition or to provide counselling or rehabilitation services for drug-using athletes. The court added that Stanford believes it is wrong to single out athletes for drug testing and favors drug education for its students. The trial court also found the NCAA had failed to produce evidence that certain banned substances, e.g., amphetamines, diuretics, marijuana, and heroin, actually enhance athletic performance. It did find, however, that marijuana clearly impairs athletic performance and that cocaine may do so. Addressing the alleged perception that use of certain drugs may enhance performance, the court found that drugs are generally not perceived by college athletes and coaches to enhance performance or to be a major problem. With respect to steroid use, the perception, according to the court, is that steroids might only help certain types of positions in football. On the issue of public perception of drug use, the court offered its general view that the NCAA drug testing program is probably doing more harm than good, and further determined the NCAA had failed to show that drug education and testing based on reasonable suspicion were inadequate to the task of controlling drug use by athletes. From its conclusions, the trial court determined that the NCAA's drug testing program violated the state constitutional privacy rights of Stanford student athletes. It permanently enjoined any testing of those athletes wherever it might be conducted, whether inside or outside of California. [2] On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's factual findings and sustained its legal determinations regarding the NCAA's drug testing program, including its holding that the NCAA had failed to establish a compelling state interest in support of the program. The trial court's judgment, including the permanent injunction, was affirmed. We granted review.