[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STEROID USE IN SPORTS, PART II: EXAMINING THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL
LEAGUE'S POLICY ON ANABOLIC STEROIDS AND RELATED SUBSTANCES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 27, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-21
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
21-242 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
JON C. PORTER, Nevada BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia Columbia
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ------
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (Independent)
------ ------
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 27, 2005................................... 1
Statement of:
Stewart, Willie, head football coach, Anacostia High School;
Bobby Barnes, head football coach, Buckeye Union High
School; Steve Courson, ex-NFL player, Pittsburgh Steelers
and Tampa Bay Buccaneers; Linn Goldberg, professor of
medicine, Oregon Health Sciences University; Gary I.
Wadler, associate professor of clinical medicine, New York
University School of Medicine; John A. Lombardo, NFL
advisor, anabolic steroids and related substances; and
Bryan Finkle, NFL consulting toxicologist on anabolic
steroids and related substances............................ 34
Barnes, Bobby............................................ 37
Courson, Steve........................................... 41
Finkle, Bryan S.......................................... 73
Goldberg, Linn........................................... 47
Lombardo, John........................................... 64
Stewart, Willie.......................................... 34
Wadler, Gary I........................................... 55
Tagliabue, Paul, commissioner, National Football League;
Harold Henderson, executive vice president, labor
relations, National Football League; and Gene Upshaw,
executive director, National Football League Players
Association................................................ 112
Henderson, Harold........................................ 132
Tagliabue, Paul.......................................... 112
Upshaw, Gene............................................. 134
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Barnes, Bobby, head football coach, Buckeye Union High
School, prepared statement of.............................. 39
Courson, Steve, ex-NFL player, Pittsburgh Steelers and Tampa
Bay Buccaneers, prepared statement of...................... 43
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 23
Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 5
Finkle, Bryan, NFL consulting toxicologist on anabolic
steroids and related substances, prepared statement of..... 76
Goldberg, Linn, professor of medicine, Oregon Health Sciences
University, prepared statement of.......................... 49
Lombardo, John A., NFL advisor, anabolic steroids and related
substances, prepared statement of.......................... 67
McHenry, Hon. Patrick T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of North Carolina................................ 180
Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada, prepared statement of..................... 179
Sanders, Hon. Bernard, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Vermont, prepared statement of.................... 30
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 19
Stewart, Willie, head football coach, Anacostia High School,
prepared statement of...................................... 36
Tagliabue, Paul, commissioner, National Football League,
prepared statement of...................................... 117
Upshaw, Gene, executive director, National Football League
Players Association, prepared statement of................. 137
Wadler, Gary I., associate professor of clinical medicine,
New York University School of Medicine, prepared statement
of......................................................... 58
Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California:
Letters dated April 26, 2005........................... 11, 168
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
STEROID USE IN SPORTS, PART II: EXAMINING THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL
LEAGUE'S POLICY ON ANABOLIC STEROIDS AND RELATED SUBSTANCES
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2005
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Davis of Virginia, Shays,
Gutknecht, Souder, Duncan, Turner, Issa, Brown-Waite, McHenry,
Dent, Waxman, Towns, Sanders, Cummings, Kucinich, Davis of
Illinois, Clay, Watson, Lynch, Sanchez, Ruppersberger, Higgins,
and Norton.
Also present: Representatives Sweeney and Payne.
Staff present: Melissa Wojciak, staff director; David
Marin, deputy staff director/communications director; Keith
Ausbrook, chief counsel; Jennifer Safavian, chief counsel for
oversight and investigations; Howie Dennis and Anne Marie
Turner, counsels; Rob White, press secretary; Drew Crockett,
deputy director of communications; John Cuaderes, subcommittee
staff director; Susie Schulte, professional staff member;
Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Sarah D'Orsie, deputy clerk;
Kristina Sherry, legislative correspondent; Corinne Zaccagnini,
chief information officer; Phil Schiliro, minority chief of
staff; Phil Barnett, minority staff director/chief counsel;
Kristin Amerling, minority deputy chief counsel; Karen
Lightfoot, minority communications director/senior policy
advisor; Brian Cohen, minority senior investigator and policy
advisor; Earley Green, minority chief clerk; Jean Gosa and
Teresa Coufal, minority assistant clerks; and Cecelia Morton,
minority office manager.
Chairman Tom Davis. The committee will come to order.
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing on the
National Football League and the use of performance-enhancing
drugs. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the NFL's
drug policy, how the testing policy is implemented, how it
effectively addresses the use of prohibited drugs by players,
and the larger societal and public health ramifications of
steroid use.
Fourteen years ago, anabolic steroids were added to the
Controlled Substance Act as a Schedule III drug, making it
illegal to possess or sell them without a valid prescription.
Today, however, evidence strongly suggests that steroid use
among teenagers, especially aspiring athletes, is a large and
growing problem.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tells us
that more than 500,000 high school students have tried
steroids, nearly triple the number of just 10 years ago. A
second national survey conducted in 2004 by the National
Institute on Drug Abuse and the University of Michigan found
that over 40 percent of 12th-graders described steroids as
fairly easy or very easy to get. And the perception among high
school students that steroids are harmful has dropped from 71
percent in 1992 to 56 percent in 2004.
The reality is parents today are in the unenviable position
of having to add anabolic steroids and performance-enhancing
drugs to their teachings on the dangers of recreational drug
use. The Associated Press reported yesterday that an alarming
number of American girls, some as young as 9 years old, are
using steroids. Researchers say 7 percent of middle school
girls--7 percent--admit to trying anabolic steroids at least
once. Researchers also say that while most of these girls were
looking to get more competitive on the playing field, some were
just hoping to improve their appearance. Clearly it is time to
discuss how we got there.
In light of the societal impact of steroid use, the
committee decided to launch an investigation into steroid
policies of professional, amateur, collegiate and high school
athletics. Last month we held our first hearing aimed at
evaluating Major League Baseball's efforts to crack down on
steroid use. After that hearing the committee sent letters to
the NFL, National Basketball Association, National Hockey
League, Major League Soccer, U.S. Soccer Federation, USA
Cycling, USA Track and Field, and the Association of Tennis
Professionals requesting information on their respective
steroid policies.
Today's hearing is based on the information provided by the
NFL to the committee regarding its 2004 policy on anabolic
steroids and other related substances.
The dynamic is somewhat different from what we encountered
at the Major League Baseball hearing. Major League Baseball and
the Players Association greeted word of our inquiry first as a
nuisance, then as a negotiation. In contrast, both the NFL and
its players association have worked cooperatively with the
committee to educate us about their policy and the proactive
steps the NFL has continued to take with regard to steroid
testing. We are appreciative of their cooperation and their
responsiveness.
Drug-testing experts have long hailed football's testing
program as the top of the heap in professional sports. It's a
policy that the league and players association review quarterly
and improve upon annually. It's a policy that has evolved along
with advancements in science and technology. It's a policy with
tough penalties, and that's getting tougher all the time. But
it's not perfect, and that's one of the reasons we're here
today.
The NFL's testing program has come under heightened
scrutiny in recent weeks in the wake of news reports that three
Carolina Panther's players filled steroid prescriptions within
2 weeks of playing in last year's Super Bowl.
Today we will ask some serious questions to find out if we
can make a good policy even better. Most questions will focus
on the what, how and the whens of the league's testing
procedures.
I think we will hear from the NFL and the players
association about improvements they're making in their policy.
I also hope they will address the steps they're taking to
educate young people, especially young football players, on the
dangers of steroid use; after all, that's why we have
undertaken the investigation. More than just the reputation of
baseball or football is at risk. Our primary focus remains on
the message being sent to our kids, children who play football
and baseball and basketball and soccer, children who idolize
and emulate professional athletes.
Too many college athletes believe they have to consider
steroids if they're going to make it to the pros. High school
athletes, in turn, think steroids might be the key to getting a
scholarship. It's time to break that cycle, and it needs to
happen from the top down.
We will hear about the vicious cycle and the societal
pressures that fuel it firsthand today from Bobby Barnes, head
football coach at Buckeye Union High School in Arizona. Coach
Barnes made the right decision: He suspended 10 of his players
for using steroids. But some in his community criticized the
move, and I can only wonder how we've arrived at a place where
the drive to win is more important to some than not cheating or
not risking permanent harm to your health.
These hearings are the beginning, not the end. Today's
hearing can give us important information about the prevalence
of steroids in professional football, shine light on the
sometimes tragic results of steroid use by young athletes, and
offer thoughts on where to take our investigations next;
thoughts from two high school football coaches with us today on
how to steer kids away from steroids and what to do when young
athletes fall victim to their allure; thoughts from medical
experts about how to better educate all Americans about the
very real dangers of steroid use; thoughts from the NFL and the
players association on how one professional sports league is
addressing this problem, and the need to continually revisit
testing effectiveness over time.
Our ongoing investigation already has spawned draft
legislation offered by Mr. Waxman and myself that would create
uniform testing standards for all major league sports and
associations. We think this is a critical next step, and we
hope to introduce the legislation soon. Senator John McCain is
also working on legislation along these lines.
But our job won't end when the bill becomes law. Public
education and awareness will remain paramount. That's why I'm
pleased that the advisory committee Mr. Waxman and I announced
at the Major League Baseball hearing is beginning to take
shape. The leagues and players associations are still
discussing the nuts and bolts with each other, but with the
leadership of Curt Schilling and Frank Thomas and other high-
profile athletes, I think the advisory committee can accomplish
some great things, great things like getting more than 56
percent of teenagers to understand steroids are harmful, like
getting young girls to find healthy ways to enhance athletic
performance or self-esteem. Like getting all sports leagues to
acknowledge that their testing programs need improvement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.004
Chairman Tom Davis. I now recognize the distinguished
ranking member, Mr. Waxman, for his opening statement.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This is the second hearing in our committee on the issue of
steroids and professional sports, and this hearing is very
different from the first. A little over a month ago we looked
at baseball's steroid policies, and Major League Baseball
fought us every step of the way. When we finally got the
league's policy, we found that it was surprisingly weak.
The NFL has been different. They have cooperated with the
committee from the start, and they have a very different
steroid policy, too. There is no question that the NFL has a
steroid program that is superior to the baseball program we
examined at our last hearing. The NFL policy covers a broad
range of steroids, and its testing is more extensive. And the
NFL acted quickly to add substances like andro to its list of
banned substances.
This morning the NFL and the players' association will
describe additional changes to their steroid policy. These are
significant changes that will make a good policy better.
But even the NFL policy--as good as it is--does have holes.
I have questions about how the league treats human growth
hormone. And the list of stimulants that the NFL tests is much
shorter than the Olympic list. I hope we can explore these
issues today.
We also need to explore how the NFL steroid policy is
working. The percentage of NFL players who test positive for
steroids is very low. Is this because the policy is working, or
is this because players have figured out how to avoid
detection?
Clearly there is evidence that some football players are
trying to cheat the system. Last month 60 Minutes reported that
three members of the Carolina Panthers filled prescriptions for
testosterone before playing in the 2004 Super Bowl. The NFL
testing program never caught any of these players. One possible
explanation, they may have been carefully calibrating their
dosage to stay below the detection threshold.
In 2003, four members of the Oakland Raiders were found to
be using a new type of steroid, THG, that was designed to avoid
detection. We need to assess whether these are isolated
exceptions or part of a broader pattern.
As our committee continues its work, I think we should
recognize some positive developments. We had a rocky start with
Major League Baseball, but I am encouraged by our discussions
with the Commissioner's office and players union since the
hearing. Both are now working with us as we sort through the
next steps.
One issue that I raised with baseball I will raise again
today; whether we should have a single tough standard for all
professional sports leagues. To its credit, baseball has
recognized the potential value of such an approach. Today we'll
have an opportunity to learn what football and its players
association think about this issue.
I received a letter yesterday from nearly 100 high school
baseball players in New York who were writing to tell me about
a new organization they had formed. These were high school
baseball kids, and they formed an organization called HATS,
High Schoolers Against Taking Steroids. These young athletes
signed a pledge not to use steroids because as they wrote--``We
want to uphold the integrity and honor of the sport as
representatives of our generation.''
I would like to make their letter a part of the hearing
record today.
Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection, it will be entered
into the record.
[Note.--The signatures are on file with the committee.]
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.006
Mr. Waxman. These young members of HATS have the right
idea, but they need our help. If steroids are condoned in
sports, these aspiring athletes and others like them around the
country will be put in a crushing competitive disadvantage. We
in Congress and the representatives of professional sports
testifying today have a responsibility to ensure that this
doesn't happen.
In closing, let me say that I look forward to the testimony
today, and I want to commend Chairman Davis for his leadership
in holding this hearing.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. And I appreciate
your initiating this as well.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.016
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Souder, the chairman of the
subcommittee.
Mr. Souder. I thank the chairman and ask unanimous consent
to place my full statement in the record.
I would just like to make a few comments. I want to thank
the chairman and ranking member for holding this hearing.
The first hearing we heard these constant critics about why
you are focusing on baseball. Clearly we're trying to look at
the steroid problem as a whole, but the NFL is not Major League
Baseball. From his perspective, Ricky Williams would have been
a lot better off playing baseball.
We have huge problems in sports. Clearly we have problems
that have already been alluded here in the NFL. But the
problems here are how can we get a tough enough policy to
adjust as the steroids and other body enhancers change their
content; as they adjust, as we do testing, how can we do better
targeting, how can we do this during the season, how can we do
this in a logical way as the market adjusts because the
incentives to cheat are overwhelming?
Then as chairman of the Narcotics Subcommittee, and Ranking
Member Elijah Cummings and I have been doing--last hearing I
pointed out 27 hearings in 22 months, I think it was, but we've
had multiple ones since then. And yesterday we focused on drug
prevention and how we handle drug prevention budgets. And what
we've seen is the use of steroids among professional athletes
is alarming, but the trickle-down effect on our youth is huge;
that the steroid use among 12th grade boys has been steadily
increasing.
Now, the most alarming thing that we look for in drug abuse
is perception of risk, and one of the reasons we've made
incredible gains in the last 12 months in States where
methamphetamines have been used and so-called crystal meth is
because we quickly communicate in those zones the perceived
risk. And we've had a 38 percent reduction in meth once it hits
the media, but then it moves to another market. And right now
we're chasing meth across the country.
In steroids, we have close to the lowest point ever in the
perceived risk in high-schoolers of steroids. We have to change
this perception. We could do drug-free schools programs, we can
do prevention and treatment programs, we can have community
action groups, but, in fact, if our professional athletes
aren't clean, and the example they set is that if you cheat,
you might make the SuperBowl, if you cheat, you might become
most valuable player, that's going to trickle down to the guys
who don't know if they quite have that edge.
And this is very important as we pursue this and as today
we continue along the line of how can we make these policies--
even when our heart is in the right place, how can we make them
really effective so we don't get this inadvertent communication
that undermines our ad campaign, that undermines everything
else we're trying to do in drug abuse.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.018
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing examining
the use of steroids in the National Football League and the
effectiveness of the NFL steroid testing policy.
Today's hearing reflects an understanding that professional
sports, at their best, represent more than a game, but an
expression of some of America's most revered principles. It
tells us that we can achieve more together than we can alone,
and that our drive and talent should be the only limitations to
how high we can soar on the playing field or in life.
Unfortunately, our first hearing on steroids use in sports
served as a stark reminder of what happens when a professional
athletic league, that is, Major League Baseball, fails to
embrace the very values that make it America's pasttime.
As ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, I work along with
Chairman Souder frequently on issues related to U.S. drug
control policy and public health. Although Schedule I
substances are the primary focus of our oversight in our
hearings, the dangers associated with substances on other
schedules, such as steroids, are just as real.
Even though some anabolic steroids have legitimate medical
use, abuse of steroids by recreational users seeking increased
muscle growth and enhanced athletic performance can result in
serious health problems ranging from early cardiovascular
disease to serious psychiatric side effects, including severe
depression and even suicide.
To minimize the dangers of illegitimate steroid usage,
Congress added certain anabolic steroids to Schedule III of the
Controlled Substances Act. Individuals possessing such drugs
without a valid prescription are subject to a misdemeanor
charge, while persons convicted of distributing, dispensing or
selling these drugs are subject to a 5-year sentence for first
offense. In other words, it is a crime.
Unfortunately, today we find that the illegal use of
steroids by professional athletes encourages the perception
that steroid abuse is acceptable. I am here to tell you it is
not. The private actions and personal choices of even a few
elite players can reverberate into the lives of our young
people. Let us not forget the families who testified before
this committee about the suicide of their children after using
steroids. They attributed their children's steroid use and
subsequent deaths to the negative examples set by professional
athletes.
Unfortunately, while the world of professional sports is
increasingly beset by allegations of steroid use among
athletes, more families are confronting the use of performance-
enhancing drugs by their children. In just 10 years the
percentage of U.S. high school students reporting steroid use
has tripled, and experts believe that over 500,000 high school
students have used steroids in some form. According to Centers
for Disease Control, 1 in 45 high school students reported
steroid use in 1993. By 2003, the figure was 1 in 16.
Given these startling statistics, I was pleased to learn
that the NFL maintains what is generally considered the most
effective steroid testing policy in American professional
sports. The NFL recognizes that steroid use among its players
sends a dangerous message to our young people, undermines the
credibility of the game, and violates the sanctity of our laws.
This steroids testing policy includes penalties for steroid
use, random year-round testing, and public disclosure for
violations. In the past 5 years, only 0.5 percent of 15,000 NFL
players have tested positive.
However, while the NFL's drug testing policy is strong, it
needs to be one of zero tolerance, and it needs to be air-
tight. NFL's policy fails to meet the Olympic standard in
several key areas, from insufficiently prohibiting and testing
stimulants to inadequately penalizing players who test
positive. Allegations that the NFL steroid testing policy may
be underestimating the scope of the problem must be considered
in light of a recent 60 Minutes report that has already been
mentioned where three Carolina Panthers obtained steroids
before the 2004 Super Bowl and evaded detection.
I repeat, the use of steroids is a crime, and the use of
steroids is cheating. While I applaud the NFL for adopting a
strict steroid policy, I will continue to push for zero
tolerance. Mr. Chairman, we should not settle for a field goal.
American families deserve a touchdown when it comes to a robust
steroid testing policy in professional sports.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.022
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me ask, we've had the chairman and
subcommittee chairman give long, lengthy statements. If Members
would like to take a minute or two so we can move it along,
that would be great. And everybody will get a chance to say
something, and the entire statements will be in the record.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to first thank the National Football League for
being so cooperative in this hearing. It is very appreciated.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Young athletes are threatened by a cultural tsunami of
explicit rewards and implicit tolerance for pharmaceutically
enhanced performance. No testing policy, however tightly
drafted or rigorously enforced, will turn back the tide that is
already rising in our high schools and college playing fields
across this Nation if we don't change the culture of drug
tolerance.
When an admitted steroid user gets taken in the first round
of the NFL draft, and three players from a team competing in
the Super Bowl allegedly obtain illegally filled steroid
prescriptions from a doctor, it is clear a tougher policy is in
order.
Professional sports have to lead the way toward a societal
policy of zero tolerance for chemical cheating. Professional
athletes are role models for our student athletes, and until
there is zero tolerance for the use of steroids in the
professional ranks, there will continue to be steroids used in
our schools.
They can't hide behind internal work rules and penalties
and ignore the broader impact of the win-at-all-costs culture
they glamorize. Bottom line, baseball has five strikes and
you're out; it appears that football has four strikes and
you're out. I think it needs to be much less than that. Thank
you.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Any statements? Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, at the outset I just want to thank
you, as well as Ranking Member Waxman, for your leadership on
this issue.
I think this series of hearings has assisted greatly in
bringing the issue of steroid abuse from the shadows of society
to the attention of the media and general public. As is often
the case, any potential legislative response to this problem
must also include an educational component regarding the nature
and the scope of steroid abuse for society, as well as for
professional sports.
Mr. Chairman, I read recently that there is evidence now
that even young girls and young women have turned to steroid
use for weight control and physique enhancement. In light of
this and other reports indicating that steroid use among our
young people, including those who are not athletes, has risen
dramatically during the last decade, part of our role here must
be to inform the public in the process in which we are,
ourselves, informed.
In addition, I'd like to thank the witnesses for their
assistance in this effort, and I wish to express my
appreciation for Commissioner Tagliabue, and particularly Gene
Upshaw from the players union. As a former president of the
Iron Workers Union in Boston, I have negotiated a number of
collective bargaining agreements, and with respect to the issue
of drug abuse, I have always felt that the establishment of a
clear and no-nonsense, reliable drug-testing protocol not only
served the best interests of the workplace, but was also
essential in terms of setting the bounds of acceptable behavior
beyond work. And I compliment Mr. Upshaw on a job that cannot
be easy.
And from what I have seen, Mr. Upshaw's tenure as head of
the NFL Players Association has been marked by a proactive and
cooperative approach, unlike baseball, to protecting his
players from harmful consequences associated with the use of
performance-enhancing substances. However, in turning to the
specifics of the NFL's 2004 policy on anabolic steroids and
related substances, while I agree with the chairman's
assessment that the NFL has done a better job than Major League
Baseball on policing the steroid abuse, I must admit that the
bar was set exceedingly low.
While I would like to believe that the problem of steroid
abuse in football has been eliminated--limited to a small
number of players, I am not yet convinced. I believe there is
evidence that chemists and so-called steroid designers have
become more creative. We also know that testing for the abuse
of human growth hormone has not been addressed by the league,
and that no firm timetable has been set for the implementation
of blood testing that would be required.
In addition, in contrast to the World Anti-Doping Agency's
inclusion of about 40 stimulants in its Olympic Code, the NFL
steroid policy bans only eight.
Now furthermore, I'm also concerned by the statements of
some former players indicating that today's NFL athletes can
and are gaming the system of testing protocols that are
currently in place. And we cannot ignore the fact that,
according to recent statistics provided by the media, while
only five players in the NFL were over 300 pounds in 1985, by
2003 there were 327 players in the league over 300 pounds. That
is an increase of over 6,000 percent in the span of 18 years.
And it's my understanding that currently the average NFL
offensive tackle now weighs over 300 pounds, that's the
average.
It is not only that the average player is bigger, but that
a very cursory review of the data also suggests that unlike the
rest of the population, including players of an earlier era, a
phenomenon is developing among a certain segment of players in
the NFL suggesting that the time of which these players have
experienced this growth spurt has actually shifted, and while
the evidence is largely, at this point, anecdotal, it is
troublesome, and I would recommend that we as a committee take
a closer look.
And last, but important, I believe that if this committee
is serious about investigating steroid use among football
players today, well, we should probably start by talking to
some of today's football players. And regrettably, today's
witness list affords this panel an extremely limited
opportunity in that respect. It would appear that the
investigation today will receive testimony from a player's
perspective that begins in 1967--if you count Mr. Upshaw's
arrival on the scene--and it ends in 1985 with Mr. Courson's
retirement. Now that's it, from 1967 to 1985; that's what we're
going to hear player testimony, actual player testimony. And I
for one think that what happened in the NFL in the intervening
20 years is very important and quite relevant to this
investigation. This is a glaring gap, especially given the
depth of the recent hearings with Major League Baseball, and I
think this defect, if it is not cured, will lead the public to
come to question the commitment, thoroughness and fairness of
this committee in this process in general.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our
witnesses, and I yield.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Sanders.
Mr. Sanders. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you for holding this important hearing.
The issue here is not just what the NFL is doing, what
Major League Baseball is doing within their own organizations,
as important as that is, but it is, in fact, more important is
that for better or for worse, major league athletes,
professional athletes, are role models to tens of millions of
kids. Kids look up to them, and increasingly, as we all know,
for worse, not for better, we are in a culture, whether it is
politics, whether it is athletics, where winning is everything,
and it's not how you play the game, but who ends up with the
Super Bowl. And if you cheat and if you lie and if you do all
kinds of bad things, that's OK as long as you win.
And what ends up happening is that mentality trickles on
down to kids who are in elementary school, little girls who do
gymnastics, and they look up and they see professional
athletes, strong, tough fantastic athletes, and they say, I'm
going to do what those athletes are doing, even if it endangers
my health.
And you see coaches at the high school level who get
tremendous community pressure, you've got to within the
championship in your local athletic league, and look away if
some of your kids are doing illegal drugs.
So there is an enormous responsibility on those
organizations like the NFL or Major League Baseball and others
for doing what is right not just for your own athletes, but for
millions of American kids.
So today I thank the chairman and ranking member for
holding this hearing. It is very important for us to see what
the NFL, certainly one of the major sports organizations in
this country, is doing to not only protect its own players and
its own integrity, but what they are doing, in essence, for
millions of young people in this country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Bernard Sanders follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.025
Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I believe that
every parent in America would want to thank you and the ranking
member for the way in which you have brought this subject into
the open so that all of us collectively can do something about
it.
I appreciate that Major League Football is here and has
been cooperative, and I particularly want to welcome Mr. Willie
Stewart from our own Anacostia High School here in a tough
neighborhood in the District of Columbia where youngsters would
be especially likely to look up to football players. You've got
a good winning record as well.
Mr. Chairman, you began with what I used to say when I was
a Chair of the Equal Opportunity Commission; you said, we begin
with the worst first, because that leads others to believe that
they better fall into line before we get to them, and you did
that when you and the ranking member began with baseball. Now
we have come to the best, but not the best it can be.
I appreciate that football has long been doing some random
testing on and off season. The nearly perfect record would lead
one to believe that you have not kept ahead of the
extraordinary advances in steroid development and detection.
The pressures on the players simply cannot be discounted. The
culture which reinforces the pressure on them, which comes from
the fans, comes from the country, comes from everyone, cannot
be underestimated. How to break through that.
There are real gaps, you've heard some of them from my
colleagues, insufficient coverage even in what you've done in
amphetamines, lack of testing of human growth hormone about
which our youngsters hear so much about these days. And I use
one standard through these hearings, and that is, what are we
doing this for? And we're doing this basically because we're
concerned about what is happening to young people, about the
liver damage and the early heart damage and the horrible role
model that professional athletes set.
So I exercise a presumption that American sports should
follow the policy America has insisted upon at the Olympics;
perhaps that's a rebuttable presumption, but it seems to me
that if that's the policy that we have insisted upon for the
world, then it's very hard to understand why that policy would
not be the same policy we brought home to America.
Thank you very much once again, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, thank you very much.
We have a vote under way in the House, but we're going to
keep the hearing going. Mr. Shays is over there voting and
coming back. We may have a picture of the House, and Mr. Waxman
and I just said we will forgo the picture this year. This is
important for us, so we will try to keep the committee hearing
moving.
We are just really pleased with our opening panel today. We
have Willie Stewart, the head coach of Anacostia High School
right here in Washington, DC. Congratulations on your
successful season, and thanks for being with us.
We have Bobby Barnes coming here from Buckeye Union High
School in Arizona. Thank you very much for being here.
Steve Courson, former NFL player with the Pittsburgh
Steelers and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Steve, thanks for being
with us today.
Linn Goldberg, professor of medicine, Oregon Health
Sciences University. Thank you for being with us.
Gary Wadler, the associate professor of clinical medicine
at New York University School of Medicine. Thanks for being
with us.
Dr. John Lombardo, NFL advisor on anabolic steroids and
related substances.
And Dr. Bryan Finkle, NFL consulting toxicologist on
anabolic steroids and related substances. Thank you both for
being with us.
We are the major investigative committee in the House, so
it is our policy that we always swear everybody in. So if you
would just rise with me and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Coach Stewart, we'll start with you.
STATEMENTS OF WILLIE STEWART, HEAD FOOTBALL COACH, ANACOSTIA
HIGH SCHOOL; BOBBY BARNES, HEAD FOOTBALL COACH, BUCKEYE UNION
HIGH SCHOOL; STEVE COURSON, EX-NFL PLAYER, PITTSBURGH STEELERS
AND TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS; LINN GOLDBERG, PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE,
OREGON HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY; GARY I. WADLER, ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF
MEDICINE; JOHN A. LOMBARDO, NFL ADVISOR, ANABOLIC STEROIDS AND
RELATED SUBSTANCES; AND BRYAN FINKLE, NFL CONSULTING
TOXICOLOGIST ON ANABOLIC STEROIDS AND RELATED SUBSTANCES
STATEMENT OF WILLIE STEWART
Mr. Stewart. Good morning to the Committee on Government
Reform.
For the record, I want to state that I do not support
steroid use by student athletes. On the high school level, the
majority of student athletes want to attend a Division I
school, so the student athlete feels he needs to use
performance-enhancing drugs to become bigger, stronger and
faster; in other words, some student athletes want a quick fix.
Unfortunately, there are no quick fixes, meaning down the road
the student athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs are at
risk for premature heart attacks, strokes, liver tumors, kidney
failures, and other health complications. Really, the long-term
effects of this drug use outweighs the immediate athletic
advantage the student athlete achieves.
There were two instances in which I suspected steroid use
by two of my football players. I noticed an increase in weight
and size. First I questioned them; I then established a
counseling program in which a physician, nurse and athletic
trainer discussed the ramifications of steroid use. One of the
two student athletes I suspected of using performance-enhancing
drugs died 2 weeks ago of kidney failure. He was only 28 years
old. His death was just a waste of a human life.
Student athletes look up to the pro athlete as a role
model. They see themselves in the same position in a few years.
The clothes, the automobiles, the wealth and prestige are the
assets they seek. Given the seriousness of this issue, I urge
coaches to get involved in educating student athletes about
steroid use, as well as encouraging them to engage in strength
training through the normal progression.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me this
morning. Thank you.
Mr. Shays [presiding]. We thank you, too, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.026
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Barnes, you have the floor.
STATEMENT OF BOBBY BARNES
Mr. Barnes. Members of this committee and Mr. Vice
Chairman, I first would like to say that I am very humbled that
any member of this committee would consider what I have to say
to be of importance. In no way do I consider myself to be an
expert on steroids. I have my thoughts on what has created the
current situation as it relates to high school kids in general,
but my testimony is truly only personal experience and opinion.
Our experience may not have as much relevance as you would
hope, but I do believe some of the core problems of our
experience are universal and not related to just our community.
I believe I could best serve this committee by answering your
questions; however, I will try to give a sufficient accounting
of my thoughts through this presentation.
There is a great deal of blame to pass around as to what I
feel has contributed to the problem. If I were pressed to give
a single most important problem at the high school level, it
would be the loss of accountability for our actions and
accepting the blame for the choices that we make. Parents are
not the sole blame for the final actions of their children, but
they are the start of holding their kids accountable. There are
those who sadly make excuses for their kids and point fingers
elsewhere. Coaches are culpable in their drive for success
measured by winning at all costs. The prevailing attitude in
many schools is don't ask and don't tell.
I believe in our profession, but I know that in many walks
of life there will always be those that do not do the right
thing. Peers place a great deal of pressure on those that might
not try steroids, but for as long as there has been a gathering
of youth, peer pressure has played a part in doing the wrong
thing.
This brings me to society today and role models. I cannot
speak for the young men who have used steroids to enhance
athletic ability, but it is my belief that our kids did not try
steroids simply because some professional athlete had. It is my
opinion they were just trying to get bigger, faster and
stronger the easiest and fastest way they knew how. I
considered their actions selfish and ill-advised.
In looking at all the circumstances, I believe they never
felt that what they were doing was anybody's business, and I
feel they never worried about consequences. This area of
consequences is very much a touchy subject for me, and I
believe this is where I have the most to say to this committee.
Almost daily we see and hear through the media that a
professional athlete has admitted to or is believed to have
used illegal drugs for the purpose of enhancing physical
ability to perform, yet to this date the consequences of their
actions have been mostly verbal. I do not wish any professional
athlete to be made an example of, but if this committee and
professional sports wants to see results, they must come up
with a comprehensive punishment where the youth of today will
see that all levels answer for their actions.
Our kids were given felony charges and dismissed for the
remaining seven games of their season. A school within a few
miles of our community caught football players admittedly using
illegal substances, and they were suspended for two games and
had no felony records. I do not believe that our kids or theirs
should have been given felony charges; however, our school
followed school policy clearly known by our kids, and I assume
the police filed charges based on the law.
There must be a clear consequence at all levels so that
they do fear not only for their health and safety, but also for
what will be the end result of their actions. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Barnes.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barnes follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.028
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Courson.
STATEMENT OF STEVE COURSON
Mr. Courson. First of all, it's really a privilege to be
asked to be here to talk to you people today. I come from a
very unusual background in this dilemma that we're talking
about. I've been a professional athlete, arguably part of one
of the greatest football teams in NFL history; a strength
athlete, steroid user, high school coach; and I have also given
hundreds of steroid prevention seminars in high schools, junior
high schools and colleges.
What we're looking at is a very unpleasant reality of
modern sport. It is something that I believe is as much
societal as anything else.
When we talk about the health effects of these drugs, I
myself have had some heart problems. I was on a heart
transplant list for 3\1/2\ years, so I've had time to
contemplate some of my discussions very deeply, and fortunately
through diet and exercise, I have been able to completely
reverse the symptoms of my illness. But when we talk about
health effects, even my health effects and my heart problems,
one of the problems is our lack of long-term research. And Lyle
Alzado, former Oakland Raiders star, and myself, I am very
suspicious of anabolic steroids' relationship to my illness,
and I will tell you why.
If you understand heart disease, extreme heavy body weights
are a heart risk factor, and I feel some of the body weights in
professional sports today, some of these people are going to be
facing some serious health consequences later in life,
especially if they don't lose weight once they get done
playing.
I would also like to talk about the health effects that
affect children in particular. Stunting of linear bone growth
is probably the No. 1 thing that I talk about when I do
seminars to kids. We've seen the statistics among 8th-graders;
we're talking some studies saying 80,000 8th-graders. If you've
ever looked at the faces of 8th-graders and try to imagine the
fact that they're taking steroids, it's a very sobering
experience.
As far as the NFL goes, anabolic steroid use, to the best
of our knowledge, started back in the 1960's. In the 1970's, it
is probably fair to say that every team had a certain amount of
anabolic steroid use. At this time this was a result of the
competitive aspects of football, the fact that people were
looking for an advanced training way to make themselves better,
bigger, faster and stronger. Again, I can't underline the
competitive nature of the sport, it's just the way it is.
But I think what the NFL has done, and to their credit,
Bill Fralic and the NFL Players Association in 1989 approached
Commissioner Rozelle and they approached Commissioner Tagliabue
about instituting random drug testing in sport. And the NFL
responded, creating the most stringent policy of testing in
professional sports as we know it. The question is, is it
enough? And I think the BALCO investigation has shown us that
there are holes in drug testing, as there are holes with the
example of the Carolina Panthers. These we need to work to
close.
When it gets down to adolescence, when you think about
dealing with this, I would like to be solution-oriented. I
think there are things that we can do to help the adolescent
problem. I think, No. 1, we need to develop a uniform high
school steroid policy that everybody follows. I think No. 2, we
need research on improving drug detection, research on long-
term health effects. And I would also basically encourage
legislation to prevent the nonmedical use of genetic
engineering and gene doping before it becomes a problem.
I'd like to end with one statement. I've given hundreds of
lectures and seminars in schools, and the most asked question I
get from kids at the end of my seminars is--far and away what
they ask me the most--they ask me, do I think I could have made
it in the NFL without drugs, and I think that should tell us a
lot. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you all for your very honest and helpful
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Courson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.032
Mr. Shays. Dr. Goldberg.
STATEMENT OF LINN GOLDBERG
Dr. Goldberg. Mr. Vice Chairman and committee members, I am
honored to participate in this important hearing. I am
professor of medicine at the Oregon Health and Science
University, and codeveloper of the NIDA-sponsored drug
prevention and health promotion programs entitled ATLAS and
ATHENA for young athletes.
Over 50 percent of students participate in school sports,
and many feel pressured to perform at a high level. The CDC
reports approximately 1 million adolescents have used or are
using anabolic steroids, and the latest University of Michigan
data reveals past-year steroid use among 12th-graders has never
been higher.
As you've heard, steroid use can have significant harmful
effects, including stunted height for growing adolescents;
cardiovascular, kidney, liver disease; clotting disorders; and
tumor growth. There can be devastating psychological
disturbances, and, for females, usually lead to permanent
development of male characteristics.
Research has shown certain factors promote or prevent
adolescent use of anabolic steroids. Because factors vary by
age and gender, a prevention cannot be a one-size-fits-all
approach. Those influences include behaviors of high-profile
athletes, media images in advertisements, and, most important,
family, peer and coach attitudes and practices. Because teenage
habits cluster, those who use steroids are more likely to use
alcohol and other drugs.
With professional and Olympic athletes, what they do does
matter. When Ben Johnson broke the 100-meter world record at
the Seoul Olympics, teen athletes reported that Johnson's use
of steroids positively influenced them to use these drugs in
the future. After Mark McGwire's use of steroid precursor
androstenedione was publicized, identification with Mr. McGwire
was strongly associated with intended use of that steroid
hormone. At the same time, reports revealed quadrupling of
andro sales, and national data showed steroid use to increase
among America's youth.
Professional sports policies can influence performance-
enhancing drug use. While the NFL does have a strong in-season
steroid policy and exemplary lab to perform tests, the
unfairness of its preseason consequences which allow athletes
to continue participating while on steroids and lack of draft
status impact when an athlete tests positive combined could
encourage others to use drugs to enhance their chances to make
an NFL team. Furthermore, the lack of game-day testing and the
short list of stimulants are weaknesses in the policy.
Images influence behavior as well. Each children's toy,
from GI Joe figures to comic strip characters, have had
makeovers reflecting unrealistic muscular body types. The
blatant advertising tactic using the term ``on steroids'' used
to market products from automobiles to running shoes is a
strategy suggesting that their product is so superb, it's
similar to being on steroids. No other drug would be used in
this egregious fashion.
Some coaches and administrators deny this problem exists.
When we surveyed coaches about the use of steroids among their
athletes, their response was, ``Not in my school.'' Coaches
reported that steroid use occurred, but only at other schools.
Recently a mother who reported learning of steroid use at a
Texas school was derided by the coach. School officials did
nothing until nine athletes confessed to use. A Connecticut
high school football coach said he feared pressure on his
football players was causing some to make unhealthy choices.
Last month six athletes in his school, including those on the
championship football team, were arrested for steroid use and
distribution. Despite this, the school superintendent said,
``This is not something I believe is a problem on our football
team.''
So how can drug use in teen sports be prevented? In
addition to drug-free role models and national campaigns, there
needs to be a local approach to provide schools with the
necessary tools. With NIDA funding and working with dedicated
coaches and students, we created and studied the ATLAS and
ATHENA programs. These gender-specific, peer-taught and coach-
directed programs help students discover how to achieve their
athletic goals using sports nutrition and strength training,
and how to avoid steroids and other health-harming substances.
We found ATLAS and ATHENA-trained students reduced their
performance-enhancing drug use, including steroids; reduced
alcohol and illicit drugs; lowered drinking and driving; and
enhanced health behaviors.
Last October, Congress amended the Controlled Substances
Act, listing ATLAS and ATHENA as national models. Although
funding for steroid education is present in that 2004 act,
those funds have yet to be appropriated.
School sports provide an opportunity to influence health
behavior. Deterring steroid use and other use requires
exemplary role models, insightful school administrators,
educated coaches and science-based programs that are proven to
work. This will create a positive team environment and promote
healthy, well-adjusted young athletes for the future.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Dr. Goldberg.
[Note.--The pictures are on file with the committee.]
[The prepared statement of Dr. Goldberg follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.038
Chairman Tom Davis. Dr. Wadler.
STATEMENT OF GARY I. WADLER
Dr. Wadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome this
opportunity to appear again before this committee as you
further explore the issue of performance-enhancing drugs in
professional sports and its impact on the youth of America.
I am especially privileged to appear on this panel with two
other physicians with whom I have collaborated in the past and
for whom I have the highest regard, Dr. John Lombardo and Dr.
Linn Goldberg.
As you may recall my credentials in antidoping, I represent
the United States as an unpaid member of the World Ant-Doping
Agency's Prohibited List and Methods Committee.
Last month, both in my prepared statements and in response
to questions by this committee, I addressed a number of
deficiencies that exist in Major League Baseball's drug policy.
Today I would like to explore with you some observations
concerning the policy of the National Football League. Before I
do so, I would like to state that, in my view, the NFL's drug
policy is the most comprehensive of the four major professional
sports leagues in the United States. But that does not mean
there is no room for improvement. And I am confident that the
National Football League and the National Football League
Players Association would agree with me on that point.
For years the NFL's program has closely paralleled that of
the Olympics, and for that I commend them. However, since 1999,
the antidoping landscape has undergone a sea change, especially
with the establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA],
and with the adoption of the World Anti-Doping Code.
In the past 6 years, we have witnessed unprecedented
changes of antidoping initiatives around the world. Now, as
evidenced by these hearings, it's time for the major
professional sports leagues in the United States to follow
suit.
Many of the best elements of the historic Olympic
antidoping programs have been incorporated into the World Anti-
Doping Code. Similarly, many of the successful and innovative
elements, the core of the current National Football League
program, should be preserved and integrated into a more
contemporary policy. As I articulated during the Major League
Baseball hearings, it is my belief that the World Code and its
international standards should serve as the backbone of
enhanced policies and programs in professional sports. The
World Code is the gold standard.
I fully recognize that the NFL's current policy is not only
a product of the league's unique history on antidoping, but it
also is a result of the collective bargaining process. That
being said, having the World Anti-Doping Code as the backbone
of the enhanced NFL policy would only serve to further NFL's
commitment to antidoping.
Having participated in the drafting of the World Code and
its list of prohibited substances, both of which I distributed
to this committee when I last appeared, I would like to
emphasize there can be no shortcuts in documenting the league's
antidoping policies, technical standards, or list of prohibited
substance and methods. Simply stated, a detailed and very
detailed written policy as exemplified by the World Code is in
the best interest of both the players and the league.
Recognizing the delicate balance that exists between drug-free
sport and the protection of athletes' rights, there can be no
room for ambiguity and misinterpretation as doping cases are
adjudicated.
Time does not permit me to detail all the specific issues I
believe need to be addressed in the NFL's current policy;
therefore, I will highlight but a few, and I'm sure others will
surface during the questions and answers that follow this
panel's opening statements.
With respect to the prohibited list, I believe the NFL and
other major sports should adopt WADA's list as their own.
Regarding the NFL's current list, I would like to direct your
attention to the section entitled ``Certain Stimulants'' on
page 12 of the 2004 National Football League Policy and
Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances, hereinafter ``the
Steroid Policy.''
As you may recall, I expressed serious concern that Major
League Baseball had omitted stimulants such as amphetamines
from its list of prohibited substances. In my judgment, the
NFL's steroid policy, as it relates to stimulants, also needs
to be revisited and revised. For example, the policy tends to
omit the strongest stimulants such as amphetamine, yet it
includes substances such as the very mild stimulant synephrine,
which still remains categorized as a dietary supplement in the
United States. In fact, of the eight stimulants prohibited by
the NFL in its 2004 steroid policy, two are not banned by the
World Anti-Doping Agency, while two others are only prohibited
while consumed in large quantities.
It is odd that the NFL policy groups these weak stimulants
together with anabolic steroids, potentially subjecting an
athlete to a four-game suspension for taking them. By contrast,
WADA prohibits more than 40 stimulants, most of which are more
potent as performance-enhancing drugs than the stimulants
banned by the NFL's 2004 steroid policy.
Furthermore, unlike the NFL's steroid policy, WADA only
bans stimulants in competition because of their short duration
of action. However, recognizing that certain stimulants such as
methamphetamine, cocaine and ecstasy are clearly drugs of abuse
and are not used to enhance performance, compelling arguments
can be made to treat those stimulants as drugs of abuse.
Offenders would face different consequences as set forth in
the NFL's other drug policy entitled the 2004 policy and
program for substances of abuse.
However, the converse is also true. That is, if a
particular stimulant is primarily used as a performance-
enhancing drug, it should be so categorized and its abuse
should carry the same sanctions that are associated with the
use of other performance-enhancing drugs.
Another subject worthy of consideration by the NFL is the
concept of therapeutic-use exemptions. WADA has published an
international standard and established a process that allows
for precompetition approval for the use of a drug otherwise
deemed performance-enhancing. Under rigorous medical
supervision, this standard allows athletes with legitimate
medical needs to receive proper treatment without fear of a
failed drug test.
Currently, the NFL's steroid policy as I understand it
grants such approvals only after the fact. In my judgment, the
NFL should adopt WADA's therapeutic-use standard in its
entirety, thereby according greater clarity, transparency and
accountability.
Two additional subjects I would like to briefly address in
my opening statement relate to two anabolic agents,
testosterone and growth hormone. The recent revelations
regarding the use of testosterone by a number of Carolina
Panthers provides me with the opportunity to emphasize to this
committee that our limitations in antidoping in great measure
can be attributed to either, one, limitations of policy and/or
to, two, limitations of science. Currently, to test for doping
with testosterone, we employ the T/E ratio method, that is,
examining the ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone. The NFL
has recently revisited its standard and adopted one implemented
this year by WADA, effectively lowering the threshold for a
positive test from 6:1 to 4:1. This represents a change in
policy. The same subject, doping with testosterone, has also
been addressed by the development of alternative technology
that does not use a T/E ratio. This technology is called
isotope ratio mass spectrometry, and it represents a change in
science. As new drugs and methods appear that lend themselves
to doping, the challenges to both science and policy will
become all the greater.
As my statement draws to a close, I would like to strongly
encourage the NFL to implement blood testing, particularly for
the detection of growth hormone abuse. Sadly, growth hormone is
increasingly being marketed to young people on the Internet
from sources around the globe. This is an increasingly serious
health concern. Whether the abuse of growth hormone actually
increases strength, improves recovery time or just increases
one's size, there is a prevailing perception by users that it
is performance-enhancing. By implementing blood testing, the
National Football League can send a powerful message both to
its players and to its fans that such behavior is contrary to
the spirit of sport and represents a dangerous threat to the
public health.
Finally, I would like to reiterate that, in my opinion, the
complexity of antidoping does and will continue to exceed the
capacity of professional sports leagues to design, implement
and monitor an effective, transparent and accountable program.
Professional sports leagues should heed the experience of the
Olympic movement, which recognized its credibility was
compromised by doping. By passing the antidoping baton to WADA
and to national antidoping agencies like USADA, Olympic
organizers have been able to focus their attention on fielding
great events rather than on drug science and policy. With the
multidimensional problem of doping becoming increasingly
complex, with gene doping and sophisticated new drug delivery
systems lurking in the not-too-distant future, such a
proposition seems not only practical but inevitable. I look
forward to your questions and comments and thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wadler follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.048
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Dr. Lombardo.
STATEMENT OF JOHN LOMBARDO
Dr. Lombardo. I would like to thank Mr. Davis, Mr. Waxman,
Mr. Shays and the rest of the committee for giving me the
opportunity to speak today.
Since my graduation from medical school, I have had the
opportunity to work as a team physician at the high school,
collegiate and professional level, and I've served as an
adviser to the NCAA, the USOC and the NFL on various issues. As
a practicing physician for over 27 years, I have viewed
firsthand the problems with the trends and issues concerning
performance-enhancing drugs and substances by athletes and
nonathletes of all ages. I appreciate the opportunity to share
my thoughts with you concerning these performance-enhancing
substances and the NFL's role in decrying and deterring their
use within the league and by all athletes and nonathletes of
any age. There is a segment of our society who searches for the
quick fix, fast-food answer and the magic pill to cure all our
ills. They want to overcome all their obstacles and genetic
deficiencies with some type of pill or medication. Winning is
the only goal that satisfies these people, they are prepared to
win at all costs, and to them, the end justifies the means. My
judgment and education has told me that the end-justifies-the-
means philosophy leads to chaos, and that's where it will lead.
Performance-enhancing substances can be a staple in such an
environment. With the popularity of athletes at all levels and
the rewards to be gained, increasing adulation among friends,
family, fans and the media, the use of performance-enhancing
substances by athletes can be very understandable.
However, the use of these substances does not affect only
the one person that uses them. These are coercive. By that I
mean that if one person takes these substances, they force
other people in order to compete with them to take them also.
That is the real problem with these drugs. It is their coercive
nature and the way they force people to do things that they
otherwise do not want to do.
On the other side, there are risks to being exposed as a
cheater, being sanctioned, losing a medal or facing adverse
effects from these drugs. These may very well pale in
comparison to the young athlete or any athlete to the potential
positive rewards that the athlete sees. Although we may all
understand the athlete's choice to use these substances and the
reason they do it, we can never allow this to become an
acceptable procedure. The adverse medical effects of anabolic
steroid use can be seen in a number of systems. They affect the
cardiovascular system, the immune system, the musculoskeletal
system, the reproductive system and psychologically. Groups
such as adolescents and women have additional specific adverse
effects or consequences in addition to the general adverse
effects. In adolescents specifically, these general effects can
be intensified and magnified by their use of the steroids. If
you look at youth, there are many influences on the youth and
on our young athletes. These include the leaders in various
fields, entertainers, athletes, parents, coaches, peers, older
friends and schoolmates. It is difficult to say whether the
reported actions of a professional athlete, the pressure of
parents and coaches to succeed or the examples of older
teammates or friends are the major influences on the use of
performance-enhancing substances. They all are influences.
Another important issue with adolescent steroid use is the
significant percentage of nonathletes who use steroids not for
a competive edge but to attain the well-developed, muscular
look. This is not only young men but young women also who are
less likely to be influenced by anything that a professional
athlete or college athlete does or by anything that is
sanctioned by some world agency or any league.
Human growth hormone is another issue that has presented
itself to us, and it sets a new set of problems. Human growth
hormone, which is not a controlled substance as are anabolic
steroids, is widely available through America on the Internet,
through prescriptions by physicians, shipped across borders to
institutions, companies and to individuals. The obtained
substances may be human growth hormone or may be some
counterfeit substance. There are anecdotal reports of the use
of human growth hormone by athletes including NFL players.
Light may be shed on these reports through ongoing
investigations. However, attempts by us and other organizations
to assess the scope of human growth hormone use have yielded
little data and clarity. When compared to the effectiveness of
anabolic steroids, the efficacy of human growth hormone to
performance enhancement is not as well accepted either
scientifically or anecdotally among athletes. More importantly,
when it comes to human growth hormone, the adverse effect
profile of this substance is severe. It can have a severe
effect on the heart, liver, spleen, kidneys and other organs
and systems. The credibility of the medical and scientific
community, lost early on the steroid issue, is dependent upon
accurate information, on effectiveness and adverse effects.
Care must be taken not to give inaccurate information
concerning human growth hormone.
With steroids, the adverse effects are real and could be
severe. But the incidence is low and may occur later in life.
This can be a potential problem that the users don't see these
problems in other people, only the positive effects. To combat
this issue, a multipronged approach must be used. A program
must be developed that has a policy which is accepted by all
involved parties and which defines the goals of the policy, the
banned drugs and the other parts of the program. There must be
an educational component which includes education about the
drugs and the policy, testing, discipline and the availability
of assistance to those who have medical and psychological
problems. Testing is a major weapon in the arsenal of drug
abuse. The amount of testing must be sufficient so that the
athlete does not know when the test may occur. The test must be
sensitive enough to identify the banned substances, and the
discipline must be severe enough to make it undesirable for the
athlete. I do not believe the number of positives is a good
indicator of a successful program as is the number of repeat
offenders. When this number is low, it reflects an
understanding on the part of the players that the consequences
of use, loss of pay, loss of playing time, other embarrassment
to themselves and their family outweighs the benefit of use.
The NFL's policy on anabolic steroids represents a
cooperative effort between the NFL and the players association.
The policy is founded on three important principles. The
maintenance of the integrity of the competition, a level
playing field and protecting the health and safety of the
players, while most importantly setting an appropriate example
for our Nation's youth. All the elements of an efficient, fair
and adaptable program are present. These include: unannounced
annual and random testing both in and out of competition,
players are eligible to be tested at any time throughout the
year; stringent and exacting collection procedures, state-of-
the-art analytical procedures using the same laboratories that
are used by other testing programs including WADA; a
comprehensive list of prohibited substances, masking agents and
methods; strict liability standards for violations; and a
mandatory suspension without pay upon first violation.
Throughout the past 15 years, all aspects of the NFL's
policy have been regularly reevaluated by the NFL and the NFL
Players Association in consultation with a variety of leading
experts, and changes have been made to maintain a thorough and
effective program. This is achieved by monitoring the latest
scientific and technological advances; investigating reports of
use patterns and new substances; and acting quickly to make
appropriate changes when the evidence supports them. The policy
works because the leadership of the NFL and the NFL Players
Association view themselves as guardians of the game of
football and accept all the responsibilities which accompany
this role.
Without reservation, I am proud of my involvement with the
NFL's steroid policy and have every belief that it will
continue to be among the best and most effective in sports.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lombardo follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.078
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Dr. Finkle.
STATEMENT OF BRYAN S. FINKLE
Dr. Finkle. Thank you, Chairman Davis, Mr. Waxman and
members of the committee.
I, too, very much appreciate the opportunity to participate
in today's hearing, and I certainly applaud the committee's
interest in the NFL's steroid testing program and its potential
for adverse impacts on the young people of the United States.
By way of brief background, I am a scientist. For more than
40 years, I have been a forensic toxicologist with a continuing
experience in toxicology of substance abuse and at least 20
years of involvement in sport antidoping toxicology. My
association with the National Football League's steroid policy
dates from its inception, some 12, 13 years ago. Currently I
serve as the chief forensic toxicologist for the National
Football League's steroid performance-enhancing drug program,
also the substance-abuse program, for which I have been jointly
selected by both the league and the National Football League
Players Association. I am responsible for all technical aspects
of the programs, including oversight of the laboratory
performance, quality control and interpretation of test
results.
I also provide support to the substance-abuse treatment
program and manage research studies designed to evaluate new
analytical technology and ways to improve testing. The NFL's
steroid policy is a carefully crafted, thoughtfully negotiated
program which is designed to detect and prevent substance use
and abuse. It has evolved over more than 10, in fact almost 13
years to its present level of sophistication. Importantly, the
policy is a living document. It is one that requires mutual
effort and agreement of the league, the players association,
the players themselves and the teams. The laboratory analysis
of urine specimens for which I am responsible to detect
prohibited drugs and their metabolites is just one essential
part of an overall comprehensive program. It cannot stand
alone. Analysis not only can accurately identify drugs that are
being used but acts as a deterrent, creating the risk of being
detected and the adverse consequences that occur as a result to
those who might otherwise wish or attempt to cheat.
Scientifically, the program features an extensive testing
protocol which is followed rigidly involving detailed
procedures for specimen collection, defined analytical methods
and blindfolded control processes. These practices follow
closely, very closely, those recommended by the World Anti-
Doping Agency and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, and I am
confident that they would satisfy any reasonable review.
Importantly, through periodic review of these methods and
processes, systematic improvements have been made to the
program over the last several years. This flexibility for
program assessment and policy change is a very important
feature of the NFL's programs.
For example, working with scientists at the UCLA Olympic
laboratory, we have taken advantage of new and refined
techniques for detecting many new substances and have
introduced new forms of testing to assist the detection of
exogenous testosterone use. In addition, we routinely consult
with a variety of outside experts to assist us in addressing
specific concerns. This happened when the concern came up with
the effects of ephedrine use on heat and hydration issues
associated and also with growth hormone. While the range of
substances specifically banned by the NFL is less extensive
than WADA, the NFL prohibited list is designed specifically for
football. Unlike WADA, which is responsible for monitoring use
in perhaps as many as 100 diverse different sports across the
world year round, the NFL monitors a relatively small
population of athletes with common characteristics. They are
young males with exceptional strength and speed. And we monitor
drugs that influence their performance goals.
Accordingly, the program as designed is based upon the
intelligence and experience gained within the last 10 years and
is tailored to meet the league's goals of protecting the health
of its athletes and preserving the integrity of the sport. The
NFL banned list is wide ranging. It is continuously reviewed
and frequently revised. The testing of these substances
requires exacting forensic and scientific standards.
Currently, however, there is only one WADA certified
laboratory in the United States--that is the Olympic laboratory
at UCLA--that can routinely meet these standards of practice.
In order to address the need for additional laboratory
capability and capacity, the NFL has joined the U.S. Anti-
Doping Agency to fund the development of a new laboratory. It
is the Sports Medicine Research and Testing Laboratory located
at the University of Utah. When fully operational next year, it
is anticipated it will be WADA certified and will work in close
collaboration with the Olympic lab at UCLA. It will have the
most up-to-date instruments and technology and will be staffed
by experienced analysts and toxicologists. In addition to
testing, a primary function of the laboratory will be to
conduct sponsored research studies to broaden our understanding
of performance-enhancing substances and to develop new
analytical methods. It will also be available to assist other
sports programs.
The NFL's collaboration with USADA to fund testing and
research is unique in the United States and is evidence of its
serious intent to address steroid and other substance abuse
issues as they affect the health of athletes and the sport. So,
in summary, for the past 15 years, the NFL has had a
comprehensive testing program for the detection of steroids and
other performance-enhancing substances. It is founded on the
best science and technology and is bolstered by the continuing
cooperation of the league and the players association. Overall,
it represents a proactive effort to eliminate the use and
associated health risks of performance-enhancing substances
from its sport.
I would like to add just a couple of sentences based on
something we've already heard this morning. Let me emphasize
for the committee, since I have the responsibility,
amphetamines, methamphetamine and its analogs, are strictly
banned by the NFL, and they are tested for routinely in our
programs. Their use is illegal without a prescription. Team
physicians act responsibly in these matters. The inventories of
amphetamine type drugs that are available on prescription to
teams is audited and supervised. There is some doubt in
football from a pharmacological-toxicological point of view
whether amphetamines are indeed performance-enhancing, but they
are certainly misused and abused as substances of abuse, and we
test for them. We test for them also in the window. Someone
mentioned game day. It is possible on occasion to test on game
day, but in any event, we test within the window of time that
would allow us to detect the use of these substances in a
carefully designed program. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Finkle follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.082
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
I want to thank all of you very much. Let me start with the
coaches. How prevalent is steroid use? Each of you have had
some experience with your players. How prevalent is it, and
where do they get it?
I will start with you, Coach Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. Mr. Chairman, again, I've only had two
instances where I've detected steroid use. Other than that,
pretty much nil.
Chairman Tom Davis. Do you have any idea where they got it?
Mr. Stewart. Not really. Because, again, both young men
denied even taking the steroids. So I have no idea where they
got their hands on it. But I would say probably--they were both
weight lifters. They lifted weights on a regular basis. So I
presume they got them around the weight lifters they were
participating with.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Barnes, any idea?
Mr. Barnes. Yes, we know where our kids got their steroids.
They admitted to that in our meetings that we had. They went to
Rocky Point in Mexico, which is close of course to where our
proximity is, and were able to buy them freely. There was just
a story that I saw on television, I don't remember which one it
was, that talked about they even have doctors down there that
give prescriptions if they want to try to make it look as legal
as possible. That's all they do is give prescriptions for
steroids and illegal drugs. It's freely purchased there.
Chairman Tom Davis. How many players did you have to
discipline in the end?
Mr. Barnes. We had 10 that were removed from our football
team in that first year as a head coach. That was quite an
experience for me.
Chairman Tom Davis. How did the other kids react to it? Did
they get the message?
Mr. Barnes. Well, the other kids were just like our whole
community. This was a difficult situation. We all have to
remember that we were on the front end of exposure nationwide.
I know that there's been steroids long before this happened to
our high school. But it hasn't come to the forefront from a
media standpoint as often as it has in the past year or 2
years. So suddenly our school became popular, and this of
course has created a difficult situation for our community
because the parents are tired of the media attention that
they've gotten. At the same time, I think that we have a lot of
parents that understand the importance of what happened and the
ramifications. There are many parents that are going to be very
unhappy that I'm here.
Chairman Tom Davis. They need to understand you're here
under subpoena.
Mr. Barnes. Yes, they understand.
Chairman Tom Davis. I don't think it's a reflection on your
community. In fact, you handled it right. You probably did more
to prevent it.
Mr. Barnes. We have many people that are proud of the fact
that we took a problem and did something with it. It's not just
those that are upset with the way that we handled it. There are
things that happened that it's probably not important to this
committee because it's our own internal little problem of how
things were handled. For instance, parents were very upset
that, when I did the interview process to get them to tell the
truth, that they weren't allowed to be a part of the process.
We could speak on that forever. But the bottom line is, you
know, there's a lot of energy being spent where parents I think
need to be talked to about enabling their kids by saying, you
know, that's not the problem, what you did, the problem is the
way they wouldn't let us come in there. That energy that's
being spent, I think, could be better spent on making our kids
understand that their health was at risk here.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Courson, you had a very successful NFL career,
including playing for a Super Bowl championship team, and
you've been very open about your steroid use during your
playing days. Could you try to elaborate on the steroids you
used, the health problems you suffered as a result?
Mr. Courson. As far as my heart health problems, again,
that's very unclear. My doctors, we don't know. I've always
said that I believe that they contributed to my health
problems, and the reason I state that is, if you understand
heart disease at all, increased body mass is a risk factor.
That's just a common understanding with heart disease. The
thing that I experienced from the short-term standpoint was the
increased aggressiveness. The thing I guess that was the most
addicting aspect for me about them as a former user was the way
they enhanced my training. In other words, you almost develop a
love-hate relationship. You love what they do for your
training, but you hate compromising yourself to gain the
advantage from a drug.
Chairman Tom Davis. But it did give you a considerable
advantage, didn't it?
Mr. Courson. That is probably the most difficult aspect
from a competitive standpoint with this dilemma for athletes in
general. They work. And they work dramatically well.
Chairman Tom Davis. Is it possible to get the same level of
achievement through ordinary means without taking steroids?
Mr. Courson. All things being equal, someone who's
genetically blessed, the drugs will always provide an example.
You cannot train to the same degree. You can make tremendous
gains without them, but the person who's using, everything
being equal, is always going to have the advantage, in my
opinion.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. And thank you for sharing
your story with us.
Dr. Goldberg, you mentioned in your testimony that the
Atlas and Athena programs have been effective and successful in
promoting healthy lifestyles and preventing steroid use. How
many high schools are currently implementing either Atlas or
the Athena programs, and have they been adopted by high schools
nationwide? And why aren't more schools using the program?
Dr. Goldberg. Good questions. First, there are about 60
schools, I believe, across the country and more are doing it.
We just had 100 curricula purchased in Texas. We're going to
Connecticut in 2 weeks for 60 coaches. I was just in Ohio last
week with another 15. I think part of the hearings that you've
had has increased and highlighted this problem. Dr. Elliott and
I are professors of medicine, and we're not really marketing
the program, so really people have to look at the model
programs list to see whether they want it or not. We
implemented it in five schools in Nashville, TN, 2 months ago.
So there is an increase, but that is coming more in dribs.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all the members of this panel. I think your
testimony has been very, very helpful. I do have some
questions, and I want to pursue them.
Mr. Courson, I guess my bottom line question to you is, in
your judgment, can players evade the current testing system?
And if that is so, that leads to a lot of other questions for
you and the doctors. But what is your opinion of that?
Mr. Courson. Well, I've written and stated publicly since
1988 about the various loopholes in drug testing. Obviously, we
all know about growth hormone. We also know about low doses of
testosterone. The Balco investigation has probably exposed
probably the most dangerous threat to drug testing yet, and
that's designer drugs. When you alter--basically when you alter
the molecular structure of a drug where you render it
undetectable, undetectable means undetectable, and that is a
real challenge for Mr. Blotner and his people without question.
Mr. Waxman. What changes would you recommend in order to
stop this kind of evasion?
Mr. Courson. Well, what I would do personally, if I were
boss for a day, what I would do is basically help the U.S.
antidoping commission as far as funding to improve the
technology, to basically deal with an ever-changing landscape.
That also means the threat of gene doping. That technology is
here. It's a matter of what we call the diffusion of
innovation. Who's going to be brave enough to try it?
Mr. Waxman. What percent of the football players,
professional football players do you think are using steroids
today?
Mr. Courson. That would be very hard for me to determine.
First of all, I've been out of the game for 20 years. I'm not
around those guys. I don't train with them. But we do know
that, of course, drug testing has loopholes. We do know the
intense pressure that players are under. I think the NFL is
doing the best job that they can do with the technology at
hand.
But, then again, when you look at the size of players
today; diet and training hasn't really changed. So it would
lead me to believe that it's out there, and that it is
prevalent. To what degree, I don't think we'll ever know,
especially when you recognize the individual and institutional
denial associated with the use of these drugs.
Mr. Waxman. The NFL reported in the last 5 years that less
than 1 percent of players have tested positive for steroids. On
the other hand, some people are saying they are evading them,
as you think along those same lines. Former Olympic antidoping
official Robert Voy estimated in 2001 that one-third of NFL
players were using steroids. And current broadcaster and former
Kansas City Chief Bill Maas recently suggested that use has
increased to levels above those in the 1980's before the league
had a policy in place. Does that sound like an overestimation
to you?
Mr. Courson. Would it surprise me? No. Do I know that? Can
I quantify that or qualify that? No. I wouldn't be able to say
simply because, again, I'm not around those players. But, then
again, we have to recognize the fact that line of scrimmages
are bigger than ever. And I think--to be honest with you, I
think one thing the NFL may want to consider--and I know the
league is not going to want to hear this--but maybe a weight
limit in time.
Mr. Waxman. A what?
Mr. Courson. A weight limit in time, especially with
genetic engineering around the corner.
Mr. Waxman. What do the doctors think about these points
that Mr. Courson has raised?
Dr. Lombardo.
Dr. Lombardo. I think, on the aspect of size, I think you
have to look at the players. If we have a problem in the NFL,
it's the same problem we have with the youth and with society
in general. It's called morbid obesity. The game changed. I was
a team physician for Ohio State for 14 years. In those years, I
watched the linemen change from lean, fast people to people who
were fairly big, fairly heavy, extremely heavy, somewhat obese,
because the nature of the game changed.
The Pittsburgh Steeler line of the seventies that Mr.
Courson played on played a different type of football. If you
watch the way the game is played at the line of scrimmage, they
have big people who just get in the way and move people a
little bit, and that's the name of the game. It has gone all
the way down to high school. If you look at the McDonald's high
school all American team or the Parade high school all American
team in the line, they all average over 300 pounds. So this is
not something that happens and blossoms when they arrive in the
NFL. This is a problem all through football and the game of
football and the way it has changed. In order to combat that,
the people on the other side of the ball have to have just the
same amount of mass to hold the line of scrimmage.
Mr. Waxman. I guess the question I would have of you, and
if others can comment on it in whatever time I may have
available, is this just a natural phenomenon or is this the use
of drugs? We don't see 300-pound roly poly players. We see 300-
pound pretty strong, muscular players. So the number of
football players that are much larger than the past is clear.
Dr. Lombardo. I'm not so certain that you see the 300-pound
muscular players as much as you would think as much as the 300-
pound roly poly players. I think we need to look at the body
fat level of the players, and either one of us would be deemed
to be correct on that. But I do think that's a potential,
whether it's drug use or whether it's the nature of the game.
If it is, like I said, these previous players arrive in the
league at 300 pounds, they don't come in the league and then
become 300 pounds. As far as the percentage of the people who
use drugs, I think anybody's estimate is what I call the
guesstimates of people, because they have no idea what the
percentage of drug use is in the league, and I would never
hazard a guess as to what the percentage of drug use is in the
league. I just know that the testing we use is the same
testing, same analytic procedure, everything the exact same as
used by WADA and every other doping agency. So, therefore, if
there's a problem, it's a problem that's science-wise and not
just program-wise.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you.
Because my time is just about out, Dr. Wadler, do you
believe this testing regime that NFL has is stringent enough
for amphetamines and other stimulants?
Dr. Wadler. I think I need to clarify that, and perhaps the
NFL could clarify that. They actually have two drug policies as
I understand it. They have a drug abuse policy which deals
basically with what we might consider recreational drugs. Then
they have their steroid policy which deals with the sanctions
and penalties as opposed to treatment. The first one, as I
understand it, is to get people help if they have a problem
with methamphetamines and things of that sort. As I understand
it, the steroid policy which lists the eight stimulants is
inadequate because those are not the stimulants we see in terms
of performance-enhancing drug abuse. There we're talking 40,
50, at least. In fact, as we sit here this morning, there's a
meeting going on in Montreal that they have devoted to just
what stimulants should be on the list. So that amphetamines, in
my view, and the related stimulants belong together with the
other performance-enhancing drugs and should be dealt with with
those consequences, because the use of those drugs are for
treating, they're for gaining unfair athletic advantage. People
who have problems with MDMA, ecstasy, meth and so on, that's a
different issue. So I think it needs greater clarity. And it
may be true. There's a consequence if you're caught in this
policy or that policy but if we're talking about performance-
enhancing drugs, the policy as it is written is inadequate. It
really does not address those stimulants which enhance
performance or are thought to enhance performance for which
there should be significant sanctions.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Thanks. I have a number of questions, but I
want to followup directly on that one. Dr. Finkle also said he
didn't believe that amphetamines may actually work as a
stimulant in football, and you just used the phrase that people
may think work. Do you believe they do or don't, or could you
enlighten us a little on that?
Dr. Lombardo. First of all, the basis for something being
on the list doesn't mean it necessarily works. There's a
question whether growth hormone actually works. So that has
never been a sole criteria. We use actually three criteria. The
potential to enhance performance, the risk to health and
violating the spirit of sport. In terms of amphetamines, there
is a long history going back about amphetamine use in sports.
Certainly, we know about it in baseball. We talked about it
previously. Its effects, for example, increased arousal,
increased alertness, increased reaction time, increased eye-
hand coordination, weight reduction. I can go on. They mask
fatigue. They mask pain. They have been a quintessential drug
for years in sports. The first reported deaths ever in
competitive athletics were two cyclists in the sixties from
heat illness from taking amphetamines. The ultimate question of
whether there's debate as to how effective they are I really
think is misdirecting the nature of the discussion. That is not
the criteria.
Mr. Souder. Let me say, for a lack of a better word, a
super Notre Dame hotdog, that I'll take a couple of 280-pound
guys that can block Michigan as opposed to a rolly polly 300-
pound guy. But let me ask this fundamental question, are you in
effect saying, any of you, and I have another question, I'd
just like somebody to react to this, that often you hear an
athlete comes out of high school, and they haven't had the
correct weight training going into college. Usually the 300-
pound guys are already there. If they can play in the NFL,
they're there in college, that you can't get up to 300 pounds
with going to year-round weight training using things that are
legal and that you have to use an illegal substance? In other
words, is weight not really a criteria here? It's just if it's
sudden, if it's out of the size characteristic that body might
be able to carry or is this something over 4 years you can
actually buildup and change your body structure through legal
substances that aren't a danger to your health other than that
you may become obese later on in life if you don't readjust?
Dr. Lombardo. I think if everybody would just go back to
the time when they were 17 and think of the weight and size you
were when you graduated high school, or 18, and think of what
you graduated college at, and then what you are right now. Your
body undergoes tremendous change all through your life.
Probably the single biggest time of change is as you go through
puberty and as you go up to about the age of 22 which is why
you see a lot of times people come in as freshmen, they're big,
they may be soft, and they firm up a little bit and gain
weight. Part of that is the natural weight gain you're going to
get with proper nutrition and with weight training. So you can
get up to that point without the use of drugs. I firmly believe
you can, if that's the goal and that's the place you want to
be.
Mr. Souder. In fact, one of the challenges of competitive
sports is that, in anything highly competitive, you kind of
distort your body characteristics. I think it's fairly safe to
say that most Members of Congress, if they weren't ADD before
they became Members of Congress, they developed those
characteristics after they're in. That we certainly have
certain things that we have to get much more fine tuned. An
athlete who's a runner is going to get his leg muscles
disproportionate to the rest of his body if he's going to work
his legs aggressively. The question is, are you cheating or
doing things that are inordinately damaging to your health that
aren't recoverable and where are those lines? The implication
here was, is that it can't be done naturally and what you just
said as I understood it was that there is a logical body
weight, but we're obviously going to push these guys past their
logical body weight. It's how far can you go for how long and
how do you do that and in that type of question as far as
testing.
I want to make sure I get this question in to Dr. Finkle.
Do you believe the problem was much greater before your policy
went in?
Dr. Finkle. Yes, without question. I was first involved
with the National Football League as a consultant during
Commissioner Rozelle's time in the 1980's, and it was freely
known and acknowledged and addressed during the last years of
his tenure as commissioner that there was a very serious
problem and health problem. He set in motion, it was picked up
by Commissioner Tagliabue when he came into office, to address
that problem. So absolutely the problem was much worse a
generation ago, and it is under control now. It is not perfect.
We still have serious problems, but it is under control now.
Mr. Souder. I want to ask this question. Last night on ESPN
Outside the Lines, Super Bowl XXX, 9 years ago, most valuable
player and Dallas Cowboys cornerback Larry Brown said he
believes that 40 percent of the players in today's NFL are
using steroids. He has been here long since the time that you
were. Do you believe that statement has any logic in fact? Is
it possible that 40 percent of the players could be getting
through? If you can just elaborate on that.
Dr. Finkle. Anything is possible, of course, but I'm a
scientist. I like to see data. In this world of substance abuse
and social issues, we're constantly faced with anecdotes,
stories, news stories. I'm not saying that the people who make
these statements don't believe them. I'm simply saying that,
when challenged, usually when challenged to produce the data or
the foundation for their opinion, it is sadly lacking. The
consequence of that is that I greet with great skepticism what
I read for the most part as off-the-cuff statements like that
unless I can see some data to support it. And I know of no such
data.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let's turn
to the issue of penalties. The NFL policy calls for a four-game
suspension for a first violation of the policy and a six-game
suspension for the second, each without pay. I understand that
these suspension periods are not insubstantial in light of the
relatively short career of NFL players. However, these
penalties are much lower than the standards currently in place
for Olympic athletes which require a 2-year ban for the first
violation and a lifetime ban, which I like, by the way, for the
second. Moreover, under the NFL's policy, players who test
positive during the preseason must serve their four-game
suspension during the regular season but are allowed to
practice and play with the team during the remainder of the
preseason.
Dr. Goldberg, do you think that the NFL should incorporate
the WADA penalty scheme into the policy for anabolic steroids
and related substances?
And then, I would like to know what you think, Dr. Wadler.
Dr. Goldberg. I have a little different opinion. If I were
the king and said that I wanted to try and erase anabolic
steroid use in any team sport, the Olympic model is a paradigm
for individual athletes. You've got swimmers, wrestlers,
boxers, track and field. And so the penalty goes to that
individual and rightly so. You've got a team, and sometimes
teams and team ownership can try to coddle a player, protect a
player. If you're going to really try to get at the heart of
the issue, I think, if I were king, that I would construct a
team penalty where it could impact on draft choices, where it
could impact on win-losses, and there would be a team penalty.
If there were a team penalty, then you would have--the
teammates would exert peer pressure on the other teammates who
were possibly users. You would also see management effect a
change among those individuals. So if I were the king and I
wanted to eliminate it, I think that would be the best way.
Mr. Cummings. While you're up there in the king's seat,
would you--let's hang right there. Would you also give a
penalty to the player?
Dr. Goldberg. Oh, absolutely. But I'm saying that, in a
team sport, which is a very different paradigm than an
individual sport which WADA is enforcing, and these are
makeshift teams when they're put together, when we have USA
Basketball or USA Baseball, they are diverse people and they're
not working together. But we have essentially a business in
baseball, football, basketball, then we're talking about a real
team, with management.
Mr. Cummings. I have to ask you this. You just said
something that was very interesting. You said the management or
whatever--I am not trying to put words in your mouth so you
correct me if I am wrong--tend to coddle players. What does
that mean?
Dr. Goldberg. I can just go back to my own experience with
a player who trained in our laboratory in the 1980's. He went
to his NFL team. He made the team, and then he called me up,
and he asked me about using steroids. I told him not to use
steroids. His wife called a few weeks later and told me she
found a bottle of steroids in the bathroom with his jersey
number on it. So that told me something about the use back
then. I know there have been changes. But often people try to
protect their own kids, parents, coaches, and there's a halo
around them. As I described when we talked about our coaches,
when we said, are kids using steroids on your team, they said,
not in our school, not on my team, but other teams are using
them. So I think that's sort of a natural habit to coddle, to
put a halo around the athletes that you deal with. And
sometimes you feel they wouldn't do that when in fact they are.
Mr. Cummings. Dr. Wadler.
Dr. Wadler. Yes. With respect to the world antidoping code,
there is a section on consequence to teams, article 11, which I
will not bore you with. But it does make provisions for target
testing where an individual team member tests positive. So
there is some provision for it. There's another element to this
which I think is worthy of at least some discussion. That deals
with the hearing process when one has a positive test. I
understand fully the nature of the collective bargaining
agreement between the players association and the union, but
there are sports--I cite men's professional tennis as an
example--using the WADA example whereby there is a process in
which the vested interests of management and the players have
an arm's distance relationship and the decisionmaking to go
through a hearing or an adjudication process. I think that
ought to be looked at. I certainly understand the complexities
of collective bargaining. But, for example, let me cite men's
professional tennis. I know they are going to appear before you
at some point. If management found a positive urine test in a
professional tennis player, that ultimately would go to a
tribunal independent of the management of the sport,
independent of the union of the sport and the experts in that
case, a doctor, a lawyer and a forensic scientist, would review
the evidence and make a decision. That would be the sanction.
It deals with the issue of any appearance of any other interest
that you may have been alluding to and removes it.
It's complicated and certainly complicated in the context
of collective bargaining, but I think it would enhance public
perception that everything is out in the open. I'm not
suggesting everything is not out in the open, but there is
always the perception. I think some of the questions today
alluded to the perception. Do we think it's going on? My answer
to that, by the way, it's what we think that doesn't matter.
It's what we know that matters. And what we know really has to
be embodied in a comprehensive testing program. That's why I
feel the world antidoping code is in fact the gold standard we
should use to find out the questions rather than speculation.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. Before they go, just one
other question for Dr. Lombardo.
In an AP article this morning, the chairman of WADA, Dick
Pound wonders that if 9-year-old girls are taking steroids just
to look good, then what are the odds that the enormous players
in the NFL are on steroids? That is a question he would like to
ask the NFL medical advisers, and since he couldn't be
attending, I'll ask it for him. With everybody doing the things
that are going on, why don't we catch more people?
Dr. Lombardo. I could turn that around to any testing
situation. Why doesn't any testing situation catch more people?
On the one hand, Mr. Cummings is talking about a zero tolerance
policy, stopping the use, eliminating the use. On the other
hand, you want to judge a program by the number of positives
that it has. I think there's a little contradiction there. And
I think that one of the things we have to look at is these
people are going to cheat. The majority of players that test
positive in the NFL have a reason that they are, that's the
only chance they have to make it in the league. That's the
reason. It's not the star players who are setting records, and
they're tested a phenomenal amount of times using the same
strict analytical procedures that Mr. Pound's organization
uses. We use the same analytical techniques. We use the same
labs. We use the same testing procedures, same collection
procedures, same substances and essentially come up with our
results. So, again, I do not think that the number of people
that are caught is an indicator of the prevalence of the
problem nor do I think it is an indicator of the success of the
testing program.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me say this. I understand that
testing now occurs on a random basis throughout the week. Is it
true that, previously, testing was limited to a certain day of
the week?
Dr. Lombardo. No, it's been probably 8 years since we
changed that. Everybody has to be tested the day after the
game. And then they can be tested any other day the remainder
of the week.
Chairman Tom Davis. How long does it take to get a steroid
out of the body?
Dr. Lombardo. It depends. That's a very difficult question.
It depends on what you use, how you use it. There's no average.
I think it would give you a false sense of what the problem is
if we----
Chairman Tom Davis. Could it be 12 hours?
Dr. Lombardo. It would be very difficult to say something
is going to get out of your body and not change your profile
within 12 hours.
Chairman Tom Davis. Yes, Dr. Wadler.
Dr. Wadler. I want to emphasize something I mentioned
before. The limitations of policy and the limitations of
science. I think most of us are concerned regarding those
individuals who are taking testosterone below the level which
you can detect it using T/E ratios. By narrowing the window
from 6:1 to 4:1, the likelihood of finding somebody is greater.
But the concern I have and others have is that there is
this pretesting going on by athletes who are learning how to
keep their ratio, say at 4:1, keeping it at 3:1. We see this in
another form of drug abuse, with EPO where red blood counts are
very carefully monitored just below the detection. So if I were
to cheat and I can find a laboratory that would monitor my
blood or my urine and constantly tell me, I could run 3:1 using
patches and creams, not injections, so I have an even level,
I'll beat you every time. That's a real concern. And that's a
limitation of science. Not a limitation of policy. That's a
real issue and probably one of the most important issues in
terms of the National Football League.
Chairman Tom Davis. Dr. Finkle.
Dr. Finkle. I would just like to respond briefly to that.
Yes, there is indeed a limit of science, and indeed the
athletes who are intent upon cheating and using testosterone
can get up to all kinds of quite sophisticated ways to defeat
the test. But some have suggested that our testing program is
not sufficient with respect to testosterone, and I would like
to just try to alter that perception a little bit. The fact is
that no testing organization has more stringent tests than the
NFL for this particular steroid. We have adhered strictly to
the same testing standards as WADA and the Olympics. We used
the 6:1 ratio when it was standard for them and for us. When
the Olympics moved to 4:1, we moved this January. After
bargaining and discussing with the players association and the
league, we moved to 4:1. And we would be willing to change it
as our science permits us to do so. We have discussed this
issue and agreed to adopt the new and more stringent standard.
Any suggestion that the prior NFL standard of 6:1 was higher
than what was allowable by the Olympic standard is simply not
correct.
The NFL also pioneered, by the way, the use of highly
sophisticated tests that you heard earlier, CIR, carbon isotope
ratio analysis. We use that. We use it in the UCLA Olympic
testing laboratory in our program. We use that test data to
confirm tests that show that T/E ratios exceed our threshold.
This is the same protocol that's followed by other antidoping
agencies, including WADA.
Let me say, with respect to people that may use creams with
testosterone and have very low levels of testosterone in their
body, yes, they may well and probably will on occasion come in
with a test that we cannot at the laboratory by our criteria
report as positive to our medical adviser or to the league.
That is a true statement. On the other hand, even recently,
where there have been low levels allegedly used of
testosterone, we see aberrations in urine profiles, and we
monitor those players through Dr. Lombardo in the future. So
the players are not entirely beating the test in the way that
they would like to think all of the time. But it is a
limitation of science, and we do the best we can with the
science and technology available to us.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sanders.
Mr. Sanders. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I think we all understand that this is a complicated issue.
We understand the limits of science. We understand false
positives, etc. But in terms of policy, let me just ask a very
simple question, picking up on a point that Mr. Cummings made a
moment ago. That is that, under current NFL policy as I
understand it, players who test positive during the preseason
must serve their four-game suspension during the regular
season, a four-game suspension and that, if they are found
positive again, it is a six-game suspension. Given the severity
of what we are discussing today and the seriousness of the
issue, I think many people would say, excuse me, some guy has
been found using steroids and what you're saying, making
millions of dollars a year, you're going to lose a little bit
of money, but no problem, you come back, and you're using it
again, you're only going to be suspended. Some people might
think that this is a fairly weak policy. Could we get some
response to that?
Dr. Finkle. Frankly, I think it's draconian.
Mr. Sanders. You think it's draconian.
Dr. Finkle. I do indeed. If somebody said to me, as an
employee, I was about to lose, first offense, at least 25
percent of my gross income and not be able to practice my
profession for almost a quarter of my season in this case, that
is a very, very serious penalty.
Mr. Sanders. But if somebody told you, if there's a kid
three blocks away from here who's dealing in drugs and is
arrested, that kid also pays a pretty serious penalty. That kid
goes to jail for years and his life is destroyed. He doesn't
make millions of dollars. I don't quite understand that answer.
What we're talking about is people doing illegal activity, and
you're saying, it's weak? I would respectfully disagree with
that.
Dr. Goldberg. If I were to violate the law in my practice
of medicine, I would not be able to practice medicine. It would
be more, I am sure, than one-fourth of my year of practice.
Mr. Sanders. Anybody else want to comment on that? I think
the American people might think, and again understanding that
we want to make sure that the testing is right and people have
the right to appeal it, and we have independent testers. But on
the surface--and please explain to me what I'm missing, because
I surely disagree with Dr. Finkle on this. If a guy is found
using an illegal substance, money is taken away from him; he is
not paid for four games. Then he's back, and he does it again,
and all we're doing is suspending? I think most Americans would
say that's kind of a slap on the wrist.
Mr. Courson. I think one thing that's very evident from the
baseball hearings is that athletes in general don't comprehend
that breaking the rules is also in this day and age breaking
the law.
Mr. Sanders. That's a very good point.
Mr. Courson. We see that throughout the sports world, not
just in the NFL.
Mr. Sanders. Yes. Dr. Wadler.
Dr. Wadler. I think we have to ultimately be serious about
this, to paraphrase Mr. Selig. There needs to be zero
tolerance, and there have to be consequences, provided we have
a fair hearing process.
Mr. Sanders. Absolutely.
Dr. Wadler. That's very, very--I cannot emphasize that
enough. Assuming a fair process, the entire process, and
somebody blatantly cheated using anabolic steroids or growth
hormone, I personally believe there should be a 2-year
suspension.
Mr. Sanders. You think that the current policy is too weak?
Dr. Wadler. Not only in football, I think in any of the
sports we're talking about. If you took anabolic steroids,
cheated and went through a hearing process, defended yourself,
the whole 9 yards, and at the end of the day, you were guilty,
I think the consequence should be 2 years.
Mr. Sanders. Our high school coaches, do you want to
comment?
Mr. Barnes. Mr. Courson brought up a great point from our
standpoint. Our kids aren't sure that they did anything wrong
still to this day.
And they believe that what they did was personally for
their gain, and that it didn't have anything to do with the
outside world feeling like they broke a law. Our kids knew that
the school policy was you don't use steroids; our kids knew
that it was against the law to use steroids, our kids broke the
law and broke a policy, but to this date, I don't really feel
like they have focused on the seriousness of what they did and
the ramifications that it has had for not only our community
and our kids, but this is all a part of what we're all here
for. What caused this? How do they see this.
Do we blame professional sports? Our kids don't. I don't
believe professional sports had anything to do with our kids
using steroids. Do role models create a problem? Yes, they do.
And for any of these gentlemen to say that role models are not
responsible are incorrect. They took that position, maybe not
willingly, but it is given to them, it is thrust upon them. And
yes, NFL players, professional baseball, Congressmen, our
Senators all are role models to our kids. Our kids don't say a
football player was a role model and this is why I did this.
You could ask them, do you have another role model, and it
could be a teacher, it could be a Congressman, it could be
those kind of things.
But what he had to say was correct, they're invincible,
they don't feel like healthwise they're going to get hurt, and
they don't feel like they've really broke the law because they
see things out there that there has been no punishment.
Dr. Goldberg. Can I make a comment? The problem is sort of
a trickled-down effect where we get from professional and high-
profiled athletes down to the high school level, and I have
worked with high school kids all over the country. And the
problem is--and Chairman Davis asked me the question about our
Atlas and Athena programs, why aren't they in a lot of places.
Well, a lot of these schools can't afford new books, and they
don't have the money for programs.
In the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 there is an
education policy, and there is money devoted to education for
steroid use, but no money has been appropriated by Congress.
You've got it in the act, but there is no appropriation. So as
long as that continues, you are not going to get the high
quality education efforts in the high schools.
Mr. Shays [presiding]. OK, thank you.
Ms. Brown-Waite.
Ms. Brown-Waite. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
You know, when we started talking about steroids, I was
kind of nonplussed by it; but my grandson, who is like a super
soccer star, I start talking to him about it, and he said oh,
yeah, he said in junior high. So I would ask the coaches, do
you think that maybe we have the focus on the wrong ball of
maybe going after marijuana and alcohol in the schools, as
opposed to also looking at far-too-early in-life use and even
exploration of steroids?
When he made that comment to me, he said everybody wants to
be like the big superstars, whether it's soccer or whether it's
baseball or whether it's football, and if they think even
remotely that they can achieve that. It was at that point, Mr.
Chairman, that I realized how important these hearings are. So
I'd like to ask the coaches if maybe they think we're--no pun
intended--but if we have our eye on the wrong ball.
Mr. Stewart. I think they need to widen. They need to widen
beyond marijuana and alcohol because a problem exists. And
personally, I wasn't really abreast on steroid use until I lost
the young man a few weeks ago. And so I think we need to
broaden the field to include performance-enhancing drugs;
because again, so many of the athletes have aspirations to get
to that level. And lifting weighs twice a week--Kenny Barnes
can attest to this, lifting weights twice a week and running is
not fast enough. They want to speed it up, so they take the
route of using the performance-enhancing drugs to get to where
they want to be.
Mr. Barnes. Well, I agree with Coach Stewart. There is no
profound answer to your question because there is a pursuit of
who do we go talk to to keep these things from happening from
our education process today. It's not as though we're out there
blindly letting kids do things and our educational system
doesn't care. I see a lot of programs in our area where they're
concerned about these things that are going on and they're
attempting to communicate with the youth of today to try to
stay away from these things. How much more media attention can
there be right now on the BALCO situation, and especially in
our community? To be honest with you, we're very tired of the
attention that we've got in our little community because it's
as though that's all there is to our community.
So the media is doing their job of giving us all there is
to know that there is a problem right now.
Ms. Brown-Waite. Can I ask a followup question?
Mr. Shays. Your green light is on.
Ms. Brown-Waite. Tell me what steps the education system is
really using; do you have film strips, do you have people come
in and talk to the students? What exactly is being done to
discourage this kind of steroid use in schools?
Mr. Stewart. Well, I brought in a medical staff, a
certified athletic trainer, school nurse and our team doctor,
and they discussed the hazards of using steroids. And again,
most of our kids believe that nothing is going to happen to
them, they are invincible; but we all know 5 years from now, 10
years from now, 15 years from now, they're going to have a
problem.
Mr. Barnes. Our programs are pretty much left to each
individual school, but the AIA, which is Arizona
Interscholastic Association, requests that we spend as much
time as possible on talking to kids about the problems with
drugs, etc., and that's on a complete community of the school,
it's not just about football players or athletes. So I want to
make it quite clear that it's not just a football or baseball
or basketball situation, it's important to all of our students
and our student athletes. So we focus on trying to talk to the
kids and give them--for us and our football program, we have a
meeting each year--which I've got to be at tomorrow at 7
o'clock--and we talk to our parents, we make sure that we meet
with our parents and we say here is what we need to watch out
for. So we're active and proactive with this stuff. There are
schools that I know of in Arizona that are trying to be
proactive.
Dr. Goldberg. Can I make one comment? Film strips, doctors
talking, lectures don't educate kids about drugs, they just
don't. Just say no does not educate kids about drugs, it has to
be delivered, I think, by kids delivering them to kids who are
training with the coach support, I think that is the only way
you can do it. And that is what the paradigm that we use to
reduce alcohol, illicit drugs and steroid use.
Mr. Courson. I'd like to answer your question, also. I had
7 years of high school coaching experience myself, so I can
really relate to the two gentlemen here on what they deal with
firsthand.
I think one of the issues I think we really need to look
at--and this is more from a philosophical standpoint--part of
the problem that we have with all performance-enhancing drugs
deals with the win-at-all-costs mentality. And I think what we
really need in our school sports is a change of philosophy
where coaches, administrators, basically we want to put the
intrinsic value of sports on a pedestal equal or perhaps above
winning. And what I'm saying is the game of football has taught
me some great lessons, not to quit, prepare for success through
hard work, being a team person, all of those are valuable tools
in the game of life, but when we hire and fire coaches even at
the high school level based on winning and losing, our coaches
don't get the opportunity to basically prepare kids for life. I
think we should look at our high schools and our junior highs
as training camps for life. And until we can address that
philosophically as a country, we're going to have a very
difficult time in addressing this issue.
Ms. Brown-Waite. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
Dr. Lombardo. Can I just say one thing to followup with
that?
Mr. Shays. Yes, of course.
Dr. Lombardo. Just something everyone can identify with.
What is the first question you ask your child when they get
home from playing a game? Did you win? That simple question
tells the child exactly what's important in the games. Without
a doubt, that's the first thing--and if you ask a group of
parents, they will deny it, but it's the first thing they ask
them. If you don't change that, you're not going to change this
problem one bit. And I really--I firmly believe that and agree
with Mr. Courson on that, that until we change that win-at-all-
costs philosophy, we're never going to solve this problem.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Lombardo, I'd like to start with you. I've been trying
to get a complete copy of the collective bargaining agreement--
Mr. Chairman, I don't know if I need to make a request for
that, I didn't see it in the documents that we requested it for
the hearing, but maybe that is best in the hands of the
commissioner in the next panel. But in the parts of the
collective bargaining agreements that I've been given, I don't
see anything in here that says that upon a positive test there
will be public notification.
Dr. Lombardo. I'm not sure if it's in the policy, exactly
as those words in the policy, but there is public notification
of a positive test.
Mr. Lynch. Where does that come from?
Dr. Lombardo. It comes from the league office, and the
commissioner can address that.
Mr. Lynch. Is that memorialized somewhere, that there shall
be----
Dr. Lombardo. I'm not sure if that's--again, I don't know
specifically if that line is in the policy, he will be able to
answer that.
Mr. Lynch. I know you're involved in the whole testing
policy and you're central to that. I mean, when is the--well,
maybe I should leave that for the next panel.
Let me move on. Mr. Courson indicated earlier today that in
2004 there were 350 players over 300 pounds. If you compare in
1983 there were 5 players, and in the last year there were 350
players over 300 pounds, I want to read you something that Dr.
Frank Katz, who is an expert in human physiology and he has
formerly consulted with 5 NFL teams, he indicated that the only
way to explain this startling increase in size is steroid use.
He said, ``No one can prove it and no one is going to admit it,
but how else can you explain it, there are just too many guys
who are too huge.''
Going from 5 players in 1983 who were over 300 pounds to
350 players who are now over 300 pounds, is something going on
here? I'm going to ask the other gentlemen as well.
Dr. Lombardo. In 1983 the rules of football were that you
could not use your hands to block, you had to have your hands
in close. Somebody over 300 pounds would not have been able to
play the game of football at that time.
If you look at college weights, those have significantly
increased over the same amount of time. If you look at linemen
weight in high school, they have significantly increased over
the same amount of time. If you look at the body composition of
these professional football players, these are not your 12
percent body fat, 300 pound behemoths that are artificially
induced, many of these are 25-30 percent body fat, obese
individuals who are playing a sport that is now designed for a
large person to play and being opposed by a person who is the
exact same nature to stop them from moving.
Mr. Lynch. So let me get this straight. You're saying this
is because we are selecting big people, we're not building big
people. That is your statement there----
Dr. Lombardo. They're selected from high school----
Mr. Lynch. That this 6,000 percent increase from 1983 to
today is because we're picking people, and we didn't need big
football players in 1983, we need them now.
Dr. Lombardo. In high school they're selecting them to
play, they're selecting them in college to play that, and those
same individuals are coming to the National Football League
over 300 pounds, yes.
Mr. Lynch. I heard you say that earlier.
Now, do you track these--I mean, from what we're seeing,
it's not only that they're bigger, but at a certain period in
their lives, in their young careers, they're actually getting
very big very fast. Do you track these kids from high school?
Do you have some data there what the kid is coming--weighing
coming out of high school? The colleges, you get a lot of your
players out of colleges, they track the weights of their
players and then you get them, do you track these players to
see if there is any unusual spikes in their weight and their
growth?
Dr. Lombardo. I was the team physician for a high school
for 27 years, I've been the team physician for Ohio State
University for 14 years prior to this, and working with the NFL
for many years, basically they're spikes--they're not spikes
that come up as you follow a player's career, they gain weight
as they go overtime. Watch them as they come in as freshman,
they're 260, 270 pounds, then as they get to be seniors,
juniors, they're up to 290, 300 pounds or over. Some of them
come to the college at 300 pounds and they move up. I don't
think that is an indication of steroid use, I firmly believe
that the majority of the reason for that is the fashion of the
game will give those people who are that weight, that size an
advantage, and that's what is used.
Mr. Lynch. Dr. Wadler, what are your thoughts on that,
those numbers and the statement of Dr. Frank Katz, the
consultant to 5 NFL teams?
Dr. Wadler. Well, certainly it raises questions clearly, I
mean, those shock anybody. But I certainly expect the
experience that Dr. Lombardo has seen at the high school,
collegiate and professional levels. But certainly it is
something that needs to be studied. We need to know more about
the body composition of the league athletes in football, we
need to know the same with body fat and body mass; and I think
we need to have an air-tight testing program regarding drugs,
including growth hormones--speaking of size--which means blood
testing, which is still not implemented in the NFL.
So I think we've got to do all of those things. Clearly
it's an unhealthy situation on the merits of the weight alone,
but clearly we need to understand how much of this is related
to nutrition and related matters, how much of this is related
to drugs, how much of this is related to steroids, how much of
this is related to growth hormone; and I still would like to
get back to the growth hormone because I don't think we should
walk away from this so easily.
Mr. Shays. Sir, your time has expired. You have gone a
minute over your time. The Chair would recognize Mr. Sweeney.
Mr. Sweeney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome to all of
you.
As one who has worked pretty extensively on this issue for
about 7 years, the better part of 7 years, since I've been
here, I'm very happy to be part of this. I will say it's pretty
obvious that there is a lot less stress or antagonism in this
hearing than there was a couple of weeks ago with baseball, and
I think that's a direct acknowledgement of the work that
Commissioner Tagliabue and Mr. Upshaw have done, and I
congratulate you on that. But I also really want you to
understand that we need more--there is a long way to go. And it
starts with this notion that there really needs to be
independent oversight in some places.
And I agree with you, Dr. Goldberg, we need an education
program. I had an approps bill this year--here's the catch in
my problem, it ought not to be all on the taxpayers.
Professional sports entities, recognizing that they're in the
business to make money, have resources, they also have some
responsibility, if not, indeed, culpability here, and we need
them to step up to the plate. I know the NFL has done some
things to help certainly with USADA and expanding its
technologies, but we need to do more.
Let me get to the independent oversight pieces, and I want
to talk to Dr. Lombardo and Dr. Finkel specifically about it.
And this relates to some of the recent history that we've had
in all sports as it relates to medical staffs. We know at the
University of Washington a physician, a volunteer physician
loosely affiliated with their athletic department was passing
out--was convicted of passing out and overprescribing
medications.
We know that the doctor in South Carolina that's been
accused of prescribing steroids to the three Carolina Panthers,
while not affiliated with the team, that allegation is out
there, it taints the good work that's been done, and makes us
question whether we have the proper structure in place to get
to where we need to go.
What rules or ethics do you promulgate now with each team,
and what are the league mandates as it relates to those rules
of ethics to medical training staffs?
Dr. Lombardo. There are certain--there is prohibited
activities for teams. If a team physician or an athlete or
someone within the team were to give a prohibitive substance to
a player, there is a significant--and again, I don't know the
exact administrative fine or dismissal or suspension, but there
is a sanction for that activity. So, again, I think that along
those lines, there are rules and regulations that the team and
the team physician, the medical staffs, must also follow, as
well as the player.
Mr. Sweeney. Are you intensely training physicians and
medical staff? Are you updating them?
Dr. Lombardo. We talk to the trainers two to three times a
year, and to the physicians one to two times a year, and the
players as many times as we----
Mr. Sweeney. Who derives those standards, is that you?
Dr. Lombardo. I act as an advisor, I will advise the NFL as
to what I think should be done, and we will work together
accordingly to put them in place.
Mr. Sweeney. So there is a league-wide policy written and
prescribed to by each team?
Dr. Lombardo. I believe so. I think that Mr. Tagliabue can
answer that better, Mr. Henderson can answer it better than I
as far as the exact way the rule is written.
Dr. Finkle. Could I just address your question with respect
to independence? There is perhaps more independence in the
League's program than you might first imagine. The League has
advisory committees made up of independent scientists,
physicians and other knowledgeable people that meet at least
twice a year and advise the League, very frankly and openly,
about the kind of issues we're talking about here today, our
deficiencies, how they might be rectified and how they might be
improved.
Mr. Sweeney. My point is who chooses them? How independent
are they?
Dr. Finkle. They're independent in the sense that they're
certainly not employed by the National Football League; neither
am I, neither is Dr. Lombardo. I'm an independent consultant to
the National Football League, but I also am a consultant to
WADA and to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, and I consider myself
an independent professional person. I provide as frank and as
open opinion based on my profession as I can to the National
Football League when I'm asked, and if they don't accept my
advice, that's the way it goes. But I'm independent to that
extent.
I just wanted to point out that the programs as a whole,
including the treatment program, have these advisory committees
that advise the League and look after them. So it's not
entirely an in-house closed room in which decisions and
policies are made.
Mr. Sweeney. I will conclude. I've got some other questions
I want to submit to you, Dr. Finkel.
But the NIH has already studied and recognized that there
is a shorter life expectancy among NFL players, and I'm
wondering if you have done any research or looked at the notion
that it could be connected to the steroids use of other
substances because there is a long way for the NFL to go----
Mr. Shays. We need a short answer to that, a yes or no,
have you done it?
Dr. Lombardo. The commissioner stated a committee to look
at cardiovascular disease, and that issue; and they will start
working on that this year. It was put together last year.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Davis, you have the floor.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank all of the witnesses for participating in
what I think is one of the most serious discussions of this
issue that I've heard, and I really appreciate the fact that
you're here.
I want to go back to the philosophical construct because I
think that sort of determines to a great extent what we do and
how we do it, and how we try and arrive at where it is that
we're trying to go. And while I know that there are no simple
solutions to very complex problems, it seems to me we're not
certain how effective we are in curbing or beating back or
holding down the use of performance-enhancing drugs.
In your estimations--and I guess they would have to be
quick answers because of the time--how effective are we being?
And would you have any concrete recommendation for us? I mean,
what can we, as Members of Congress, do that will help reduce
this problem, especially as it relates to the national programs
of athletics that we have, but also the impact on young people
growing up? Because I happen to believe that drug use and abuse
is one of the most serious challenges that we have in our
country today. So if you could just respond to that as quickly
as you could, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Courson. I'd like to respond to that. I think one of
the things that we need to do, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, is to work together with the high schools to develop
a standard school policy that everyone has to follow; I think
that's a positive first step.
Second to that, obviously we need to do more research as
far as cleaning up some of the loopholes in drug testing and
research in the long-term health effects.
And third, obviously any school policy is not effective
without an educational component. And a uniform code of either
discipline and/or treatment to deal with offenders. And then on
top of that, again, I'm repeating myself here, but I do believe
we need to nip in the bud the oncoming problem with genetic
engineering, I can't repeat that enough. It's here.
Dr. Wadler. And I think, as I said earlier, that we've seen
a sea change since Senator McCain's hearings back in 1999. I
think it's had a profound effect. And if you look over the last
6 years, there has been many steps on the road which brings us
here today. But I think it's not a time for adjustment at the
margins. I really think it requires a paradigm shift in our
thinking. And I, again, put out for this committee and for all
those who are seriously studying this issue that we adopt a
world anti-doping code as our gold standard, as our road map
and make those adjustments so they can apply to the various
sports as appropriate. But it's time to move away from the
little changes and add this substance, do this little thing, do
that little thing, it really requires that paradigm shift.
We now have a global standard, I think we should endorse
that global standard, and I think that will enable us to
address issues like genetics and gene doping, it will allow us
to address creative ways of developing educational programs, it
will enable us to provide the necessary research funds to do
the research that is absolutely necessary as we go forward, and
it will provide us with the standards of lists of substances to
be addressed, it will give us the process for adjudicating
cases where individuals have been accused of doping. I just
think it's time for a paradigm shift and to move away from just
slight adjustments at the margins, which is what we have been
tending to be doing.
Dr. Lombardo. Mr. Davis, I think that when you use the word
philosophical, my Jesuit training takes me back to the essay.
The world is an essay, it's not a multiple choice and objective
test. And the essay starts with what's the cause of this thing,
and the cause of this thing still comes back to that one thing,
that winning is the only thing that counts, no matter how you
get there, and that's what we espouse.
When we bring people and take winners, put them on
pedestals, give them so much adulation and praise, then that's
what our youth are going to want to be.
The other thing is we have to take a realistic look at
ourselves. Genetically I would never play in the NBA, so I
cannot be anything I want to be. There is no drug, nothing that
could have got me there. But there are people who think they
take a drug and they can become that type of athlete, the
genetically special people. Realize our limitations, take
winning out of the equation, I think you have a start. And then
educate people along the lines of the program that Dr. Goldberg
says.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I thank the gentleman, very much.
I consider myself a pretty staunch libertarian in terms of
individual rights, individual liberties, but I do believe that
we've allowed standards of expectations to slip, and we do need
to look at changing the paradigm shift.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shays. I thank the gentleman. I haven't yet asked
questions, and I would like to start by asking you, Mr. Barnes.
I'm a bit unclear as to the reaction of the parents--I don't
want to dwell a long time on it. But the 10 students that were
suspended also have charges against them, and I just want to
know if the parents basically were reinforcing your suspension
or questioning it, and that's what I wanted you to just focus
on.
Mr. Barnes. Realize, of course, that I have to go back to
my town----
Mr. Shays. I understand.
Mr. Barnes. And coach these parents and their kids that are
still coming out, so I'm going to be as diplomatic as I can
with this answer; but I can tell you that their focus was out
of their concern more for their personal rights of being
allowed to come in the interviewing process when the kids were
asked to tell the truth. They've had a great deal of focus on
that. They're very upset with the school principal at that time
and myself--I'm the only one that's still there.
Mr. Shays. OK. I get the gist of it. But the bottom line is
you sent a tremendously positive message to every kid that
follows, and I hope that you're not inclined to back off----
Mr. Barnes. Oh, I don't in any way apologize for what I
did. I prayed and studied on this daily, and it was a difficult
time for me. And I feel like I stuck with and did the right
thing. And there are many in our community that were proud of
the way it was handled, it's not just that. But these people
are the parents of these young men, who they love.
Mr. Shays. I understand they love their kids, but they also
are teaching their kids an incredible message.
Evidently I'm needed on a vote. Mr. Waxman, I'm going to
give you the gavel. And we will go to Mr. Clay. I'm sorry, Mr.
Souder is here.
Mr. Souder [presiding]. I'm sorry. We're having a recorded
vote over at Homeland Security, and Mr. Davis and Mr. Shays and
I are all there.
Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Courson, you have stated in your testimony
that human growth hormone and testosterone in low doses have
long been a strategy used by athletes in many sports to avoid
detection. Do you have evidence that football players are using
human growth hormones?
Mr. Courson. I don't have any direct evidence, all I know
is what has been reported in the 60 Minutes piece. That was the
combination that they reported, testosterone creams and the
growth hormone, talking about growth hormone, which makes
sense, understanding some of the frailties in drug detection.
Mr. Clay. Have you ever witnessed any player using----
Mr. Courson. Anabolic steroids back in my time? I've
witnessed a lot of anabolic steroid use, but back in my time
there was no stringent policy like the NFL has today. I played
before random testing and before the NFL basically started
their testing program.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for the response.
Dr. Lombardo, the NFL's policy bans human growth hormone
but doesn't provide the testing for HGH. Since HGH is detected
through blood tests and the policy does not provide for blood
testing, why doesn't the NFL test for HGH?
Dr. Lombardo. I'm going to defer this to the scientific
consultant that we have who tells us whether tests are to be
used.
Dr. Finkle. Certainly there is a validated test for growth
hormone that was applied at the Athens Olympic games; it is not
perfect, there is much yet to do in development.
Ideally we would like a test where we continue to use urine
specimens, or even alternative specimens such as saliva. It
would be up to the negotiating parties, the League and the
Players Association, to agree that this problem--on the basis
of advice from people such as me and others--needs to be
addressed, and at the point that they address it and decide
that blood sampling needs to be taken and analyzed, we will be
ready to do it. That is the position as we are today.
Mr. Clay. Thanks for that response.
Dr. Wadler, you recommend that the NFL conduct blood tests
for the human growth hormone. Why do you think it is important
to test for HGH?
Dr. Wadler. Well, clearly it is a feeling in many quarters
that it's being abused. We know there is no urine test that is
acceptable at the present time, so the only option we have is a
blood test. And knowing its limitations, that does two things;
one, it sends a message that you could get caught; and second,
if one is caught, there are consequences to pay. I'm saying
there are other things we can find out from blood as well the
NFL doesn't test for, like EPO, which deals with endurance. But
with respect to growth hormone, I think there is strong reason
to believe it's being abused, and we currently have no test for
it in urine. If we have any way to detect it other than
intelligence, being caught with the goods, if you will, it's by
blood testing.
Mr. Clay. According to the----
Dr. Finkle. Just to followup with a very brief comment if I
might. About the worse thing we can do, certainly as a
scientist, is to put in place a test that is not full proof
with respect to detection. If we announce to any population of
suspected drug users that we're going to use a test to catch
them and they learn that test is inadequate, then it is
completely ineffective. And I think the degree of conservatism
exercised just at the moment with respect to growth hormone is
well placed.
Mr. Clay. You're going to have to cut it short because my
time is running out, but doesn't the Anti-Doping Agency have a
blood test that's reliable?
Dr. Lombardo. The answer is yes. We ran the test in Athens
that was validated, it's an isoform test, and that's the
answer.
Mr. Clay. OK. Dr. Wadler, according to the NFL, random in-
season testing typically takes place on certain set days of the
week. Newer steroid creams and patches can be used in such a
fashion that they are undetectable even after only a day or
two. So if a player knows he will only be tested twice a week,
he can take steroids on a schedule that will allow him to pass
tests given on those 2 days.
Would the NFL policy be improved by changing the testing
schedule so that it is impossible for players to predict the
day of the week in which they might be tested?
Dr. Wadler. As I said previously, steroid testing should be
done 365, 24/7; you never know when they're going to come for a
specimen.
Dr. Lombardo. Mr. Clay, I think there is one misconception
about that.
The individuals who use steroid creams can stay under any
level because what they're doing is masking and staying under
the level of 4-1. So regardless of what day of the week it's
testing, regardless of what organization does the testing, the
same labs do the testing, the same labs are looking for it,
therefore creams could be used the day of the test in a WADA
test or our test. We still have a problem.
Mr. Souder. Thank you, Mr. Clay. I yield back to Mr. Shays,
since I cut him off earlier on his question.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Mr. Barnes, let me just say to you,
you did the right thing. And it's a tough decision, I know
parents love their kids, but these kids are learning life's
lessons. But the thing that disturbs me a little bit, and I
would like comment from all the panelists, when I hear of high
school kids that are involved in this, they're arrested,
they're charged with a felony, I don't hear that when I hear
major league sports players get it. Somebody explain to me why
would the kids become felons and with the League guys, they
don't. And maybe, Mr. Courson, you could start off. Is your mic
on, by the way?
Mr. Courson. Yes, it's on. That is a very interesting
question, applying the law tougher to minors than you do to
adults, again, that doesn't make sense to me. Again, that
probably reflects on the elevated stature that athletes at the
elite level are given. And obviously that's not what I would
call a great message.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Finkle, maybe you could respond to that one?
Dr. Finkle. Well, just briefly. Clearly the National
Football League is not a law enforcement agency. As you well
know, players like any other citizen that contravene the law
are indeed arrested with some frequency and are prosecuted. And
the League supports that as far as I know, and supports it when
it involves drugs, which involves me with the testing.
With respect to why law enforcement agencies don't charge,
on a regular basis at least, players that have used or
possessed or distribute steroids, I can't answer that, I don't
know.
Mr. Shays. Let me ask a question of all of you and just go
down the line. I would be interested to know whether you think
that there should be a uniform policy in the NFL, Major League
Baseball, the NBA and the NHL, a uniform policy on steroids
which, if there was, it would probably involve the Federal
Government encouraging that.
Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. I think there need to be one policy for all
the professional teams, because as has been mentioned today,
there are some loopholes, depending on what major sport you're
participating in, baseball compared to football compared to
hockey.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Barnes.
Mr. Barnes. Well, obviously the effect of this, just as you
said, and there does need to be uniform laws down the road, all
the way through from professional sports. Don't contain it just
for professional sports; the college level, the high school
level, the kids need to know and the parents what the judgment
is going to be for being held accountable. And that's something
that we didn't have, we didn't have an equal accountability for
our situation. That's hard for me to answer to those parents.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Courson.
Mr. Courson. I think a uniform testing program is a good
idea but, I might add to what Coach Barnes said is that the
NCAA is big business also, and when we talk about the--we were
talking earlier about the sizes of the linemen; the cycle
starts in high school, and then it goes to college and then it
goes to pros. So the NFL is caught between a rock and a hard
spot because they get what comes to them.
Dr. Goldberg. Harmonization of all the policies, I think,
would take pressure all off the leagues, too; so I think it
sounds great.
Dr. Wadler. I think I have been making that point kind of
consistently. I believe there should be uniform policy based on
the World Anti-Doping code for all professional sports, not
limited to anabolic steroids, but also to other performance-
enhancing drugs.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Dr. Lombardo. I think that there is individual differences
among the different sports that have to be maintained and
respected before someone puts a uniformed code. Things have a
tendency to migrate away from superiority to mediocrity when
you band things together.
Mr. Shays. I don't understand that, but I would like to
come back if I can.
Mr. Finkle.
Dr. Finkle. Yes. I believe that in general principles. For
example, I think that all sports should stand together and ban
unequivocally these kinds of drugs, absolutely unequivocally.
Mr. Shays. And have the same basic penalty as well? In
other words, with baseball it's five strikes, with football it
appears it's four strikes.
Dr. Finkle. It might be a nice thought; how that would
apply, given--I'm not a lawyer or an executive of these sports,
but I think those things are so intimate to the negotiation
process in sports that it would be wrong and inappropriate for
me to make such a statement that all penalties across all
sports should be the same. But I think the basic principles
should be uniformly applied. We all condemn the use of these
drugs, they are very serious, have very terrible health
consequences. But I think the application can be a little bit
different----
Mr. Shays. My time has expired.
Dr. Finkle [continuing]. As the needs arise.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Towns.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by first saying the name John Walters; does
that ring a bell to you, Dr. Finkle?
Dr. Finkle. Yes, I know John Walters.
Mr. Towns. How about you, Dr. Lombardo.
Dr. Lombardo. No.
Mr. Towns. How about you, Dr. Wadler?
Dr. Wadler. Director of the Office of National Drug Policy.
Mr. Towns. That's correct. And the reason I asked that
question is it seems to me that you should have some discussion
with him along the way. If he is in charge, I mean, it seems to
me you should be talking to him; there should be some dialog
and communication at some point in time.
Dr. Wadler. I have, since 1999, communicated regularly with
the Office of National Drug Control Policy; they have been
intimate in the development of the World Anti-Doping Agency,
the World Anti-Doping code. They sit on the executive committee
of the World Anti-Doping Agency, have chaired some of their
educational initiatives of the World Anti-Doping Agency. They
certainly have been a very active player over the past 6 years.
Mr. Towns. What about you, Dr. Goldberg?
Dr. Goldberg. I worked with him also since 1999. Tomorrow
I'm going to New York to meet with magazines about the problems
of drugs in sports. In fact, this is my packet from Mr.
Walter's agency. And I'm going to--I spoke last week in Dallas,
TX about drug testing in adolescent sports. So they've been
very active and very helpful, from conferences and dealing with
the media in the National League, meeting with press for many
years.
Dr. Finkle. The same is true for me. And likewise, I have
given, even in the past year, talks for ONDCP at high schools
and high school programs. And I might add the senior person
employee at ONDCP was, for a long time, a member of an advisory
committee to the NFL; so there was a relationship.
Mr. Towns. Well, I'm happy to hear that at least some of
you know him, I'm happy to hear that.
Let me ask this question: Do you feel that the Congress
really should be involved in this issue? And just go right down
the line, yes or no. Do you feel that the Congress should be
involved in this issue of steroids?
Dr. Finkle. To the extent that these hearings heighten the
awareness of the public in general in all of the aspects that
you have heard today, I think it's extremely important that
Congress has a voice in this problem.
Mr. Towns. Dr. Lombardo.
Dr. Lombardo. As leaders of the country, you set the tone
for the country. If you call this a severe problem then it can
be viewed as a severe problem; if you don't, it won't be.
Dr. Wadler. As I said, going back to 1999, I think the
Congress led the way in the hearings in the Senate, addressing
Olympic sports. In the 6 years since then, I think the Federal
Government has played a significant role. We already saw the
reaction of baseball when they had to testify before this. I
understand that even as a result of these hearings today, some
modifications in the NFL policy, which may have occurred
anyway, I don't know; so I think it's an essential role, and I
look forward to it being a continuing role.
Mr. Towns. Dr. Goldberg.
Dr. Goldberg. There are potentially dangerous drugs,
Congress has made them illegal. They are drugs that have
infiltrated adolescent sport. I think it's important to address
this issue head on, and Congress has done that, and then
expanded on the list just this last October. And I think it's
important that Congress do be involved.
Mr. Towns. Mr. Courson.
Mr. Courson. Yes. I really agree with Congress being
involved. All I have to think about is 500,000 to a million
adolescents using, I think that says it all.
Mr. Towns. All right. Thank you, thank you very much.
Mr. Barnes.
Mr. Barnes. Yes. Continue to be involved. And support those
that do the things that you feel like are right and make sure
that the media puts that out there also. When the NFL does
things that you think are good versus what baseball is doing,
expound on that. Challenge their own peers. Let baseball say to
themselves, if they're happy with the things that the NFL is
doing, we need to get our act together. And stay involved, but
continue to challenge.
Mr. Towns. Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. I also feel that you should stay involved. We
need big brother looking down on the rest of us to make sure
we're doing the right things. Again, we've got young folks'
lives at stake, we want to protect that.
Mr. Towns. Let me just ask a followup question because my
time has expired. In your discussions with Mr. Stewart, at any
point in time did he propose a national testing--a toxicology
lab, a national toxicology lab? Walters, I mean. John Walters.
Dr. Finkle. Not in any discussions I've had with his staff,
no.
Dr. Wadler. No that I'm specifically aware of. But clearly,
again, they have been intimately involved with the laboratory
aspects of the World Anti-Doping Agency, including USADA. But
in terms of a national independent one, I have not--I'm not
aware of that.
Mr. Towns. Does that make any sense?
Dr. Wadler. Well, I think the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency is
well equipped. They have a WADA certified laboratory, really
state-of-the-art. There is some 32 labs in the world.
Mr. Towns. But we're talking about in the country, we're
talking about uniformly, we're talking about all the way
through in terms of all sports, even in high school, I think,
as Mr. Stewart mentioned early on. If we're talking about that,
then why don't we come up with a national lab, toxicology lab
for everybody to send it there, they evaluate it and tell you,
because I think that's important.
Dr. Wadler. I don't think it's a matter of the process. We
now have standards for anti-doping laboratories, which is
different than forensic laboratories and clinical laboratories.
The question is how many should the United States have to meet
the demand? And I think that's a practical issue. As you heard,
there is going to be an NFL lab now in--is it Salt Lake? In
Salt Lake. We may need one on the east coast to accommodate
testing.
It's a very expensive business, it's a very technical
business. And Dr. Finkle can certainly attest to that. So I
think we have a mechanism to produce the laboratory--as many
laboratories in this country as the demand requires. The
standards are there. We don't have to reinvent the wheel in
that regard. It's just the numbers of them.
Dr. Finkle. I agree with that statement, but there is a
need to support all this testing with research. And some
countries in the world have, in fact, adopted a national
laboratory for that purpose, for doing research, being a
central resource, and providing the operational laboratories,
the testing laboratories in their particular countries with
that kind of support as they go about the testing. And I think
that is something that can be considered very seriously in the
United States.
But funding is an issue; I mean, you've heard a lot from
Dr. Wadler about the World Anti-Doping Agency today, but even
they are struggling with money; I mean, they're going to cut
back testing by quite a bit because they don't have enough
money to do what they think is the right thing to do.
Mr. Towns. See, now you make an argument for centralizing
it.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Towns, you've gone over quite a bit
already. I understand the problem that you're addressing, but
we need to keep it rolling.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I was one of those members who was
reluctant, when we had the baseball hearings, whether or not it
would just be a media show or it would be productive; and after
that hearing and this hearing here today, I think it is
extremely productive because we've put the issue on the table.
And one of the main reasons that we're here is because of the
impact that our professional players have on our younger
generations, and it is important that we deal with that issue.
Now with that in mind, I want to talk to the coaches or ask the
coaches some questions.
We've been identifying some problems, Congressman Towns
just raised the issue and went through the questioning on
whether Congress should be involved. My issue to you first is,
what resources do you think that you need that you don't have
now, whether it's congressional oversight, whether it's
education, whether it's money, whether it's your principals,
your school district superintendents; what are the resources
you need to address the issue that we're dealing with respect
to the use of steroids as it relates to younger players?
Mr. Barnes. I don't know that our resources are really the
major problem in our situation. I mean, again, I can't speak
for across the Nation, but I can speak for our particular
situation.
But obviously money and the ability to educate the parents
and the kids is always important; that's the way that you hope
that you stop the problem. We can talk about punishment and
that type of stuff all we want, but if we could just educate
the parents and the kids where they didn't feel infallible. The
kids really believe I can take these steroids, and nothing is
happening to me right now, so I'm not being harmed.
And things like what this committee is doing and the things
that the media has brought out through the BALCO situation,
that's all, as far as I'm concerned, positive in educating our
kids.
Like has been mentioned before, I think Dr. Goldberg, you
can bring in film and you can bring in speakers all you want, I
truly believe that you would be a waste of money, I hate to say
that, but that's my gut feeling; because then we get back to
what we've talked about before, it is the peer pressure, it's
the enabling by the parents, it's what they see with their role
models, it is a combination of all these things that are going
to have these young people feel invincible and I'm going to
give it a try. And I may have talked in circles here and not
given you an answer, but I don't know for sure that's it's
doing all those kinds of things.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Let me ask you this; those of us who
played sports will say our coaches had a tremendous amount of
impact on our life, you have to be disciplined, you have to
sacrifice, it's teamwork. There is a school in my district,
Delaney High School, that requires each player to sign--ahead
of the season to sign a form, and then the coaches go over with
the player that you're going to be held to a higher standard,
that if you are involved with alcohol you will be disciplined.
And again, do we need to educate our coaches more, the coaches
who have the discipline and really have the influence over
these kids?
Mr. Barnes. Well, I think coaches clinics would be a great
place for that, but with the proper funds and funding----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, I'm talking even more than just a
clinic, a system that is going to deal with this issue. I'm
going to get to you docs soon. Do you have anything to say on
what I asked?
Mr. Stewart. I would just like to add that I still feel
that the education in my situation would be a big help. I don't
see any additional funding really addressing the problem, we
just need to get the word out to the young men and young women.
Mr. Ruppersberger. But we need to have a system to make
sure that we implement it. Let's go to the docs.
Dr. Goldberg. I've been studying this problem for 18 years,
and I've literally talked to hundreds of school districts
around the country and in Puerto Rico, when we put our programs
in, and people that would like our program.
I think most important is funding. It doesn't cost a lot to
do education funding, say for our program it's about $5 a kid,
that's about it.
Mr. Ruppersberger. But you know, we always talk about
funding. We need to have a standard in the system of where the
funding is going to go.
Dr. Goldberg. Well, I think what you have to do, there are
verified programs by the National Institute on Drug Abuse that
have been verified to work, and there is model programs. And
Mr. Sweeney had said, well, government can't cover everything,
and I agree with that----
Mr. Ruppersberger. My light is coming on, and I'm going to
get something out because then you can talk but I can't.
First thing, we need to involve the parents, that's an
important issue that we really haven't talked about, and what
programs are available. But before we even have any of our
students play these sports, do we need to bring them all in,
individually and as a family? That's another thing.
There is the issue of online purchasing of steroids, I want
to ask you all to think about how we deal with that. It's
tough, it's coming from other countries, and we clearly need to
deal with that because it's accessible, one way or another the
kids are getting it. So let's talk about how we implement and
what we're going to do to focus on that. Comments, and then my
time is up, so you can keep talking.
Dr. Wadler. Regarding coaching, I do think we need to
address in this country the issue of coach certification. If
you get your hair cut, somebody has to get credentials, if you
get your nails done, somebody needs to get credentials. We have
no credentialing, as far as I know, mechanism of coaches who
have this enormous impact on young people. The coach says jump,
the kid says how high; the parent says jump, I'm not jumping.
So we need to address that, somewhere along the line, the way
we deal with coaches in this country.
Mr. Ruppersberger. OK, Dr. Lombardo.
Dr. Lombardo. You need a multipronged effort. I mean, the
one effort is education. You have to educate people, otherwise
there is no chance for them at all to have anything to change
because they don't know any different. I think you're going to
have to implement something with parents. Unfortunately when we
went to school, the parents--if I got in trouble with school or
you got in trouble at school, we were in trouble at home. Here,
the school is in trouble and the child comes home in trouble.
That's an attitude we have to change; that's educational.
I think there has to be research because we don't know
enough about a lot of these things, we need to know more. And
we're always going to need to know more because there will
always be more coming out there. There is a dark side to this.
As BALCO brought out, avery intelligent biochemist made those
drugs, this wasn't somebody make it in the bathroom. And I
think some research needs to be done, and ongoing research
funds need to be available in order to fight this battle.
Mr. Courson. I think you also need a deterrent, and when we
talk about drug testing at the high school level, with the
expense of it, I think most school districts will cringe. But
in Pennsylvania, for instance, part of the work I do is geared
at overweight kids, childhood obesity. And in Pennsylvania
we're implementing body mass indexing of our kids; and what you
could do to offset the prohibitive costs of drug testing at the
high school and junior high level, is use body mass indexing to
basically chart some unusual growths that would occur, and then
use the limited testing on those kids to basically funnel them
to the appropriate discipline and help.
Dr. Goldberg. If I could comment on that. That sounds like
a great way to deal with those athletes that are increasing
mass. Take a look at the first baseball player in Major League
Baseball that was caught, he was not a big guy, he was a
regular size guy that was using something. And so you've got
small wrestlers, you've got small weightlifters, you have all
different people that can use this for recovery and not
necessarily for mass. So there is a difference in just doing
that.
Mr. Courson. Right. That's true, but you could use limited
drug testing randomly throughout the rest of the athletic
population also, and the students. It's just cutting down
costs.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. I wanted to ask Mr. Stewart and Mr.
Barnes, have you had athletes that have been recruited by
colleges, NCAA?
Mr. Barnes. Yes.
Mr. Souder. Do you know what the rules are as far as what
colleges can give you? How many contacts they can make to your
kids?
Mr. Stewart. Yes.
Mr. Souder. And do you follow those pretty rigidly?
Mr. Stewart. Oh, very much so.
Mr. Souder. Would you say high school coaches follow that
more rigidly and are more concerned about that than they are
steroids in this instance?
Mr. Stewart. Well, quite a few of the coaches do because,
again, you want to continue to have those coaches recruit your
schools; and if you break the rules, NCAA will come down on the
university, and in turn, they will probably stop recruiting in
schools.
Mr. Souder. Don't you think it's interesting, because as an
alumnus of Notre Dame, one of the things they make crystal
clear to every alumnus, if you take any possible recruit out to
even lunch, you could put their whole program in danger. If you
recruit illegally. Why do you think there is so much concern
about that and so little, comparatively, in the system about
steroids? In other words, is it the sanction? Because what you
immediately raised was the sanction, they might not recruit,
the university might not recruit because they might lose their
ability to build their ball game. And when we alluded to this
earlier, maybe some of the problem here is that there needs to
be penalties broader than the individual, and would the
behavior--let me ask Dr. Finkle this question.
Do you believe that if the team was told that if one of
their players was caught, that they would not be eligible for
the post season games, that they would implement different drug
testing policies?
Dr. Finkle. You're speaking at the college level and the
high school level?
Mr. Souder. I think I have clearly indicated at high school
and college, that the fear of sanctions creates major behavior
changes at every high school, every college, not about
narcotics, but about recruiting--which is less dangerous to the
kids, less dangerous to the universities than narcotics--and
when they stand up to communicate it, they didn't all of a
sudden say this is a lot of money, this could impact our
university and so on; what they saw was they might get
suspended as a team, in addition to the players.
And the question is, because this comes at the core of can
you catch it or not, if a given team like the Indianapolis
Colts felt that if one of their players, maybe even a second
tier player could keep them from being eligible to go to the
playoffs, would they implement a different drug testing policy.
Dr. Finkle. Well, I don't think the team can implement the
policy, the League and the Players Association in agreement
would have to implement the policy.
But to answer your question, of course such very, very
severe consequences for detection of players or a single player
that was using an illegal drug, that would have a tremendous
effect, there is no question about that.
Mr. Souder. So you believe they would actually change their
policies?
Dr. Finkle. I don't know whether the League or the Players
Association would change the policy or not. The club doesn't
have a policy, the League and the Players Association have a
policy.
Mr. Souder. The fundamental question here is can it be
done? And that suggests it could be done, what it is, is there
a will to get it done?
Dr. Finkle. Absolutely, that is the question, is there a
will to do such a thing and how effective it would be.
Mr. Barnes. Mr. Souder, could I say something to that? I'll
be quick.
It concerns me that we--and I know that you're trying to
get to a positive end to this, but it concerns me that we would
go so far as to punish a whole team for the actions of one
particular man. And I'm a team person, that's what I try to
teach our kids is that we're in this together. Now the
punishment phase, having everybody punished, is punishing those
that have done everything right, with the exception of a
particular person.
If we get so deep into this that we're going to punish the
whole program over the actions of one particular young man,
then I don't think the punishment will fit the crime. That's
just a personal opinion I'm just throwing out there.
Mr. Souder. So you disagree with the NCAA----
Mr. Barnes. I'm concerned that it punishes those that are
doing things right when you go that deep as to punish a whole
program.
Mr. Souder. I understand the concept. But you disagree with
the NCAA sanctions on these universities that illegally
recruit?
Mr. Barnes. No, I think that they're the best thing that
could happen.
Mr. Souder. Then that was punishing the university over an
individual case because often the coach doesn't even know. The
university doesn't even know. Universities have lost their
ability.
Mr. Barnes. But I believe in the university level there's a
personal punishment before there's a team sanction.
Mr. Souder. But if they have a team sanction, they have to
report it to the NCAA. Then the NCAA looks at the sanction,
and, in fact, it's treated as a team. Even if an alumnus does
something on their own and the university doesn't know it, the
coach doesn't know it, because we decided that the problem was
so great that the only way to get this is to say, get real. You
have to get down there in that. We had this in baseball. We may
get into it today in football.
One thing we didn't followup on that I found very
interesting at the tail end of our baseball hearing, it had
been a long day, and we had heard that these things were
negotiated and that a team couldn't actually do anything
because it was a negotiated contract. But it was interesting,
because Mr. Towers said, at San Diego--he said after Ken
Caminetti--and he said he was so frustrated with Ken Caminetti,
who was a friend of his, and he hadn't seen it coming, he was
astounded by what happened, that he said, we cleaned up our
minor league system and our locker room.
Afterwards as I reflected and looked at some of the
testimony, I thought, what did he mean when he said, I have 100
percent confidence we don't have it in San Diego? It may have
meant that his players had to give a waiver to do it, but I'm
not convinced, and if you're telling me, in fact, that the
union or management would be the block here, and that this is a
negotiated-type thing whether they're going to follow the law,
that suggests we may have to intervene.
But the key question here is that if there were sanctions
that were broader--because if this is tough to catch, and it
takes things like probable cause, shifts in body weight, shifts
in performance behavior and so on, a random preseason testing
with occasional testing before--particularly as the new
variations wear out and you don't necessarily get to, is it 24
hours, is it 72 hours, how long is it in the system, how do you
track it; all those kinds of questions suggest the team has to
have a direct incentive as well, and the trainers, and we have
to basically award trainers in the locker room, the key people
who can see this and do this, and they have to be viewed as
quasipolicemen.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, before you recess, I just want to
ask one last question of this group. You were asked whether
there ought to be one uniform standard for all sports. I would
like to ask a question similar to that, and that is whether you
think there ought to be some independent group that runs the
testing program rather than the league itself, because if the
league comes up with a small figure, people will say, maybe
they're not doing an adequate job. So for the integrity of the
tests and for the public confidence that the tests are being
done appropriately, what do you think of the idea of having an
independent group do it? Whichever way. We could start with
you, Mr. Stewart, if you're ready. If you don't have an opinion
on it and you want to think it over, that is fine, too.
Mr. Stewart. I think to me the issue is credibility, and an
outside source shows a credible group.
Mr. Barnes. Being at the high school level, it would be
difficult for me to answer that question. So it's probably
better if these gentlemen do.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Courson.
Mr. Courson. I think an independent source would take away
a lot of the headaches.
Dr. Goldberg. I agree with that.
Dr. Wadler. That's the point I've been trying to make. So
many times I've made speeches at this microphone, but I do
think you need that independence to provide the credibility
that the public so desperately wants.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you.
Dr. Lombardo.
Dr. Lombardo. Since I'm intimately involved in this, I
don't think it's necessary to have an independent group. I
think it can be adequately handled and is being adequately
handled to the same extent that it would be by any independent
agency.
Mr. Waxman. Dr. Finkle.
Dr. Finkle. I just want to emphasize what I said earlier on
the same matter, and that is actually the program has a
remarkable amount of independence now, and maybe we should
emphasize that, find a way to put that out in an appropriate
fashion so that the perception is not that in this case the NFL
somehow has its cold hand on this. There are enormous
independent aspects to it right now.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you all very much. I very much appreciate
the time you have given us.
Chairman Tom Davis. I appreciate it. It has been a long
morning for you. We will recess the hearing and, because we
have intervening votes on the House floor, come back about 2
o'clock. Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Commissioner, thank you. Mr. Henderson,
Mr. Upshaw, thank you for your patience on this. Unfortunately
we had a series of votes. I hope you at least got a lunch out
of it.
The committee will come back to order. We will now
recognize our distinguished second panel. We have Mr. Paul
Tagliabue, the commissioner of the National Football League; we
have Harold Henderson, the executive vice president of labor
relations for the National Football League; and we have Gene
Upshaw, the executive director of the National Football League
Players Association.
It is our policy we swear everyone in before you testify.
Just rise with me.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. I think you know the rules.
Mr. Tagliabue, Mr. Commissioner, we will start with you. Take
what time you need. Your entire statement is in the record.
Again, we appreciate your patience. Thank you. Let the record
note, too, they sat through the whole first panel to hear
everybody testify out there in the audience. I know that
everyone appreciates that as well. I know you have a high
interest in this. We appreciate your proactivity in this area.
STATEMENTS OF PAUL TAGLIABUE, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL FOOTBALL
LEAGUE; HAROLD HENDERSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, LABOR
RELATIONS, NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE; AND GENE UPSHAW, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF PAUL TAGLIABUE
Mr. Tagliabue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I'm very pleased to be here with Harold Henderson,
who's the head of our labor relations group for the teams and
the league, and with Gene Upshaw as the executive director of
the NFL Players Association, which is the collective bargaining
association of our players. Gene, of course, played in the
league during three decades and is a Hall of Fame player. He's
one of two players in the history of our league to play in
Super Bowls in three different decades, in the 1960's, the
1970's and the 1980's. The only other such player is Jerry
Rice. So I think Gene is very well suited by dint of his
service as a player and as the head of the players union to
speak to some of the issues about what has gone on or not gone
on in locker rooms in the NFL in the past as well as currently,
and I'm sure he will speak to that.
I want to take my hat off to the prior panel because I
think they illustrated for us something that we've tried to
make an article of our business operations, which is to reach
out and listen to people who are dealing with different aspects
of sport at all levels of sport, and in particular I want to
express thanks to Steve Courson and the two high school
coaches, because over the term of my 16 years as commissioner,
one of the things we've tried to do is have excellent relations
with high school football in an effort to understand the
challenges that they face and to see whether we can do
something to help them, and if so, what that might be. So this
was a continuation of a dialog that we've had going on.
For my own part, I think I'm here not just as commissioner
of the National Football League, but as a parent and as a
grandparent, and also as someone who has spent most of his
life, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, involved in
sports. I would not be where I am had I not had the opportunity
to go to Georgetown on a basketball scholarship, having grown
up in Jersey City, spending 8 or 10 hours in school yards
playing every sport under the sun. And so sports for me has
been a great part of my life, and I still view youth sports and
college sports as important to me as professional sports.
The issues that the committee is considering are obviously
wide-ranging and address a wide range of concerns, the health
of athletes who use these substances, the values of sport that
are either promoted or debased by what people in sports do, and
the proper role of government and the private sector in
combating the use of these substances.
I'll say right at the top how I view our responsibility. We
feel that our program is the best in American sports, but we
have the responsibility to make it even better. It is often
said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I've tried to operate
for 16 years as commissioner on an opposite premise, which is
if it ain't broke, fix it anyway, because things can always be
made better, you can always improve your operations. That's the
attitude that we come here with.
For two decades, the National Football League has had very
strong programs in place to rid its locker rooms and its
playing fields of performance-enhancing substances. During that
period we feel we've also been a positive force in helping
youth football address these issues. We have not had all the
answers, but we have worked with leading institutions, top
scientists, top physicians and others to stay ahead of an ever-
changing curve. Our policies, which have included stiff
discipline and sanctions as well as other elements, we feel
have been constructive over the long term.
Today I would endorse what Steve Courson and others said
earlier, that the quickening pace of change in medicine and
science, including genetics, is confronting all of us with
challenges in the future that will make those of the past seem
relatively easy to deal with.
In our efforts, we've had strong support and active
participation in all of our programs, including our youth
football efforts, from the NFL Players Association, which, as I
said earlier, is the collective bargaining representative of
our player-employees. Together we continue to have, intend to
have, very strong policies and programs to deal with the
scientific, the medical, the ethical and the legal issues that
are generated by the ever-escalating availability of body-
changing, performance-enhancing substances. They are body-
changing, they are performance-enhancing, and eventually they
are going to be gene-altering. That's the environment that
we're in.
More than 20 years ago, in 1983, my predecessor Pete
Rozelle notified all NFL players that anabolic steroids were
within the categories of drugs prohibited for use in the
National Football League. In 1987 and 1988, the league did
testing to identify the dimensions of the problem and to
educate players as to the risks that they were undertaking when
they would use steroids or other performance-enhancing
substances. In 1989, when I was the league attorney,
Commissioner Rozelle suspended players for the first time for
violating the league's then drug testing prohibitions. I want
to say this, because I really believe it's important. We've
been at this for 20 years. It didn't take Congress in 1999 or
the creation of WADA 5 years ago for us to address these
issues. We were there in the early 1980's, the mid-'80's, and
the late 1980's, and we've been improving our program ever
since. I'll come back to that issue a little bit later.
Shortly after becoming commissioner in late 1989, we
instituted a number of changes in the league's substance abuse
program and in our relationships, meaning that we tried to get
better and better services from independent outside parties.
These changes took account of the growing complexity of the
issues, the increasingly varied types of substances that were
out there, as well as the need to ensure fairness in all of our
processes. And Dr. Lombardo and Dr. Finkle from whom you've
heard this morning have been key parts of our program.
In the early 1990's, we also worked closely with the
National Institute on Drug Abuse, with the White House Office
on Substance Abuse. We made every effort we could to avail
ourselves of the resources of NIH and other Federal agencies
and programs aimed at interdicting drug use by Americans. I
must say at that time, there were no federally financed
programs for testing for steroids. There certainly was research
going on for cocaine testing, marijuana testing in the
transportation sector and other areas, but we funded, along
with the Olympic Committee, certain labs along with
universities. I believe the first two labs that were in place
were at UCLA and one in Indiana. The one in Indiana then went
bankrupt, and we've continued with the UCLA lab, which is an
Olympic and WADA-certified lab. But we've been investing in
research right from the beginning.
Two other matters are key. The first is the subject of
human growth hormone. Dr. Lombardo spoke about it a little bit
this morning. We've prohibited this substance since 1991.
Currently there is no readily available test. There was mention
this morning of the fact that we're not testing for human
growth hormone. Well, there is no lab in the United States that
does test for human growth hormone. We understand that later
this year, there may be one or more labs with this capability
in the United States, and if there is, and if we can satisfy
ourselves that lab has a test protocol that is validated and
reliable, then we will consider how to incorporate the program
addressing human growth hormone based upon blood testing, if
that is what is necessary, into our programs. But when people
say that the NFL's program is deficient because it's not
testing for human growth hormone, that's because there has been
no tests, and there have been no labs. The WADA tested, and of
11,000 Olympic athletes, I believe, in connection with the
Athens Games, 300, there were no positive tests, and so there
is an issue as to the scale of use of this substance among
athletes. But the basic point is that those tests were in
Europe, the labs were in Europe, and there are no tests in the
United States. So our standards there and our capabilities
there are in line with everyone else.
Second, on testosterone, this is an area that we've worked
on for a decade or more. It is a substance naturally appearing
in the body. We have been leaders, as Dr. Finkle said, in
developing the testosterone, epitestosterone ratio tests that
are used to identify the presence of illicit amounts of
testosterone in an athlete. We have worked together with the
other organizations to take the ratio down from 6:1, they're
now down to 4:1, and to see whether there are even additional
ways, as Dr. Finkle suggested, by comparing urine samples or
the time line for a player's testosterone levels to show, to
figure out that he has been using illicit amounts of
testosterone, even if a single test doesn't hit the ratio.
The one thing I think is critically important in this area
is for us to be factual and complete and not selective and
self-serving as we analyze these issues. Some things were said
this morning that I don't think meet that standard. There was
comments about our out-of-competition testing versus WADA's
out-of-competition testing, and the suggestion was made that we
are administering too many out-of-competition tests compared to
WADA.
We don't feel that our players are out of competition at
any time of the year. They are employees, obligated, subject to
collectively bargaining rules, to work 12 months a year. So
there is no time of the year that they are out of competition.
That's one of the reasons we subject them to year-round drug
testing for these performance-enhancing drugs.
Another area is with respect to therapeutic use exemptions.
We don't give them because our players are not out of
competition. The therapeutic use exemption in this context can
become a fishing license to see who will give a prescription
for a substance that we don't want used. So we have a system on
our appeal process where it has to be raised as an affirmative
defense.
To suggest that our program is deficient because they do it
one way and we do it the other way is to say that the rules of
procedure in the Federal courts are deficient because the State
courts do it differently. It's a minor point. Both programs
have a great deal of validity. What you need is a process
that's fair and balanced, and we have that.
There are other areas that I also feel that there has not
been a balanced approach. On the issue of the size of our
players, we've been aware of it. You would have to be blind not
to be aware of the fact that athletes in general are growing.
We have Yao Ming playing in the NBA. No one saw Chinese players
of that size playing in the NBA 20 years ago. One statistical
point of interest is that over the past 20 years, based on the
studies I've seen, our players have become both smaller and
bigger. We have a far greater number of big players and a far
greater number of smaller players, under 6 feet and under 190
pounds. It reflects the specialization in our game, a so-called
flea-flicker-type receiver or the fleet defensive back. At the
other end of the spectrum we have the large player.
With respect to the large players, we don't believe that
they are getting there because of steroids. If you read all the
literature about steroids, what does it do? It reduces body
fat. It makes athletes lean and sculpted. It has an effect on
muscular and skeletal structure. These large players are
exhibiting none of those characteristics. To the contrary, they
have high body fat. They tend to be the antithesis of the
sculpted, lean athlete.
If steroids were raging in the 1970's in the NFL, and I
think everyone admits that their use has declined today, then
we would have had more 300-pound players in the NFL in the
1970's. That strongly suggests it's not related to the use of
steroids.
The other thing is the data itself. Gene Upshaw is going to
talk about 300-pound players that he blocked against in the
1960's. Where the notion comes up there were only 5 in the
league 20 years ago when he played against 10 of them in his
career in the 1960's, I don't know. The next question is, if
more players are over 300 pounds today, how many were between
285 and 299 20 years ago? We don't have that data in front of
us.
We created a special committee on obesity about 18 months
ago, I appointed it, chaired by a team physician who is, I
believe, at Johns Hopkins to address this issue of the large
size of the players. We feel we have a universe of individuals
that's nowhere else found in America. We're concerned about
that. We want to make sure that we don't do things with those
athletes, don't ask them to do things that will have long-term
negative effects for their health, and perhaps in the process
we can learn things about others in society who are going to
have to deal with issues of obesity.
So we're studying it, we're studying it seriously, but
we're certainly not going to jump to a conclusion that because
we have larger athletes today, there is increased steroid use
in the National Football League. I think it's nonsense. Whoever
thought we would have a quarterback like Daunte Culpepper? Bart
Starr used to be the paradigm. Billy Kilmer used to be the
paradigm. Today we have a young man who's 6 feet 6 and 268
pounds playing quarterback. Are we to conclude that he's using
steroids? I don't like to smear people in that fashion.
I'll make a final comment about youth football. We started
a youth football fund about 5 years ago. We funded it with our
players association. The players gave up money that would
ordinarily go into their salaries, about $150 million over 5
years, to fund a youth football fund, which Gene Upshaw and I
co-chair. One of the leading things we've done with this
program is to put out materials like this for high school and
youth football. This is a four-volume series that we published.
It's published in hard copy. It's on the Internet on a Web
site, NFLhighschool.com. It's on a lot of other Web sites. It
was prepared with our funding in conjunction with the Yale
University School of Pediatrics, the American Red Cross, the
National Athletic Trainers Association, the Institute for the
Study of Youth Sports at Michigan State University, and it's
out there and can be downloaded in any house in America that
has a computer, or in any school. We've distributed it to every
high school in America. It's called Health Concerns for Young
Athletes. It's a four-volume series.
There's a whole section in here on substance abuse,
emphasizing that for the high school--young high school
football player, steroids are definitely a concern, and they're
prohibited. But coaches need to know that other things,
according to Federal statistics, are even a more severe
problem, including alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy and
other recreational drugs. We have a whole section in here on
anabolic steroids.
So we agree 1,000 percent that dealing with this problem
among young people is critically important, and we stand ready
to intensify our efforts in that area. As many of you probably
know, we have the longest-standing public service television
program advertising series in support of the United Way. We
could do additional things in this area. If messaging is
important, if programs are important, we're prepared to fund
programs as we have been doing around the country emphasizing
these concerns.
I'll stop there and be prepared to take your questions. We
certainly appreciate the committee's interest in these matters
and the fact that you have focused everyone's attention,
including our own, on these issues.
If it's permissible, I'll turn it over to Mr. Henderson and
then to Mr. Upshaw.
Mr. Waxman [presiding]. Thank you very much for your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tagliabue follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.097
Mr. Waxman. Let's hear from Mr. Henderson next and then Mr.
Upshaw.
STATEMENT OF HAROLD HENDERSON
Mr. Henderson. Good afternoon, Chairman Davis and members
of the committee. The commissioner introduced me. I'm Harold
Henderson, appointed by the commissioner in 1991 as executive
vice president for labor relations. I also head the NFL
Management Council, the multi-employer bargaining unit. In that
capacity I am directly responsible for all matters related to
the players in regard to their employment by the clubs in the
National Football League, including negotiation and
administration of the collective bargaining agreement. That's
with the players and the players association that represents
the players.
When I arrived at the NFL in 1991, labor relations was
nonexistent. Following a players strike at the expiration of
the contract in 1987, the players returned to work without an
agreement. Several years of antitrust litigation followed,
during which period the union disclaimed continuing
representation of the NFL players and ceased doing business
with the NFL. The parties were unable to resolve their
bargaining differences 'til after a 3-month-long trial through
the whole summer of 1992. Then we spent the next 6 months
negotiating a new CBA with Gene Upshaw and his union.
While we ultimately reached an agreement that is viewed by
many as the best in the history of professional sports, that 6-
month period was one of hard-fought negotiations, often
contentious and acrimonious. The total lack of trust on both
sides of the table made the situation especially difficult. In
short, we fought about everything.
After negotiation of the CBA terms related to economic and
system issues was completed in March 1993, the union and the
Management Council turned their attention to the policies on
drug and alcohol abuse, and steroids, and performance-enhancing
substances. This was against the background of nearly 5 years
without a collective bargaining agreement and 3 years without
union participation, during which time both programs had been
modified substantially. Discipline was instituted and
subsequently increased, a strict liability standard was
instituted, and additional substances were added to the banned
list.
Despite these changes, and despite earlier union objections
to the discipline process and other policy provisions, the
negotiation of the collective bargaining provisions concerning
the policy on anabolic steroids and related substances was
agreed in a relatively short time with very little debate or
acrimony.
The union agreed there was no place for steroids in the
National Football League for three reasons. Their first concern
was for the players' health. Even at that time there was
sufficient medical indication of adverse medical effects on
people using these substances. Second, they were concerned that
the use of these substances would threaten the fairness and
integrity of the athletic competition on the field as well as
the competition between players vying for a position on the
team. It was considered unfair and undesirable that players who
did not wish to use those substances would feel forced to do so
in order to compete effectively with those who did. Third, they
recognized that our players are role models and that use of
such substances may well influence young athletes to use them
as well. Those were exactly the same reasons the league wanted
a strong policy.
After a thorough and detailed review of the then current
policy, it was adopted by the NFLPA, making it part of the
collective bargaining agreement without significant change.
That included continuation of the league's adviser for anabolic
steroids and related substances, Dr. John Lombardo, who spoke
earlier today, and adoption of the same testing laboratories
which had been used. It also carried forth the principle of
strict liability. A player is held responsible for what is in
his body.
Others here today have described provisions of our policy
in detail so I won't get into it. The NFL steroid policy has
been modified almost every year since the Management Council
and the NFLPA agreed. Most of those modifications involve
adding to the banned substance list. It has been our practice
to make those changes in the spring of each year, effective
upon publication to the players in May of each year. Further,
we meet twice a year with an advisory panel of experts in the
field unrelated to the NFL steroid program, whose advice is
used to ensure that our program reflects all current scientific
and medical advances in the field.
Over the years we've discussed with the players several
times the appropriateness of the discipline schedule in our
steroid policy. Our goal has been to balance deterrence and
punishment with appropriate fairness for the individual. A
first violation is punished by suspension of four games,
regular or postseason, without pay. Our players are paid on a
per-game basis, usually 17 paychecks over the course of the
season, so that for the 4-week suspension, a player loses
nearly 25 percent of his annual salary. Additional financial
losses are incurred by forfeiture of signing bonuses or a
failure to make incentives because they weren't on the field.
For a second offense, a player is suspended for a minimum of
six games, and a third offense for at least 12 months.
These are severe sanctions for a professional football
player. I think it is significant that in my 14 years with the
league, there has never been a player suspended for a second
time. The purpose of the discipline and our policy is as a
deterrent, and we believe that it works.
Education and awareness is also an important part of the
program. We communicate to the players through direct
communications and newsletters from Gene Upshaw and from me,
bulletin board posters at team meetings. We established a toll-
free telephone line on which players can get information about
dietary supplements and other potential sources of
unintentional ingestion of banned substances. You heard here
about our newly established supplemental certification program
where manufacturers of food supplements can have them certified
by an independent lab to contain no substances banned by our
program.
In summary, in a labor relations environment in which
nearly every issue is hotly contested and debated, frequently
resolved through arbitration or litigation rather than
agreement, in the area of steroids and related substances, the
league and the union have seen eye to eye on nearly every
point. With full support of the players and the clubs, we
maintain a very effective policy, tough but fair, which works
for the clubs, the league, the players and the public.
We will continue to be alert for new performance-enhancing
substances and new ways to avoid detection. We will continue to
use the most effective, reliable state-of-the-art methodology
and equipment to detect illegal use of banned substances. We
will continue to invest in research and development to keep us
current on the scientific and medical developments in this
area, in part through a new laboratory funded jointly by the
NFL and the U.S. Anti-Doping Association. We will strive to
continue to ensure that our players are positive role models
for America's youth, athletes or not.
I welcome your questions.
Mr. Duncan [presiding]. Very fine testimony, Mr. Henderson.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Upshaw.
STATEMENT OF GENE UPSHAW
Mr. Upshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Gene Upshaw. I'm
the executive director of the National Football League players
association. We're an exclusive bargaining agent on behalf of
all the players in the National Football League.
There are numerous issues in which management and labor
disagree, and we are presently involved in a very serious
extension of our collective bargaining agreement. But I want to
start by saying there is no disagreement when it comes to this
issue of steroid use and performance-enhancing drugs in our
game. We will do all we can to get it out of the game and out
of our society, because there is no place for performance-
enhancing substances in our American life.
Our collectively bargained program on anabolic steroids has
been in place for several decades and is the most comprehensive
in sports today. How did we get here? In 1967, when I was
drafted by the Oakland Raiders in the first round, I entered
into a league that had no drug policy, that had no testing,
that had no education, that had nothing in the form that we see
it today. I played through the 1960's, the 1970's and the
1980's. I retired after the 1982 season and became the
executive director of the NFL Players Association.
Back then, no one was keeping track of sacks. If you asked
Deacon Jones today, he would say he would be the sack leader if
someone had kept track of that. It was the same way with 300-
pound players. I had to play against guys that were 300 pounds
in 1967 when I first came into the league, and they were still
there when I left in 1982. Just to name a few, Buck Buchanan,
Ernie Ladd, Louie Kelcher, Wilber Young, Bob Brown with the
Green Bay Packers. I also believe my old teammate and roommate
for 15 years might have tipped the scales at 300 a few times or
two.
In 1987, the NFL began testing players for steroid use. In
1989, we began suspending players. And in 1990, we instituted a
year-round random testing program. Today I would like to
believe that we have sorted out a lot of the issues that we
need to sort out over that period of time.
You have heard from the commissioner and from Harold
Henderson on what our program looks like, but the one thing
that has been clear about our position and about where we are
today, there has never been any doubt that the players in the
National Football League wanted it off the field. The reason
that we have always wanted it off the field, because players
have always stressed to me, and they did it when I was playing,
and they are doing it still today, that if you don't get it
away from the other guy, we're forced to take it to compete. We
also understand the health effects that it causes. We also
understand our role as role models and leaders in this area,
and we intend to uphold that. We have always been in favor of
getting rid of steroids out of the National Football League and
anywhere else it is in our society.
When you look at our collective bargaining agreement and
you look at the disagreements that we've had over the years
with the NFL, the only place that you find random testing is in
this area, because we believe strongly in it. The players know
that there is no way to escape if you are using performance-
enhancing substances, including steroids.
I must say, we would be naive to not be aware that there
are people out there trying to stay ahead of the curve. We will
continue to monitor that and try to stay ahead of them. We can
only know what we know. And as soon as we find out something,
we do something about it. In 2003, the laboratory at UCLA
turned up a new substance, a designer steroid that we all heard
about today, THG. They informed us of it, we talked about it,
and I think we did it over a phone call. Immediately it went on
the list. Even as ephedra came on the market 3 years ago, even
though now it seems to be back in some form, it still remains
on our banned list because we understand the effects that it
has on our players.
Someone said that we need active players here. I talk to
active players, I spend most of my time in locker rooms around
the NFL, and I can tell you this: Over the years that I've been
in this position in the locker room, and I did include some
quotes from active players in my testimony that's part of this
record, but I want to point out one thing that I think is very
important. We have never had one player in the National
Football League defend another player, his teammate or anyone
else that tested positive for using drugs and using steroids.
Not a one. You are responsible for what you put in your body.
We stand behind that. Our players support that. We believe our
program is fair.
I heard a word today when I was sitting back there that
said codify, and I started thinking, what is that? We don't
believe that our system codifies any player. That is the main
reason it is not in the hands of teams and clubs. It is
independent, away from them. We will look at it in a way that
if you test positive, you will be suspended. Players expect
that. We believe that it is a severe penalty to be suspended.
If there are changes that need to be made in our policy, as
Harold has pointed out, we're not above changing, wherever
change needs to be. We want to have the best, and we want to
make our program even better. We have always strived to do
that. But there is no room for this substance in our sport or
anywhere in our society when it comes to athletic competition.
The players will support this committee, and we do support
this committee, and we also support what the NFL and the
players have been able to accomplish over a long period of
time. We didn't just come to this dance a couple of weeks ago.
We started out many, many years ago, and we'll stay until the
song is over. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upshaw follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.107
Chairman Tom Davis [presiding]. I want to thank all of you
for your testimony and your patience being with us today.
Commissioner Tagliabue and Mr. Upshaw, there has been a lot
of discussion about the cooperation between the NFL, the
players association and even this committee leading up to
today's hearing. I think you are both to be commended for
facilitating such a positive working relationship.
The first panel answered this question, and I want to get
your answer as well: how the average American is supposed to
look at the size, strength and speed of today's NFL linebackers
and not conclude that they might be taking performance-
enhancing drugs? That's chatter. That's not data. The first
panel addressed it in terms of specialization and the like, and
I just want to give you an opportunity to do the same.
Mr. Upshaw. Well, I think the NFL is a particle of what we
get. It starts at the college level. You heard the statistics
about the high school players and the size that they are. They
are getting bigger. They come to us the size that we get them.
What's really amazing about the size is that one of our
strictest fines is overweight. When they come to us that big,
we try to reduce them down. One of the biggest fights I had
with Harold is the amount of fines that the players get for
being overweight for a period of days or weeks. It's pretty
close to $200 a pound per day for being overweight. So we are
trying to get them down. They come to us at a certain size, and
we just accept that.
But everyone has also pointed out, and the Commissioner
has, too, the rules have changed. When I was playing, there was
a Green Bay sweep, and everyone ran it, and they had guards
that looked like me. I couldn't play tight end today. But the
rules changed that now we have basically five tackles across
the front. You don't have an offensive guard, a center and two
tackles; what you have is five tackles, and they all get in
front of each over, and they push each other around.
That is the difference in where we are today when it
relates to size. Obviously when you see a young, aspiring
athlete out there, and he sees this size, and he decides I need
to be that big to play, we're not saying that they're not doing
things that they shouldn't be doing, but the NFL is basically
getting what the colleges and the high schools are providing.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thanks.
Mr. Tagliabue. Mr. Chairman, I guess if I could--just to
add a point. I think what we're seeing in athletics today, not
just at our level, but at the youth level, is specialization.
We read about it constantly in the sports pages, parents
complaining about the fact that their son or daughter is 12 or
13 years old, and all he or she wants to do is play one sport.
They want to play football all year, they want to play soccer
all year, they want to play women's basketball all year.
Coupled with specialization goes weight training. Sometimes
it's weight loss. In wrestling, doctors have expressed to me
concern about high-schoolers losing weight to get down from 185
to the 152-pound division. Then we see people gaining weight
through strict weightlifting programs.
Our players now are employed 11 months of the year. Mr.
Henderson has a story about his own son that illustrates, I
think, what perfectly clean, drug-free workouts can do in terms
of body size. I know you don't want to beat this to death, but
I'll turn it over to him.
Mr. Henderson. Several Members have spoken about their
children and grandchildren in sports. I had the experience a
few years ago, my son was a four-sport athlete in high school
locally in Fairfax County. He wrestled, captain of the
wrestling team and football team his senior year. He would
wrestle at 152. He played football at about 165. He was blessed
with his mother's genes. He was about 5 foot 8 in about his
10th-grade year. He's still 5 foot 8. He went to college. He
played football in college. He went from a high school program
where he cut weight, put on weight, cut weight, put on weight,
to full-time football, around-the-year training there, and he
went from 165 to about 180, to about 190, and his senior year
he captained the team at his college at over 200 pounds. I am
as confident as anything that he never took any kind of
substance to enhance his growth. He's still 5 foot 8.
We have players now who come into the NFL, and unlike the
1970's and 1980's when Mr. Courson and Mr. Upshaw played, it is
a full-time job now. They don't come in in July and play 'til
Christmas and go home and take it easy anymore. By March 1st,
sometimes earlier, they're back at the facility lifting
weights, training, running, year around, putting on bulk,
working on dietary programs and nutritional programs and weight
programs for the purpose of putting on weight. And it's
effective. I've seen it in my own household. If you work at it,
you can do it on an ordinary body. I think that's the element
that we are disregarding too quickly, that hard work can
produce the bulk, muscles, size as effectively as anything
else.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Let me just ask one other quick question. I noted in my
opening statement the momentum is building behind the idea of
an advisory committee. Mr. Waxman and I talked about it on
March 17 at the Major League Baseball hearing. Is it safe to
say that the NFL and the players association support this
concept, an advisory committee of sports figures on that?
Mr. Tagliabue. We would like to know a little bit more
about what is going to be done, and we'd like to make sure
we're investing our resources wisely, but we would certainly
look forward to cooperating. We think there can be a very
powerful statement here and an enhancement of what we're trying
to do. Of course, there are programs out there like the
Partnership for a Drug-Free America and many other things, but
we will certainly support programs that are positive through
the committee.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend the
three of you for not just being here, but for the proactive way
you have tried to deal with the steroid problem. If you could
look back to the 1980's, there were reports of widespread use
of steroids in football. Since then you have worked to refine
and improve the policies. You didn't wait until the problem
just couldn't be ignored any longer, you tried to make sure
that you could do something about it.
I think one of the issues that we have is that getting a
clear picture of how much steroids and other performance-
enhancing drugs are used in the various professional and
amateur sports, and for obvious reasons, since it is against
the law, sports figures don't want to talk about it. You can
understand that to be the case. No one questions whether the
NFL has made a good faith effort to police steroids. You have,
and you seem to be testing--you have testing numbers to back it
up.
But it is also true that a lot of people who follow sports
closely believe that maybe some of the players use performance-
enhancing drugs but evade detection. That report about the
Carolina Panther players reinforce that view. That is one of
the issues we are trying to sort out today.
What is your perspective about the extent of steroid use in
the NFL? You had a serious problem in the 1980's. Do you
believe that the problem is under control?
Mr. Tagliabue. We believe it is. It's not perfect. We do
about 9,000 tests a year. We have very extensive random
testing, unannounced. We think that there is a tremendous
deterrent element in there. As you know, we've suspended 54
players over the period of years. Fifty-seven others have
tested positively and just left the game. So we've had about
seven a year.
Our experience is very consistent with the WADA experience
in 2004 and USADA. In 2004, USADA tested fewer athletes than we
did, 7,600 versus 9,000. They did it in 45 sports. We did it in
one sport. They had nine positive tests. On average we have
about seven. So we don't think the low level of positives
indicates a weak program any more than their low level of
positive indicates a weak program. We think that the programs
are effective.
The three difficult areas are those that you have
identified. One is testosterone when it's calibrated to be
under the now ratio of 4:1 testosterone to epitestosterone. Two
may be human growth hormone. I say ``may be'' because it's not
yet clear that really does accomplish what some athletes would
like to accomplish, but there is no current test for it. And
the third is the designer steroid issue that Mr. Courson
emphasized, of which THG in the BALCO investigation is only
one.
But our feeling is that, as Gene said, the culture of our
athletes, the overwhelming number of our athletes, is to stay
clean, to play clean, to be as dedicated to the same values of
the game as the Vince Lombardis and the Bart Starrs and the
Roger Staubachs and right up to today with the Donovan McNabbs
and the Tom Bradys, and we don't feel that there is rampant
efforts to cheat in our sport.
Mr. Waxman. Are you doing an investigation of that report
from 60 Minutes?
Mr. Tagliabue. We are investigating. We do have our
security department interviewing those players, and we will--at
some point I will have--our security department is headed by a
former top official of the FBI, and we are interviewing those
players, cooperating with the DEA in trying to get to the
bottom of that investigation in South Carolina.
Mr. Waxman. When you finish your investigation, we would
like to see a copy of that.
Mr. Tagliabue. We would be pleased to share with you the
results of our interviews and all we get from the DEA.
Mr. Waxman. We are all in agreement about the goal. We want
to get steroids and performance-enhancing drugs out of sports.
I have asked this question of others. It came up this morning,
and I would like your view on it. Do you think the adoption of
a single uniform steroid policy across sports would help in
reaching this goal?
Mr. Tagliabue. I don't think so. I think that in this area,
it's a question of general rules versus specialized programs.
Both have their place in society. I think we have a specialized
program, directed at our sport to deal with our needs, which
incorporates all the best elements of the other programs. To
some extent we've set the standard for the other programs. When
I go to Europe, they praise the way we govern our sports. They
have major issues in German soccer right now with game referees
having taken bribes.
I happen to believe that Americans can solve American
problems just as well as anyone else in the world. I think when
we apply our mind to it, we can be the best in the world. And
if we've got to start outsourcing or offshoring our drug
programs, then I think we're in trouble.
Mr. Waxman. I wasn't thinking of that. I was thinking of--
--
Mr. Tagliabue. But that's what the WADA is. It's
outsourcing and offshoring our drug program. I think we can do
it better here.
Mr. Waxman. If we're going to do it better here, don't you
think it would make sense to have baseball have the same policy
as football, the same as others?
Mr. Tagliabue. In terms of testing technology, in terms of
science, in terms of perhaps even test protocols, the more we
can do together, the better. If we can get $10 from 10
different sports instead of just $5 from one sport and invest
in better science and research, yes. But when it comes to
process and other considerations, including discipline, I think
we can deal with our own sport better than a uniform standard,
which in many cases is going to become the lowest common
denominator.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Upshaw.
Mr. Upshaw. I just want to add one thing. From what you
heard this morning and what we already know, we all are using
the same experts. We all are using the same labs. We all are
using the same testing protocol, I mean, in a sense, and we've
been doing this for years.
The Commissioner remembers the days when this program was
not in the shape that it's in. It's simply because of his
leadership and his integrity that we were able to come together
under a program in which the players feel very, very confident
that they're treated fairly and that every player is treated
the same. That has been the reason. When we go back to the
early 1980's or the late 1980's and start talking about why do
we have testing, it was the players who said, we want it, we
need it, we don't want it in our sport. That's why we are where
we are today.
Mr. Waxman. Don't you think what is good for football
should also be good for baseball?
Mr. Upshaw. No. I couldn't hit a curveball. I don't think
so. On the other hand, when it comes to trying to get it out of
the sport, we should all be on the same page. I think we are on
the same page. The difference is, where we are, we've been
doing it for 20 years, and we've been trying to evolve and stay
ahead of this. They haven't done it that way, and they have to
do what's best, because I get asked all the time, what advice
would I give baseball? I can't give them any advice. I'm more
concerned about our league, our players, our teams and our
sport. That's where I am.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Duncan [presiding]. Thank you.
I'm going to go for questions to Mr. Shays, but first I
want to just say that a few weeks ago just before and just
after our hearing with the baseball executives and players,
there were a lot of media reports. I saw one about a boxer who
had lost both of his legs because of steroid use. I saw other
reports about high school kids having mental problems and even
committing suicide.
There was some criticism of this committee about holding
these hearings. I even said--I told the media, this is my 17th
year in the Congress. I have never seen so much media coverage.
Some people said, well, we should have been holding hearings on
some of the more important issues. This committee has about the
broadest jurisdiction of any committee in the Congress. We have
held hearings on every major issue there is out there, from the
war in Iraq to everything else, and a lot of times those
hearings aren't well attended. We couldn't help it because
there was more media interest in this than some of the other
things.
But I think holding these hearings has brought attention to
this issue like never before, and a lot of young people now
know how dangerous some of these things are. I appreciate your
attitude and your cooperation with this committee in regard to
these hearings. I will tell Mr. Tagliabue that my constituent
and good friend Lamar Alexander I know is a good friend of
yours from law school days, and he certainly thinks a lot of
you.
Finally, I would just say, I've told people the biggest
thing in my district is Tennessee football, and that the colors
orange and white are almost more patriotic than red, white and
blue. But I found out how tough pro football was a few years
ago when we had an All-American linebacker named Chazon
Bradley, and he was cut by the New York Giants. He told me
later that when he came up, they moved him around like he was a
toothpick. I have never forgotten that. So pro football has to
be a very difficult profession.
Go ahead, Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. I want to say that this hearing today with all
of you and the earlier panel is like light years different from
Major League Baseball. I want to thank you for your
cooperation. I want to thank you for being here before and
listening to the first panel. I want to thank you for providing
us all the data that we needed. And so I have nothing but
admiration for--Commissioner, I want to thank you for knowing
what the hell is going on. With all due respect, the
commissioner of baseball hadn't even read the document that he
had given us. They didn't even seem to know that in the
document they gave us it said a penalty or a fine. Then they
said, well, a fine really wasn't part of it. And then after the
hearing, they said they voted to take the fines out as if they
were part of it.
I kind of love you guys, and yet I shouldn't because I
still have problems. The problem I have is you still have four
bites, and I don't understand it. I don't understand why
someone who's breaking the law, who's cheating, should have one
bite, should have two bites, should have three bites before
they are asked to leave. So I need you to explain to me why you
think that is OK.
Mr. Tagliabue. I don't want to quibble, but I don't know
what you mean by four bites. As soon as a player tests positive
for a performance-enhancing----
Mr. Shays. Let me explain what I mean then so you won't
have to wonder. You don't suspend him the first time
permanently, you don't suspend him the second time permanently,
you don't suspend him the third time permanently. They still
get to come back and play. And the fourth time, I think they're
out. I'm not sure, but I think they're out.
Mr. Tagliabue. Maybe I could just answer it in two parts.
It's definitely worth discussing, obviously. First of all, as
soon as a player tests positive for any one of these
substances, or if he refuses to give a test, he's suspended for
four games.
Mr. Shays. That is one bite.
Mr. Tagliabue. In other sports, that's equivalent to a 40-
game suspension. In baseball, that would be a 40-game
suspension. In the NBA, it would be a 20-game suspension.
Mr. Shays. Baseball has 10 days.
Mr. Tagliabue. But ours is equivalent to 40 games in
baseball, if they had the same policy.
Second, it works. It's easy for me as the almighty God on
high to be peremptory and say, throw them out of the sport.
That's not fair. It works. We've had 54 violators and never a
repeat. So four games works.
Mr. Shays. So you really don't need the second at six games
and the third at 1 year. That's what I'm wondering. I don't
have a problem with the first pass.
Mr. Tagliabue. But we don't have a first pass. We got 54
violations, we've had 54 suspensions. There were two positive
tests, and those--on the second time through, and those players
retired. So the deterrent has worked. We've never gotten to the
second.
Mr. Shays. You have had two repeats?
Mr. Tagliabue. We've had two repeats, and they retired from
the game.
Mr. Shays. When they were caught the second time?
Mr. Tagliabue. When they were caught the second time, they
retired. We had 54 players; 52 of the 54 were disciplined once,
and there has never been a repeat. So it works.
Mr. Shays. I'm impressed by that, but then maybe you all
should be considering not having the third time being 1 year.
Mr. Tagliabue. That's a fair point. Maybe we can take a
fresh look at how these things are sequenced.
Let me just make another point. We heard this morning about
other sports with 2-year suspensions, including the WADA. They
had a lot of exemptions from that. It's not actually as
advertised. They have a bunch of exemptions, all the way down
to warnings, as exemptions from the 2-year policy. If a player
can show that what he did was not intentionally designed to
violate the policy, he gets a warning, not a 2-year. We have
absolute liability.
Mr. Shays. Let me ask Mr. Upshaw to comment.
Mr. Tagliabue. I'd like to make one further point. In many
cases, if we went to something like a 2-year suspension for the
first offense here, A, I think it would be unnecessary to
deter, and, B, it would be the end of the player's career. He
would go back in the street. In some cases he's going to be a
young man whose only path out of the ghetto is football. He's
going to go back and never return.
Mr. Shays. Before Mr. Upshaw makes his point, I am not
arguing that the first time be 2 years. I guess what I had a
problem with was looking at the three and the four.
Mr. Upshaw.
Mr. Upshaw. As the commissioner has pointed out, we have
not had repeat offenders. The thing that you have to also
remember is that once you're in this program, you're randomly
tested at least 24 times per year for the rest of your career.
So you're always on the edge from that first time. There are
not many clubs willing to take a chance when you're that close
to basically losing it all. That is all part of being in the
position where we feel that it has worked for us. We're not
close-minded to what they're doing at WADA, but that's a
different story, but we feel this works for our players, and
our players believe it works because we don't have repeat
offenders.
Mr. Shays. I think that's an impressive statistic. I think
it speaks volumes. What I will just conclude by saying is it
strikes me then that it may be unnecessary to have a perceived
third bite of the apple.
Mr. Upshaw. Let's hope we never have to get there.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tagliabue. We will take a look at that to see if we can
make it clearer that this is peremptory.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Let me say first of all to you, Mr. Tagliabue, to Mr.
Henderson and to Mr. Upshaw, I sat through the entire baseball
hearing, all 11 hours of it, and I got to tell you that this is
a breath of fresh air compared to what we heard and what we
experienced that day. I want to thank you for your testimony.
One of the things--and I just want to pick up on where Mr.
Shays left off. Mr. Tagliabue, having said what I just said,
you said something just now that really kind of struck my
interest. When Mr. Shays was talking about possibly, I guess,
suspending folks for a lifetime, or putting them out of the
game, you said for some of these folks, it's their only path
out of the ghetto. Is that what you said?
Mr. Tagliabue. Yes. Some of our players.
Mr. Cummings. I live in the ghetto, all right? I've been
there for a long time. I live within a shadow of Ravens
stadium. I represent people who can't afford to go to the game.
I represent people, if they are caught with a Schedule III
drug, they go to jail. I am here to tell you, I feel no
sympathy, none, for people who cheat, who make it harder on
other players, and in the words of Mr. Henderson, I think Mr.
Upshaw may have said it, too, what happens, it almost forces
folks to say, well, if they're doing it, then I've got to do
it.
That is the thing that bothers me. These guys are getting
paid, big time. Nobody says that kind of stuff to my guys on my
street who are being arrested as we speak. They don't get any
sympathy from me.
What I would like to see is that after that second time,
that they be thrown out of the game. We need to send a message
to some of the kids in my neighborhood that professional
sports, where people can bulk up or do whatever--I am not so
worried about the weight stuff, I am more concerned about the
example. They sit there and they say to themselves, you know,
this is my--see, there is another way to look at this. This is
my way out of the ghetto. But they don't understand that on
their way trying to get to one of those games and be a part of
the game, they may be derailed. And if they are derailed, they
got major, major problems.
So I guess what I am saying to you is that I hope that you
do take a look at throwing folks out after the second offense.
And I know and, Mr. Upshaw, I heard you and you, Mr. Henderson,
you were very sincere, and I really appreciate it, but part of
the reason why we hold these hearings, I think, is to try to
send a message to our young people not to mess with not only
these kinds of drugs, but other drugs.
I heard you, Mr. Tagliabue. I know you to be an honorable
man, and I hope that you will consider that. It is not just the
guys that you are worrying about, at least they're making some
money. My guys when they get arrested, you know what happens to
them? They're sentenced to life with no--when I say life, I
mean they can't get a job, they can't have certain occupations,
they can't do a whole lot of things. They may not ever have a
sentence where they serve a year or two, but just that record.
And so they see this as a ticket out of the getto. Your players
running around, it's a wonderful magazine with the fancy
uniforms that you showed, the fancy uniforms, they're looking
good. My guys can't get in the stadium. You follow me? And so I
would appreciate it.
Do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Upshaw. I would like to comment on the end result of
the second offense. That is where we are focused. We focus on
the repeat offenders. We don't have repeat offenders. We all
understand the economics here. That's why guys are playing the
game. That's why guys in the game want this banned substance
and steroids out of the game. They don't want it in there.
That's why we're talking about it. And when it gets to going to
try to educate other students, younger students, younger
athletes, we have been on the cutting edge of doing as much as
we can possibly do.
Mr. Cummings. Moving over to Mr. Tagliabue, one of the
things that you all said, which is very interesting, was the
thing about the athletes and how small they are. We had a
program with the NFL in my district where they were working
with us on obesity issues in some high schools. I walked into
the auditorium, and I'm expecting to see these big guys. These
little tiny fellows--I'm almost finished, Mr. Chairman. These
little tiny fellows. I said, what are you doing? They said, we
play for the Ravens. I was shocked. So I know what you are
talking about. There are a lot of pretty small fellows in the
league.
Mr. Upshaw. I just want to comment on that. That gets to
the rules. Last weekend we went through the draft. There was a
lot of discussion about one of the rule changes that we made on
what you can do and can't do with a receiver as he goes 5 yards
past the line of scrimmage. You will see a change in the
defensive back, the way that they look, the size that they are,
and what they can and cannot get away with based on what rules
that we have.
So when you have these big, huge Mack trucks sitting in the
front blocking, you need some little, smaller guys to kind of
ease through that hole, because they can't open up a hole big
enough for a guy that's 240, 250 pounds. That's the gist of
what happens in the game today.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Tagliabue. I guess, Mr. Cummings, I think you and I
agree on most everything here on the terms of discipline. We
want it to be stiff. We don't have repeat offenders, as Gene
just said. We have not had a repeat offender stay in the league
in this area. And my only point was that at some juncture, I'd
rather save a life than destroy it.
Mr. Cummings. You heard my comments.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Tagliabue. I think we agree on most everything here.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon. I sat through several hours of hearings
when Major League Baseball appeared before this committee. Like
some of the previous speakers, Mr. Shays and Mr. Cummings, I do
applaud you for your forthrightness, for your interest in this
issue, and for how you have tried to be proactive on this issue
over the years.
My question--one of the questions I had asked Major League
Baseball that dealt with sports betting, betting on baseball;
if you bet on baseball, you're gone. I take it that the NFL has
a similar policy. I remember a case several years ago, I think,
of a prominent quarterback who was betting, and he is no longer
in the game. You do have a policy, Mr. Tagliabue, on sports
betting?
Mr. Tagliabue. Yes.
Mr. Dent. What are the penalties for a player who bets on
football while an active player?
Mr. Tagliabue. I guess it's up to me.
Mr. Dent. Up to you. So it is not like Major League
Baseball where basically you're banned for life.
Mr. Tagliabue. I'm sure I could ban someone for life. It
would depend on what he did.
Mr. Dent. I asked this question of baseball, and I will ask
it of you. Do you believe that the steroid issue is as serious
or more serious than the sports betting issue among players?
Mr. Tagliabue. I think it's just as serious, but I think
it's comparing apples and oranges. I guess the way I look at it
is that an effective program in this area really has to go to
about five points. One is education. One is strict enforcement
of access to these substances, and I think that's a real, deep,
big problem in our society, especially for young people. I've
been told by experts that you can get some of these substances
by going online, getting an 800 number, no matter where you
live, calling a call center. The call center will switch you to
Bermuda and get you a prescription. You can get drugs
prescribed, and then they will be FedEx'd to you from someplace
overseas. It's flooding in. Internet pharmacy.
Education; enforcement relative to access; effective
testing, which is a major deterrent; strong discipline; and at
some point rehabilitation and giving people a second chance, I
think those are the elements, and I think that's what we have.
I think this is as severe as gambling. I think the
challenges for young people here are greater because of
confusion about what's a legitimate drug and what's
illegitimate. We talked about stimulants this morning. A big
part of the issue there is increasing prescriptions of wonder
drugs for ADD and ADHD. I think this is a little more nuanced,
I guess, than the gambling. I think they're both very severe
problems, and they should be addressed severely.
Mr. Dent. I understand and respect your answer. I guess I
was hoping that we might say that this steroid issue is more
serious because both sports gambling and illegal steroid use
affect the integrity of your game to be sure, but the steroids
certainly affect the health of the players considerably.
Mr. Tagliabue. I think this is a lot more complicated than
gambling. We're in an environment where gambling can be a big
problem in our society. That's probably another week of
hearings. Of course, that's being condoned in ways that it
shouldn't be. Thank you.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Towns.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me associate----
Mr. Tagliabue. Including video poker on ESPN.
Mr. Towns. Let me first associate myself with the remarks
made by a couple of my colleagues in saying that dealing with
you is a breath of fresh air when you compare it to Major
League Baseball.
Also, I want to commend you, Commissioner Tagliabue, and,
of course, Mr. Upshaw and Mr. Henderson, for how you have
actually dealt with the problem in terms of working together to
deal with the whole drug abuse issue. I want to salute you for
that.
I just want to make certain that I fully understand what
you are doing. Will you describe the process by which a player
who is notified he has tested positive can appeal? If a player
has tested positive, and he would like to appeal, what is the
process? Maybe I should go all the way through.
Mr. Henderson. I can answer that. A player who has tested
positive is first notified by Dr. Lombardo, who is an adviser
to the administrative head of the program. I think that his
first step after advising the player of the positive test is to
discuss with him whether there is a legitimate reason that he
had a particular substance in his system, such as a
prescription from a doctor or something like that.
Once he makes that determination, either the case is
dropped as not a positive, it's not considered a positive, or
advanced. There may be some circumstances in which he's not
fully satisfied of the player's innocence, but feels there is
not enough conclusive evidence to go forward with the case, and
we put him on probable cause testing, reasonable cause testing,
and he's tested indefinitely at the program's discretion,
randomly, several times regularly after that. Or if there is no
adequate rationale, no reasonable explanation for the substance
in the player's body, and no issue of proof with the evidence,
he's given a notice of discipline.
A letter is issued from people in my office notifying him
that he is suspended immediately for 4 weeks and that he has a
right of an appeal. If he wishes to appeal, he can bring a
representative, including a lawyer of his choice, and his union
representative to take advantage of his opportunity to have a
hearing.
A hearing, if he wants a hearing, an appeal hearing is held
before a designated hearing officer with full due process
afforded under the CBA, an opportunity to present evidence,
witnesses. We also have--he can bring in a toxicologist of his
own to refute any evidence that we have. Sometimes these
hearings may be as short as an hour or so, but I've known them
to take 8 hours or more. After he has fully exhausted his
defenses, a decision is rendered.
Mr. Towns. Let me make sure I understand that. Let me make
sure I understand the appeals process. For instance, you're
saying that you have tested positive, and I am saying, no,
that's not the case. What happens to the player during that
process?
Mr. Henderson. What happens to the player?
Mr. Towns. Yes, during that process.
Mr. Henderson. Discipline is stayed pending the appeal, if
that's what you mean. Nothing happens to the player prior to
his appeal hearing.
Mr. Towns. Right. So he can still continue to play.
Mr. Henderson. If it's during the season, yes, he would
continue to play.
Mr. Towns. How long does this appeal process take?
Mr. Henderson. It varies. Obviously during the season we
make every effort to expedite it. We try to have it resolved,
certainly within 30 days or less if possible, with lawyers
involved and witnesses and things like that. Sometimes the
process takes longer to put in place. In the off-season, the
penalty is deferred until the season starts anyway, and so
people are inclined not to rush it as much. There is not the
same urgency, and sometimes it's as late as this time of year,
May or even June, before those cases are resolved, because the
discipline would be imposed only in September when the season
starts.
Mr. Towns. I know some suggestions were made up here about
them being suspended for life and all that. Let me ask you, up
to this point, how do you feel that the program has actually
worked?
Mr. Henderson. How do I feel that it's working?
Mr. Towns. Yes.
Mr. Henderson. I think it's working very effectively
because--I never played football, unlike Mr. Upshaw and Mr.
Courson, but since I've been here, I've spent a lot of time
talking to players. I go to the teams, I spend time in the
locker room, I spend time on the sidelines before the games. We
have players come to the combine. We have players come to the
competition committee meeting, and even some of our own
committee meetings we have joint meetings with players
involved. So I talk to a lot of players.
The players believe that it's working. I cannot tell you
how many players I've talked to who say, I can't believe
anybody can beat a test. I'm tested every time I turn around.
Unless there's some real serious hole in it, I don't know
anybody that can beat the test. The players generally don't
believe that people are beating the tests.
Mr. Upshaw. There was an article in the Washington Post
today, and there were several active players that basically
commented about the program. One was our president, Troy
Vincent. As president of the players association he fully
supports and understands exactly what we're talking about here
today and how much he supports it. He's in the locker room with
his teammates. He understands what's going on.
I happen to have been in a locker room with a player who
has passed away. I was there at the end. He to this day
believes that steroids led to his death. That was Lyle Alzado.
That was his words. So to be there firsthand to deal with it,
to understand it, to know it's there was very--had a very, very
profound impact on all of us.
Mr. Towns. I guess the only thing that I would say, and I
know my time has expired--we've got a vote, I know. The only
thing I would say is that if you can find a way to sort of
assist in terms of making young people aware of the dangers,
maybe some of this money when you suspend a person, take some
of that money and put it into a program of that magnitude, I
think might be helpful to the young people because that is a
real concern, because they really look at football players as
role models. And, of course, that is something that we--I think
we need to just spend more time and energy some way or another
getting the message to young people. They are 25 percent of our
population, but they are 100 percent of our future.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Souder [presiding]. I, too, want to say I believe
football has a much better policy than what we saw out of
baseball. But I have some concerns, and I want to raise some. I
am going to raise some different concerns. Some of this you can
maybe respond back in writing because it's far too
comprehensive here.
One is after you heard the three Carolina football players
who were in the Super Bowl admit to steroids, did the NFL do
any after-action report where you went and talked to the
players and say, how did this happen? What could we have done
differently? And if you did do an after-action report and made
any changes, could you provide that to the committee?
Point No. 2, we have heard, with all due respect, on the
earlier panel from the NFL doctors and hear a lot of whining
about how, oh, this starts in high school, and it moves through
college, and then proceeded to also hear ``first time.'' Give
me a break. This isn't a first time. You yourselves have
testified all day today that most likely, unless you have an
exception like you talked about in the one league, where you
say if indeed they can prove it's the first time, that probably
it has been a habitual pattern all the way through high school
and college where they were bulking up.
One of the questions--this is a series of questions, but it
comes to the fact that the San Diego Chargers' first-round
draft pick Luis Castillo tested positive to andro and didn't
get a penalty. If you are so concerned about what is happening
in high school and college, how come he didn't get a penalty?
That is a clear way to send something.
In the process here is--do you have a drug testing program
for incoming players? Is there a gap in testing between the
players' final college game in November and the NFL combine in
March? What happens if they test positive there? Do they come
under suspensions?
I would like to hear what happens with Mr. Castillo.
Clearly the way to get ahold of it is as soon as they're coming
in. You can't say it's a first time because I just don't
believe that in most cases it is actually the first time.
The third thing--and this comes to a core question. I don't
know whether this is true or not. I want to give Mr. Upshaw a
chance to respond. Last night on ESPN, you are probably aware
of this, Gary Plummer, a linebacker for the 49ers and the
Chargers, said--you said, Mr. Upshaw, that you had been working
on this for 20 years. He said:
The NFL had wanted us to make that part of the collective
bargaining agreement to agree to steroid testing. And, you
know, the players association, Gene Upshaw and the rest of
them, were just vehemently against it. No, no way. Now,
remember that these were the guys that came up in the 1970's
when all were doing it. I'm sitting in the back of the room
waving my arm, like waves arms, are you kidding me, Gino? You
give up this stuff for more money? Give up this stuff for more
money? Let's do it today. Let's do it yesterday. You know. And
there were some guys that felt that way, but I did get some
guys turning around, and he turns around, looking at saying,
who's this young guy in the back wanting to agree to steroid
testing? You know, there were a lot of players at that time who
wanted no part of steroid testing.
Is that statement true?
Mr. Upshaw. No. I think the record will show that I have
supported and continue to support and have been a strong
supporter of testing for steroids. I don't know what Gary
Plummer is talking about, but knowing that he's a linebacker, I
sort of take that into the balance of this also.
But I am not here to defend my position on steroids. It's
very clear. It's very clear. There is no room for steroids in
the game. There never has been. I never have supported steroids
in the game. It's true, I played in the 1960's, the 1970's and
the 1980's, but I never left the locker room. I'm still in
there today, and I can't find one player that believes anything
that has to do with steroids was connected with money, not
then, not now and not in the future.
So my record is there. I'm proud of what we've done and
what we continue to do and what we're willing to do.
Mr. Souder. So you don't believe there was anybody else in
the room who would say there was such a debate that occurred?
Mr. Upshaw. I can't even recall Gary Plummer being in a
meeting in 1987. We didn't even have a collective bargaining
agreement.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Tagliabue, what about Mr. Castillo? Was
there a penalty on him, or do you have one planned?
Mr. Tagliabue. I think under our existing policy, the
consequence of a player testing positive at the combine is that
he goes into--once he signs a contract to play in the league,
he gets tested 24 times a year. At this point, I don't think we
do have a disciplinary component to a preemployment test. I
think we should look at that. Whether it would be lawful, we'd
have to check out with the attorneys. But I think that's the
short of it.
Mr. Souder. One of the key things is much like I talked
about in the first panel with the high schools, they know, for
example, that any alumnus who walks around, if they have
inappropriate contact, what that strong penalty message is.
Last, did you do an after-action report with the Carolina
Panthers?
Mr. Tagliabue. Yes. We discussed it, I believe, with
Chairman Davis maybe when you were out. But the answer is we're
in the process of doing it. We've been coordinating with the
DEA, and without interfering in the law enforcement
investigation, we are doing our own interviews through our own
security department, and we will furnish the results of that to
the chairman as he requested.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Lynch. I'm willing to miss a vote if you're willing to
miss a vote. I will yield to Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
Just for the record, Mr. Upshaw, I am familiar with your
record over the years. I did see that telecast last evening
with Mr. Plummer, but his comments were not consistent with the
record of progress that we have seen in the league and under
your leadership of the union.
As a former union president myself, I saw what was going on
in Major League Baseball, and I have to say this is in stark
contrast to that. I think your leadership--you personally
deserve much credit because of the credibility that you have
with the individual players. That is enough about that.
Mr. Tagliabue, if I could, Commissioner, this is just a
housekeeping measure, but we did, in response to our request
for documents, get a summary of requested testing data from
1989 to the present. I am just going to point out one thing.
You have referred in your testimony to 54 violations, right?
And then on this sheet, if I count up the number of program
violations from 1989 to 2004, it comes to like 109 or something
like that. Is that because one player might have several
violations? Is that the deal?
Mr. Tagliabue. No. I believe what I said earlier, and I
believe what is a fact, is that we had 54 positives where the
player was suspended and 57 where the player just retired,
having been notified of the positive. I think the total was
111.
Mr. Lynch. OK. You are right. That explains it. But there
were 111 positives; 54 of them resulted in suspensions. The
other the players either retired or----
Mr. Tagliabue. They chose to retire, which suggests to me
it was a marginal player.
Mr. Lynch. That is fair enough.
I have gone through--you were nice enough to provide this
collective bargaining agreement. I went through it as well as I
could to try to figure out the notice that the public gets
regarding these violations. One of the problems that we saw
with Major League Baseball, which, again, it is in contrast to
what you have done and what the NFL has done, and you deserve
credit for that, but one of the problems with Major League
Baseball was that there was, I think, an attempt or a
willingness to hide the violations. They would let the players
pay a $10,000 fine, and their violation of the steroid policy
would remain secret.
And so I am curious. I don't see anything in writing
regarding the players association and the league and how they
deal with a violation publicly, because that is a huge
disincentive to players if they think that their opportunity
for endorsements--and obviously these are people who enjoy hero
worship in our society, so if they were guilty of steroid abuse
and a violation of the league policy there, and then that
violation was made public, it would be a tremendous force, I
think, positive peer pressure, that would encourage them not to
engage in that activity. I just was wondering if you had
something worked out that is not written.
Mr. Tagliabue. It's in the policy itself, which says that
the confidentiality of a player's medical condition and test
results will be protected to the maximum extent possible;
however, recognizing that players who are disciplined for
violating this policy will come to the attention of the public
and the media.
So we do announce every suspension. We respect
confidentiality during the appeal process that Mr. Henderson
described, but once a player is adjudicated a violator, it's
made public, and of course he disappears from his team's squad
because he's no longer playing for that team for four games. So
that's well known to everybody.
Mr. Lynch. But, Commissioner, with all due respect, that
talks in the passive context. It doesn't say the league shall
notify or anything. It just says, recognizing that the
violation may come to the attention of the public.
Mr. Tagliabue. It says will come.
Mr. Henderson. As Gene and I were the signatories to the
agreement, we put it in there, it was not necessary, it was not
deemed to be necessary here because of the nature of the
policy. A player who's guilty of an infraction is suspended. We
don't have fines. We don't have warnings. We don't have interim
discipline. A player is suspended. And the league has long held
in place a policy governing how notification is given when a
player is not going to be with the team, and it comes out of
the league office, out of our communications department,
distributed uniformly to the clubs and the media at the same
time on every player who's being disciplined under the policy.
Mr. Lynch. That was my question. You are telling me that
every single violation--when you have had a violation, every
single time the public has been notified of the suspension,
although not of the medical condition, the confidential
information regarding the player.
Mr. Henderson. With the exception of those 57 people who
chose to leave the league. There was no need to make a public
announcement about them. They no longer were associated with
us.
Mr. Lynch. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Upshaw. We have people covering this league that cover
everything. That was how it was with this Gary Plummer deal.
That shows you the extent of coverage we get. When a player
disappears off the field, everyone knows that he's gone, and
there is a reason. Normally what we try to do is to protect the
confidentiality until we can be sure that we, in fact, are
right.
Mr. Lynch. The one point I wanted to make on this, the HGH
gap, and that is a principal concern that I have is that in
some cases we have gaps where technologically there is the
opportunity at least to conceal the violation from the league
and from the union. HGH, it appears that in connection with the
Olympics in Athens, they developed labs that can test for this
in Europe. I know the NFL has NFL Europe where you actually
have--I believe you have a team in Cologne, which also is the
host city for one of these HGH capable labs. I don't
necessarily see the difficulty, and I asked Dr. Wadler about
this, about taking the urine samples and have them tested in
Cologne at that lab to verify for the presence of HGH. It
doesn't seem like a huge obstacle for a multibillion-dollar
business. I am just curious to hear your response to that,
Commissioner.
Chairman Tom Davis. The gentleman's time has expired, but
you can answer the question. Thank you.
Mr. Tagliabue. We've been staying closely on top of this
development of this supposed test for HGH. To my understanding,
there are at least two different kinds of tests, to my
understanding. They are still seeking validation of the
reliability of the tests.
There is no testing lab in the United States. Should we
take blood samples here and ship them to Cologne? It's an issue
we're looking at. But we do not intend this--once the science
gets to the point where it's reliable, we will act upon that
science and close that loophole. Right now it has been the
absence of testing, of a reliable test and of testing labs,
that has been the constraint.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Chairman, I had a brief clarification with
Mr. Upshaw, because I may have misspoken, but I want to make
sure we were on the same page.
Gary Plummer said in 1997 during the strike, not in 1987,
and I thought in your answer you said----
Mr. Upshaw. He misspoke because we didn't have a strike in
1997. This is like--maybe we should have had a strike, but we
didn't have one in 1997. The last strike we had was in 1987. We
returned to work without a collective bargaining agreement.
What he talked about until 1993, there was no agreement. And
part of that time there was not even a union. Whatever Gary
Plummer remembers doesn't square up with the facts.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Sweeney.
Mr. Sweeney. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to the commissioner and Mr. Henderson and Mr.
Upshaw. I said earlier you are due some recognition. You
indeed--I am a former labor commissioner. I think you have
shown clearly in this hearing that your priorities are in
better places than some of your colleagues in other sports.
Mr. Upshaw, you in particular I wanted to note that,
because I think as compared to some of your colleagues, you
have decided the health of your representation, who you
represent, is significantly important. You are to be saluted
for that. We have a long way to go, Commissioner.
I want to talk a little bit about the process for banning
substances and get your sense of the collective bargaining
agreement and how it works. You rightly mentioned--we have been
talking about the growing challenge of designer steroids. Last
year we passed legislation; it was real hard to get the
legislation all-encompassing, and I think we failed here in
some respects in doing what we needed to do to allow you the
tools to protect your athletes as well. Are you required to
wait until a controlled substance or a substance is actually
scheduled as a controlled substance before it is banned, or do
you have an independent mechanism for designer steroids in
particular, but any of the other products, to add them to the
list? How does that work?
Mr. Tagliabue. We view ourselves as having an independent
mechanism, and we add to the list. We added THG, as Mr. Upshaw
said, when it came to light, and also I think our language
says, and related substances. So if there was a similar
molecular structure, and it was differentiated in some way, we
would consider that to be encompassed within our policy.
Mr. Sweeney. Would it not be helpful if the FDA issued the
long overdue good manufacturing rules for supplements? Would it
not provide you additional knowledge, information? Maybe Mr.
Henderson is the more appropriate person to answer that. Is it
not a problem that the FDA has not moved forward on DSHEA and
things like that?
Mr. Tagliabue. It is, and it isn't. We banned ephedra
before the FDA did, and we're going to continue to view ephedra
as dangerous and banned for our players despite the recent
court ruling in Utah, because we feel there is sufficient
scientific data and medical opinion that shows that for
athletes with the characteristics and the work requirements of
ours, it's a dangerous supplement.
The FDA issue in some ways is a broader and different issue
focused on the population at large. We presume to have the
authority by agreement with the players to ban things that the
FDA does not ban.
Mr. Sweeney. Is it not true that the NFL independently and
voluntarily last year contributed money to USADA to expand
their testing capabilities on substances?
Mr. Tagliabue. Yes, we contributed $1.1 million over 5
years to create a new lab jointly with USADA at the University
of Utah to promote their research and detection techniques.
Mr. Sweeney. Would the NFL be interested in helping as well
in establishing a nationwide elementary-school-on-up education
program?
Mr. Tagliabue. We have it. Perhaps before you came in, we
have published through our youth football fund a series of
booklets, four in number, on young athletes' health. We have
one volume on strength and conditioning without supplements and
steroids. We have another volume that specifically addresses
dangerous substances, which is what I'm holding up. It's on our
Web site. It's on other youth football organizations' Web
sites, available throughout the country. It was done in
conjunction with a number of universities and other
institutions, including the American Red Cross. And I said
earlier that we would put additional resources into additional
distribution if that served the purpose, which I think it
could.
Mr. Sweeney. I would also like to talk to you about an
expanded in-school program at some point, but given your past
behavior, frankly, I don't think it is as big a problem.
Two final points. On the issue of tainted supplements, a
current football player was suspended, I think, in 1999. In
baseball, it's a common occurrence. You have taken a look at it
because you have been involved in the proactive approach longer
than baseball has been. What do you do to protect players?
Mr. Tagliabue. We agreed with the players' association on a
sort of a certified supplement manufacturer program, which I'll
let Mr. Henderson or Mr. Upshaw explain. It's in place now.
Mr. Henderson. This was an effort aimed principally at
providing a means for players to use legal supplements that are
deemed to be helpful to use without running the risk of taking
inadvertently a banned substance. We put in place a
certification program in which the manufacturer of those
supplements can submit his products, and, in fact, all his
products have to be submitted and an independent lab retained,
but not affiliated, by us or the union would do clinical
examinations, would do random testing of things coming out of
the batches and lots off the shelves, do testing and certify
that none of the products produced by that particular
supplement manufacturer contained the banned substance. There
is a certification symbol that's put on the packaging. A list
is provided.
At this point we don't have a large number of companies
that have participated, but the purpose of that was to provide
sources for players that would know it is not tainted, because
when they come with a positive test to their appeal hearing and
say, I bought it down at the GNC or some other store and
something was in it, that's not an excuse that gets them off.
The fact is that they are held strictly accountable for what's
in their body, and that's why we moved to that kind of a
testing program.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger, last but not least.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Last but not least.
First off, I want to thank you all for being here today.
I've said before--and I was a little concerned about the
hearing that we had for baseball. I want to commend the
chairman and also the ranking member for the hearing because I
think it has put the issue on the table.
One of our key issues is the influence that professional
players, whether it is football, baseball or whatever, have
with respect to our younger generation. That is an important
issue. During the baseball hearing, I referred to your policy
from a positive point of view. I think that you have a strong
policy. It can always be stronger. But I think that your policy
has worked, and I think the evidence of that is that it is my
understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that of the 42
violators that you have had in your program, you have not had
that same individual be charged with another violation; is that
correct?
Mr. Upshaw. That's correct.
Mr. Ruppersberger. With that said, and I think that you
have come a long way, there are a lot of issues that you can
deal with. We just had the incident that, I'm sure it has been
referred to, I wasn't here before, and we are going to continue
to have incidents like that when you have an operation like the
NFL.
I want to ask this question. I guess you first, Mr.
Tagliabue. Why does the NFL performance-enhancing drug policy
test only eight stimulants compared to the 42 stimulants tested
by the Olympic standards?
Mr. Tagliabue. As was explained this morning by Dr. Finkle
and Dr. Lombardo, we feel those stimulants are the ones that
are of principal concern and that are the focus of our concerns
for football players. The Olympic Committee is dealing with
many, many other sports. Blood-doping techniques and other
things that are of concern there have not been a concern for
us. We are looking at that issue now to see whether we should
expand the number of stimulants.
I said earlier that one of the issues, a key issue, for us
in this area is prescriptions being given for ADD, attention
deficit disorder, and ADHD and whether those are being abused.
We are looking at those issues, and we will see whether----
Mr. Ruppersberger. I am glad you said that you are looking
at those issues. Amphetamine, I think you test once a year.
Amphetamine can be used for different reasons. The bottom line
from a macro point of view is that we are talking about the
perception of anyone in sports using a drug that will help them
perform. Not only is that illegal, and not only does that have
an effect on the younger generation, but it also is cheating. I
know based on your standards in the NFL, you don't want anybody
to perceive that you are cheating.
I would ask you, so Congress doesn't have to come in and
deal with the issue, to police your own industry. You have done
a good job, but you need to go further. Hopefully this hearing
will have you reevaluate on where you need to be.
Mr. Upshaw, what is your opinion about where we need to go,
to go beyond? Even though the NFL is right out there, other
than the Olympic standard, it is still, as indicated by what
happened with the Panthers, isn't enough, and one or two bad
apples affects us all.
Mr. Upshaw. We are looking at that issue as we speak, the
whole amphetamine issue. We understand that if there is
cheating involved, we want it off the field. We will look at
this the same way we did ephedra. When we found out the effects
and what was going on, we immediately banned it, and it stays
on the banned list because we understand how it addressed our
football population. So each year, and all the time--it doesn't
take a bill passed here in Congress for us to act, because we
won't have a chance to act. But what we try to do is do what's
best for our sport on a timely manner. When we understand that
there is a problem, we deal with it, we meet it head on, we use
the best research and science, and that's really what we're
talking about here.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Let me ask you this question because I
think negotiation is important, and my time is almost up. It
seems that you have come a lot further than baseball. Is it
because of you representing the players, that the players want
to police it themselves; because that really is what is going
to, I think, make a difference is the influence of other
players. Because all of our sports, previous generations
created a sport that a lot of people are benefiting, and it is
your duty, I think, not only to look after the influence on
children, but also to hold this in trust for future
generations.
How did you negotiate with the NFL to get where you were
versus where you think baseball is? That might be a hard
question, but I would like the answer.
Mr. Upshaw. It's not a hard question. It's an easy
question.
Mr. Ruppersberger. You don't like baseball?
Mr. Upshaw. No, I actually love baseball. I wanted to play
baseball. My dad wouldn't let me. On the other hand, what you
have to understand here is that our players really wanted this
out of the sport. The teams wanted it out of the sport. We
wanted it out of the sport. But even more than that, you have
to have some leadership, too. You have to take some tough
positions that might not be popular at the time, but in the
long run they will work out what is better for not only our
players, but for the people that look up to our players as role
models and as leaders. We have to do what is right.
Mr. Ruppersberger. My final--not a question--since my red
light is on, you have done a good job to this point, but I hope
you stay ahead of the curve and address these issues because
there seems to be a lot more to do, especially as it relates to
drugs. It's illegal, and it's cheating.
Mr. Upshaw. I want to say as a final point is that I think
our history will show that we will do what is necessary to get
cheaters out of the game.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. I know the hearing is about to come to an end.
I want to thank our witnesses not just for their testimony, but
for their commitment to deal with this issue of steroids among
athletes.
But there is still one thing that puzzles me, and that is
the fact that there are a lot of people who are very credible
in sports who will tell me privately that they think there is a
high amount of steroid use in football. Yet when I look at the
testing results, it doesn't appear that is the case. So it is
still nagging at me. We can continue the conversation after the
hearing is over to try to still think through why that is,
whether they are wrong, or whether we are not getting all the
information. But I have no doubt about your good faith in
trying to deal with the problem.
Mr. Chairman, I want to put in the record, the hearing
record today, a letter from the parents of Efrain Marrero. Mr.
Marrero was a 20-year-old college football player from
Vacaville, CA. He was a caring son from a close family. In an
effort to improve his play, Efrain turned to steroids. He felt
he had to do this to get better and felt it was OK because he
saw his role models, professional athletes, doing the same
thing.
Tragically it appears that Mr. Marrero's steroid use
resulted in serious psychological harm that led to his suicide.
His parents have since become active in efforts to eliminate
steroid use by high school, college and professional athletes.
I want them to know how much we appreciate their work. I know
they were at our first hearing, and I thank them for their
contribution to this hearing, and I would like to put their
letter into the record.
Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.116
Mr. Waxman. Again, thank you, gentlemen, for your
testimony.
Chairman Tom Davis. What steps would an NFL coach or
athletic trainer take if they suspect a player is taking
steroids? Do they automatically go to a test, or what happens
if there is a suspicion?
Mr. Upshaw. Obviously you would have to look at the body
itself. You would have to do it and observe what you see. As I
said, when I was playing with a player that was taking
steroids, it was very obvious. You could see it.
We do have provisions for reasonable cause testing within
the program which would be referred to our medical people to
make the determination. The coach cannot make that
determination.
Mr. Tagliabue. I would think a coach would talk to the
owner, and the owner would call me or Mr. Henderson or Mr.
Upshaw and ask us to proceed.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. You have been very
thorough.
Mr. Payne just came in. He is not a member of the
committee, but I ask unanimous consent he be allowed to ask a
couple of questions. He will wrap it up, and we will let you
go. You have been very good with your time today. We appreciate
the delays you have had to encounter because of our voting
schedule.
Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. I certainly appreciate the
opportunity to participate. I will be very brief.
I am just here because of my concern in general about
athletics, the positive part that athletics play in our
country, and, of course, then the negative part where so many
young people who strive to be the stars.
Let me certainly commend the NFL in general and
Commissioner Tagliabue for some of the programs that you have
put in place over the years. We met years ago on the whole drug
question, a decade ago. When we met one on one about trying to
deal with the substance abuse of players. And now, of course,
this is another aspect of it with steroids.
But I would just like to say that it is important that the
leadership of our sports leagues, whether it is professional or
college or high school, really try to instill in our young
people the right course; the fact that, discouraging, of
course, as I know you gentlemen there do, the use of related
substances and steroids and other kinds of drug-related
substances. I think we really have to work harder at attempting
to get the message out.
I just want to say as a former high school coach, of
course, in those days these were not problems, but I think if
we work together, we could really do a job.
Also, some of the issues of age of young people going into
professional sports, that is another issue I think that we need
to take a look at, because if we are going to continue to use
younger and younger people in professional sports, they will be
doing things to bring their bodies up to where they feel it
should be 3 or 4 years from now.
I would like to continue to work with you on those issues.
I have raised the issues with the NBA on the age of youngsters
performing in professional sports, but I just wanted to say
that I think that we need to work together. If there is a
problem, we need to acknowledge it is a problem and work toward
eradicating it.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Payne, thank you for joining us.
Again, I want to thank this panel. It has been very
illuminating. We may have one or two other questions we will
get to you in a written format. If you could get back to us on
that.
Thank you so much. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statements of Hon. Jon C. Porter and Hon.
Patrick T. McHenry, and additional information submitted for
the hearing record follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1242.072