DRUG POLICY ADDS LESSON TO PUNISHMENT

IT IS INTERESTING what a little digging beneath the surface often reveals.

On the surface, South Carolina's recently released four-step drug-testing
policy for athletes seems lenient and designed primarily to keep those
athletes eligible for competition. A closer look reveals that the policy is
geared toward educating athletes about the abuse of drugs, and the policy
is perhaps as stringent as any in the country.

Before we get into all the details of USC's policy, understand that
athletes at most NCAA institutions are the only students who are tested for
use of recreational drugs such as alcohol, marijuana and cocaine. Of the
24,000 members of USC's student body, only the 450 or so scholarship
athletes are forbidden from partaking in recreational drugs.

Other students do so at the risk of getting caught in possession of such drugs.

Understand also that schools such as USC voluntarily conduct drug testing
for their athletes. There are some NCAA schools, mostly private, that do
not test. That changes during postseason tournaments when the NCAA conducts
drug testing, presumably to ensure level playing fields by preventing the
use of performance-enhancing drugs.

The reason athletes are tested for drugs, and band members, cheerleaders
and other scholarship students are not, is because those who compete are
"held to a higher standard." At least that is the speculation of USC
athletics director Eric Hyman, who helped create USC's new policy.

That being the case, drug testing for athletes is inherently
discriminatory, and therefore any policy is punitive. The problem with
USC's previous policy, according to Hyman, was that it was long on being
punitive and short on being educational and beneficial to the athletes.

Previously, USC athletes were dismissed from their respective teams after
two failed drug tests. Hyman, and the committee that studied USC's policy,
concluded that a two-strikes-and-you're-out policy did not mesh with the
athletics department goal of educating athletes and preparing them for life
after college.

I look at every student-athlete as somebody's son or daughter," Hyman says.
"How would I want my own to be treated?"

Hyman's concern with the policy is that every one of his athletes starts
from a different and varied background. For an athlete who was reared in an
environment where recreational drugs are a part of life, it did not seem
fair to return him or her to that setting without adequate education and
counseling about drug use and abuse.

So, USC came up with a new policy. After an initial failed drug test, the
athlete now receives a face-to-face warning from Hyman and is instructed to
attend educational seminars and counseling for drug awareness.

I want to be able to explain the consequences of what they're doing," Hyman
says of his warnings. "I want to try to guide them for their future."

Also, a certified letter detailing the failed drug test is sent to the
athlete's parent(s), and the athlete is automatically subjected to drug
testing every seven to 10 days for a one-year period. Following a second
failed drug test, an athlete is suspended for 25 percent of his or her
team's regular-season games. A third failure results in the athlete being
suspended for an entire school year, and a fourth failed test earns a
dismissal from school.

It is important to know that under the new policy a team's coach has the
discretion to dismiss an athlete following any failed drug test.

Beyond that, USC believes its administration of drug tests is among the
most stringent in the country because of its number of tests, its low
tolerance level and its ability to head off tampering with urine specimens.

Rod Walters, USC's assistant athletics director for sports medicine,
conducted a study of 20 randomly selected colleges and found that USC's
1,500 tests in the past calendar year was the second-highest total. One
school conducted 149 tests during a school year.

The NCAA screens for marijuana at 50 nanograms and confirms a failed drug
test at 15. USC screens for marijuana at 20 and confirms at five. Walters
said many schools are lowering their tolerance levels to that of USC.

Finally, USC is one of few schools that uses a refractrometer, which
assures that a specimen is of normal volume and has not been diluted,
according to Walters. In other words, it is much more difficult to use a
masking device to beat a drug test at USC.

My guess is that, other than the military academies where you get one
strike and you are out, this is the most restrictive policy I know of,"
Hyman says.

As with any policy, it must undergo the test of time. It could be that five
years from now USC realizes the policy is too lenient and will make
changes. For now, when examined closely, the policy appears to have the
proper balance of being punitive as well as educational.