[Senate Hearing 116-577]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 116-577

                   ATHLETE SAFETY AND THE INTEGRITY 
                             OF U.S. SPORT

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                            FEBRUARY 5, 2020
                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation
                             

                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                             


                Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
                
                              __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
52-615 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023                
                
     
     
     SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                  ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, 
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                      Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE LEE, Utah                       TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               JON TESTER, Montana
TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
RICK SCOTT, Florida                  JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
                       John Keast, Staff Director
                  Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
                      Steven Wall, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
              Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                      Renae Black, Senior Counsel

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on February 5, 2020.................................     1
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     1
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     2
Statement of Senator Peters......................................    30
Statement of Senator Udall.......................................    32
    Advertisement for ExoShield Head Gear........................    34
    Study: `Protective' headgear does not prevent sport-related 
      concussions in soccer players..............................    34
    Study: ``Does soccer headgear reduce the incidence of sport-
      related concussion? A cluster, randomised controlled trial 
      of adolescent athletes''...................................    36
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................    41
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    44
Statement of Senator Blackburn...................................    46

                               Witnesses

Ju'Riese Colon, Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Center For 
  Safesport......................................................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Tory Lindley, President, National Athletic Trainers' Association 
  (NATA).........................................................    17
    Prepared statement...........................................    19
Travis T. Tygart, Chief Executive Officer, United States Anti-
  Doping Agency..................................................    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    23

                                Appendix

Response to written questions submitted to Ju'Riese Colon by:
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................    53
Response to written questions submitted to Tory Lindley by:
    Hon. Tom Udall...............................................    54
Response to written questions submitted to Travis T. Tygart by:
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................    54
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................    57
    Hon. Tom Udall...............................................    59

 
                   ATHLETE SAFETY AND THE INTEGRITY 
                             OF U.S. SPORT

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2020

                                       U.S. Senate,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in 
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Roger Wicker, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Wicker [presiding], Thune, Fischer, 
Blackburn, Young, Scott, Cantwell, Blumenthal, Udall, Peters, 
and Sinema.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

    The Chairman. Good morning. Today the Committee convenes to 
discuss the health and safety of American athletes, in 
protecting the integrity of U.S. sports.
    I welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses and thank 
them for appearing today. We will hear from Ju'Riese Colon, 
Chief Executive Officer of United States Center for SafeSport; 
Mr. Tory Lindley, President of the National Athletic Trainers 
Association; Mr. Travis Tygart, Chief Executive Officer of the 
United States Anti-Doping Agency.
    Americans love sports. Whether we are cheering on our 
children at a little league baseball game and soccer tournament 
or gathering around our televisions to watch highly trained 
professional athletes compete, as most of us did on Sunday, 
sporting events entertain and captivate us all year round. 
Athletics also inspire us, helps us build character, develops 
teamwork skills, and unites diverse communities across the 
country and around the world.
    As the Committee of jurisdiction over youth, amateur, 
collegiate, and professional sports, we are committed to 
maintaining a positive, healthy, safe, and vibrant sports 
environment for all athletes. Today's hearing is an opportunity 
to discuss a range of policy issues impacting the sports world 
in the United States and abroad.
    This summer, hundreds of athletes will represent the United 
States at the Olympic Games in Tokyo. Over the past two years, 
this Committee has been investigating the issue of sexual abuse 
within the Olympic community. I applaud the courageous 
survivors of these reprehensible acts. They have stepped 
forward. They have had to relive these terrible past events and 
helped start and shape the national imperative to right these 
wrongs.
    Let me thank Senators Moran and Blumenthal for their 
leadership in developing legislation to establish meaningful 
reforms within the United States Olympic and Paralympic 
Committee. These reforms will increase accountability for those 
involved in wrongdoing and protect athletes against this type 
of abuse in the future. I will continue working with Senators 
Moran and Blumenthal to get this important legislation across 
the finish line and passed into law.
    This morning, I hope to discuss changes that have been made 
within the SafeSport organization to create a safer environment 
for athletes and swiftly address reports of misconduct.
    The physical health and safety of athletes on the field or 
in sports arenas has also been a matter of concern. According 
to reports, concussion rates among student and professional 
athletes are on the rise. In addition, every year a number of 
children die suddenly from cardiac arrest or other medical 
conditions that were not previously disclosed.
    Today we provide an opportunity for witnesses to share 
their insights about how to protect athletes across all age 
groups and skill levels from these types of incidents. I also 
look forward to discussing how to ensure coaches and medical 
personnel onsite are properly certified and follow established 
protocols and procedures to reduce safety risks to players.
    Integrity in sports is critical to fair play and healthy 
competition. Reports of sign-stealing in baseball and other 
types of cheating only serve to harm the hard work and 
dedication of athletes.
    Unfortunately, doping has long been an issue that threatens 
sport integrity across disciplines. In December, the World 
Anti-Doping Agency issued a decision that would ban Russia from 
international competition for 4 years because of its state-
sponsored doping scheme. Russia has appealed that decision.
    The Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act, which passed the House last 
year, represents a further effort to remove performance-
enhancing drugs from sports. This legislation would impose 
stronger penalties on those involved in doping schemes and 
related conspiracy.
    Today's hearing is an opportunity to discuss the merits of 
this legislation and how it can advance clean sports in the 
United States and around the world.
    Finally, many states are proposing legislation that would 
require compensation to collegiate athletes for the use of 
their names, images, or likenesses. As debates on these 
legislative proposals advance, I hope sport integrity is a 
guiding principle for all parties involved. I look forward to 
Senator Moran exploring this issue further at his Subcommittee 
hearing next week.
    So I thank the witnesses for being with us today. I look 
forward to it.
    And with that, I turn to my dear friend and colleague, 
Ranking Member Cantwell.

               STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
mentioning the issue of sexual assault that continues to plague 
sports and the horrifying events that this Committee has tried 
to deal with. I know that it is going to be a continued effort 
by everyone not to have this unacceptable silence when these 
events happen.
    So I was proud to support the Protecting Young Victims from 
Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017. I hope 
that we will continue to work on improving the last parts of 
that legislation so we can get it passed by the full Congress.
    One of the most important sports-related issues facing the 
Committee is to protect our athletes from the dangers of 
concussions. There is nothing scarier than an injury when you 
can see and when you learn so much in the recent years about 
the devastating impacts on this. I was proud that the State of 
Washington led the way on this issue in 2009, passing the 
Zachary Lystedt law to reduce concussions in youth sports, one 
of the first in the Nation laws in this area. It requires 
schools to educate coaches, students, and athletes about their 
impacts received from serious head injuries. It also requires 
athletes to be removed from the field when they are suspected 
of having suffered a concussion and have a licensed medical 
professional to clear them. It also created the U.S. Center for 
SafeSports. Actually wait a minute. Sorry. I got my pages out 
of order here. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
    I think I am looking forward to hearing from Ms. Colon 
today about SafeSport writ large and some of the efforts their 
organization is doing to help take these laws from the local 
level and push them through at the Federal level.
    I know as we approach the summer Olympics, I hope that we 
will continue to focus on many diverse issues here that are 
facing our athletes across the board.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
    We now invite our three panelists to summarize their 
testimony in 5 minutes or less. Your entire statement will be 
included in the record, without objection. And, Ms. Colon, we 
begin with you. You are recognized.

  STATEMENT OF JU'RIESE COLON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S. 
                      CENTER FOR SAFESPORT

    Ms. Colon. Thank you, Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member 
Cantwell, for inviting the U.S. Center for SafeSport to 
participate in this hearing and providing me the opportunity to 
share the center's mission, vision, and our progress thus far.
    The U.S. Center for SafeSport opened its doors nearly 3 
years ago in the wake of several high profile abuse cases. We 
are unique. We are an independent, nonprofit organization 
responsible for responding to and preventing emotional, 
physical, and sexual abuse and misconduct in U.S. Olympic and 
Paralympic sport. We are the only organization in this country 
congressionally mandated to take on this critical task.
    Our mission is to make athlete well-being the centerpiece 
of our nation's sports culture through abuse prevention, 
education, and accountability. We live this mission every day 
by focusing on three main priorities.
    One, preventing abuse in sport. We educate coaches, 
athletes, and others involved in sport to prevent abuse, 
recognize signs of grooming, understand appropriate boundaries, 
and report. And to date, we have trained over 1 million 
individuals and anticipate training at least 2 million more in 
2020.
    Second, organizational accountability and transparency. We 
develop athlete safety policies and best practices for the 
USOPC and for more than 50 national governing bodies 
representing between 13 million and 18 million participants. 
The center also holds the USOPC and every NGB accountable 
through a robust audit and compliance program.
    Third, individual accountability. And this is arguably our 
most critical function. The center holds those who abuse others 
accountable by thoroughly investigating allegations of sexual, 
emotional, and physical abuse and misconduct and prohibiting 
those who have perpetrated abuse from participating in Olympic 
and Paralympic sport. This includes coaches, athletes, 
officials, referees, medical professionals, volunteers, and 
administrators at the highest level of sport.
    To date, we have received nearly 5,000 reports and 
sanctioned 627 individuals. Cases include grooming behavior, 
bullying, hazing, forcing athletes to compete through really 
serious injuries, withholding food and water, sexual 
harassment, sexual assault, and rape.
    That is why it is so vital that those who perpetrate abuse 
are held accountable. And the center has been successful in 
doing just that.
    When we first opened our doors, the center received 39 
reports each month. At the time, we had one investigator on 
staff. Today, nearly 3 years later, we receive more than 200 
reports a month of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. That 
is more than a 500 percent increase in less than 3 years.
    We ensure that our investigative policies and our practices 
are fair and consistently applied and we implement controls and 
processes to ensure that we address allegations as efficiently 
as possible because when athletes are at risk, time is of the 
essence.
    Last year, we received a report that a coach was sending 
sexualized communications to a minor athlete and they were 
about to leave the country for an athletic competition. She was 
14. He was in his 30s. And to ensure she was not further 
harmed, our intake staff took quick action. We spoke to the 
minor and her parents. We gathered evidence, and ultimately we 
imposed temporary measures to prevent her coach from traveling 
with her while our investigation progressed.
    We pride ourselves on conducting thorough, neutral, trauma-
informed, and unbiased investigations. Our investigative staff 
includes retired FBI and NCIS agents, retired sex crimes 
detectives, JAG prosecutors, public defenders, and child 
protective services investigators, many of whom have spent 
their entire careers investigating child sexual abuse.
    The center also has multiple internal safeguards in place 
before any person is sanctioned or suspended. For instance, we 
guarantee hearings on temporary suspension within 72 hours if a 
respondent requests so so that those individuals who think that 
we may have gotten it wrong can challenge our decisions before 
an independent arbitrator.
    During our merits and arbitrations, respondents can be 
represented by counsel, challenge our evidence, cross examine 
our witnesses, and put forth their own evidence.
    The center has come a long way. We have developed policies 
where there were none. We have provided a mechanism for 
athletes to seek resolution, and we have held hundreds of 
individuals accountable for causing harm. And as a result, we 
are leading the charge and changing the culture of sport.
    But there is still a lot of work to be done. To meet the 
growing needs of our athletes and the rapidly growing caseload, 
the center has expanded our response and resolution team. We 
have tripled the size of our auditing and compliance team, and 
in 2020 we will host more trainings than we ever have before.
    We are grateful for the resources thus far and are hopeful 
about the potential for ongoing and reliable funding through 
the Empowering Olympic and Amateur Athletes Act of 2019 
introduced by Senators Moran and Blumenthal last year, 
cosponsored by many other Senators, and voted favorably on by 
this Committee.
    This year, 600 of America's best and most talented athletes 
are headed to Tokyo. We owe it to them and to the children and 
the young people in your state and across this country to do 
everything in our power to protect them and to ensure that they 
have a safe and positive experience in sport.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Colon follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Ju'Riese Colon, Chief Executive Officer, 
                       U.S. Center for SafeSport
    Thank you, Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell, for 
inviting the U.S. Center for SafeSport (``the Center'') to participate 
in this hearing and providing me the opportunity to share the Center's 
mission, vision, and progress.
    The U.S. Center for SafeSport opened its doors nearly 3 years ago 
in the wake of several high-profile abuse cases. The Center is unique. 
We are an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization responsible for 
responding to and preventing emotional, physical, and sexual misconduct 
and abuse in U.S. Olympic and Paralympic communities. We are the only 
organization in the country congressionally mandated to take on this 
critical task.
    Our mission is to make athlete well-being the centerpiece of our 
Nation's sports culture through abuse prevention, education, and 
accountability. We live this mission every day by focusing on three 
main priorities.

  1.  One, Preventing abuse in sport: We educate coaches, athletes, and 
        others involved in sport to prevent abuse, recognize signs of 
        grooming, understand appropriate boundaries, and report. To 
        date, we've trained over 1 million individuals through our 
        online SafeSport training and anticipate training at least 2 
        million more in 2020. We believe prevention, education, and 
        training are critical to culture change.

  2.  Two, Organizational accountability and transparency: We develop 
        athlete safety policies and best practices for the U.S. Olympic 
        & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) and more than 50 National 
        Governing Bodies (NGBs), representing between 13 and 18 million 
        participants. The Center also holds the USOPC and every NGB 
        accountable for these policies through a robust audit and 
        compliance program. To date, we have completed 51 audits, 
        reaching 100 percent of the NGBs, including the USOPC. In 2020, 
        the Center will to be on the ground to audit competitive events 
        around the country.

  3.  Three, Individual accountability: This is arguably our most 
        critical function. The Center holds those who have abused 
        others accountable by thoroughly investigating allegations of 
        emotional, physical, and sexual abuse and misconduct and 
        prohibiting those who have perpetrated abuse from participating 
        in Olympic and Paralympic sport.

     This includes coaches, athletes, officials, referees, medical 
        professionals, volunteers, and administrators at the highest 
        levels of sport.

    To date, we've received nearly 5,000 reports and sanctioned 627 
individuals from participating in Olympic and Paralympic sport. Cases 
include grooming behavior, bullying, hazing, forcing athletes to 
compete through serious injuries, withholding food and water, sexual 
harassment, sexual assault, and rape.
    The list of what athletes have had to endure, unfortunately, could 
go on and on.
    That's why it's vital those who perpetrate abuse are held 
accountable--and the U.S. Center for SafeSport has been successful in 
doing so. We are grateful that Congress has codified this authority.
    When we first opened our doors, the Center received 39 reports of 
allegations of abuse each month. At the time, we had one investigator 
on staff.
    Today, nearly 3 years later, we receive more than 200 reports a 
month of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. That is more than a 500 
percent increase in less than 3 years.
    We have spent considerable time, energy, and resources to not only 
ensure that our investigative policies and practices are fair and 
consistently applied, but to implement controls and processes to ensure 
we address allegations as efficiently as possible.
    Because when athletes are at risk, time is of the essence.
    Last year, we received a report that a coach was sending sexualized 
communications to a minor athlete and was about to leave the country 
with her for an athletic competition. She was 14; he was in his 30s. To 
ensure she wasn't further harmed, our Intake staff took quick action. 
We spoke to the minor and her parents, gathered evidence, and 
ultimately imposed temporary measures to prevent her coach from 
travelling with her while our investigation progressed. All of this 
happened within 5 days.
    Moving quickly was necessary for her safety and to eliminate the 
risk of abuse. We've done temporary measures hearings on the weekends, 
and even the day after Christmas. But not all investigations move that 
quickly. And that's by design.
    We pride ourselves on conducting thorough, neutral, trauma-
informed, and unbiased investigations. Our investigative staff includes 
retired FBI and NCIS agents, retired sex crimes detectives, former JAG 
prosecutors, former public defenders, a former Federal administrative 
law judge, and child protective services investigators, many of whom 
have spent their entire careers investigating sexual abuse.
    The Center also has multiple internal safeguards in place before 
any person is sanctioned or suspended. For instance, we guarantee 
hearings on temporary suspensions within 72 hours, if a Respondent 
requests, so that those individuals who think we got it wrong can 
challenge our decision before an independent arbitrator.
    During arbitrations, respondents can be represented by counsel, 
challenge our evidence, cross-examine our witnesses, and put forth 
their own evidence. In a recent arbitration, the Respondent was 
represented by 3 attorneys and brought seven of his own witnesses. 
Ultimately, after hearing all the evidence, the arbitrator upheld the 
Center's findings of sexual misconduct and our sanction of permanent 
ineligibility.
    The Center has come a long way. We have developed policies where 
there were none. We have provided a mechanism for athletes to seek 
resolution. We have required training where it was once rarely 
utilized. We have held hundreds of individuals accountable for causing 
harm. And, as a result, we are leading the charge in changing the 
culture of sport.
    But there is still much work to be done. To meet the growing needs 
of our athletes, and the rapid growing caseload, the Center has 
expanded our Response & Resolution team, tripled the size of our audit 
and compliance team, and will host more trainings in 2020 than ever 
before.
    We are grateful for the resources received thus far and are hopeful 
about the potential for ongoing and reliable funding through the 
Empowering Olympic and Amateur Athletes Act of 2019 introduced by 
Senator Moran and Senator Blumenthal last year, co-sponsored by many 
other Senators, and voted favorably by this committee.
    This year, 600 of America's best and most talented athletes are 
headed to Tokyo. We owe it to them and to the young people in your 
state and across the country, wanting to be them someday, to do 
everything in our power to ensure they have a safe and positive 
experience.
    The Center is committed to doing just that. Our focus on 
prevention, holding organizations accountable and holding individuals 
accountable has, and will continue, to have a tremendous impact on 
athletes throughout this country for years to come.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 
                      TEMPORARY MEASURES OVERVIEW
    This is intended as an overview of the Temporary Measures process. 
For the rules governing Temporary Measures, you should consult the U.S. 
Center for SafeSport Code available online at 
www.uscenterforsafesport.org. In particular, Rule 40 governs Temporary 
Measure hearings.
What are Temporary Measures?
    Temporary Measures are tools that allow the Center flexibility to 
mitigate potential risks to the sport community and to protect the 
well-being of individuals. They are implemented on a case-by-case basis 
and tailored to the specific needs of a matter. They can include many 
different tools, including, for example, no-contact orders, 
restrictions on travel or event attendance, restrictions on 
interactions with minors and temporary suspensions.
When are Temporary Measures Implemented?
    Temporary Measures can be implemented at any time during the 
Center's process.
Do you use Temporary Measures in every case?
    No. Measures are implemented when the Center believes, based on the 
current information and evidence, that they are necessary to protect 
sport community or athletes. Generally, Measures are implemented based 
on the severity of the allegations, the evidentiary support for the 
allegations and/or the perceived risk to athletes or the sport 
community.
Are Temporary Measures Permanent?
    No. As the name suggests, measures are temporary pending completion 
of the investigation and a final decision being made.
Does a Temporary Measure mean the Center has determined someone 
        violated the Code or did something wrong?
    No. Issuance of a Temporary Measure is not a finding or decision 
that someone has engaged in misconduct. Instead, Measures are a tool 
that the Center uses to protect athletes and sport based on the current 
state of the evidence.
Are Temporary Measures ever modified?
    Yes. The Center consistently reevaluates the need for Temporary 
Measures as new information becomes available. In some instances, the 
Center may modify measures to include additional restrictions, up to 
and including a suspension. In other instances, the Center may lift one 
or more restrictions for a specific time-frame or until new information 
becomes available. These determinations are made on a case-by-case 
basis based on the current information available to the Center.
If I'm a Respondent, when am I told that a Temporary Measure has been 
        put in place?
    The Center provides Respondents with a detailed letter called a 
Notice of Allegations & Temporary Measures, which includes:

  1.  The reasons for the Temporary Measure and the allegations upon 
        which it has been issued. If you do not understand the reasons 
        set forth in the letter, please contact the Center at 
        [email protected] or call (720) 965-1524.

  2.  Your right to immediately request a hearing in front of a neutral 
        arbitrator to challenge the need for the Temporary Measure. The 
        Center must provide the hearing within 72 hours of your request 
        if you so desire.

  3.  Information regarding the investigative process, next steps, and 
        your option to have an advisor (who may be an attorney) to 
        guide you through the process.

  4.  Your right to identify witnesses and provide other relevant 
        evidence as part of the investigative process.
I have been temporarily restricted or suspended. What should I do?
    First, review the Notice of Allegations & Temporary Measures letter 
carefully. You should also go to www.uscenterforsafesport.org and 
review or download the SafeSport Code. Temporary Measures are generally 
governed by Rule 40 in the Code.
Are Temporary Measures published?
    Yes. When the Center determines it is necessary to issue an 
temporary measure, it will publish the measure on its public database. 
In all instances, the Center will communicate a Temporary Measure to 
the relevant National Governing Body(ies) as the NGB has an obligation 
to enforce the Center's Measures.
Can I talk about the Temporary Measure?
    In no way does the Center restrict an individual from speaking for 
themselves, though it may advise caution in the interest of protecting 
individuals' privacy and safety, especially that of minors. The Code 
does generally prohibit the identification of Reporting Parties or 
Claimants.
Does a hearing cost money?
    Yes. Hearings are provided by an independent neutral arbitrator 
unaffiliated with the Center. At this time, the Center utilizes a pool 
of arbitrators from JAMS. The cost of a Temporary Measures hearing is 
currently $1,500. The Center pays $1000 of that amount, and the person 
requesting the hearing is responsible for $500.
What happens at the Hearing?
    A hearing on a Temporary Measure is governed by SafeSport Rule 40.
                        INVESTIGATIONS OVERVIEW
    The following is intended to provide answers to frequently asked 
questions related to the Center's investigation process, which, for 
ease of reference, have been organized according to common questions 
asked by specific types of parties involved in that process. This 
process is governed by the SafeSport Code for the U.S Olympic and 
Paralympic Movements (``the Code''), available online at 
www.uscenterfor
safesport.org. Per the Code, and as referenced below, a Claimant is the 
person who is alleged to have experienced conduct that constitutes a 
Code violation, a Respondent is the person whose behavior is alleged to 
have violated the Code, and a Witness is a person who may have 
information relevant to the allegations.
COMMON QUESTIONS FROM INVOLVED PARTIES
What is the role of the Investigator?
    The Center typically assigns a single investigator to a matter. 
However, for complex cases, the Center may also assign multiple 
investigators and/or additional subject matter experts. The 
investigator's role is to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence 
(i.e., more likely than not), whether or not a Respondent engaged in 
behaviors that violate the Code. In doing so, an investigator may 
interview the Respondent, Claimant, and any relevant Witnesses. They 
may also gather additional relevant information, including physical 
and/or documentary evidence. The investigator concludes their 
investigation by drafting an Investigation Report.
What happens after an investigation concludes?
    After the investigator completes the Investigation Report, it is 
reviewed by one or more Assistant Director of Investigations and 
Outcomes. The finalized Investigation Report is presented to the 
Center's legal team who applies the Code to the investigator's findings 
of fact and drafts the Notice of Decision. The Response & Resolution 
Leadership Team reviews the final Investigation Report and Notice of 
Decision to determine the appropriate sanction, if any. The sanction, 
if any, is then included in the final Notice of Decision. The Claimant 
and Respondent are provided with access to both the Investigation 
Report and the Notice of Decision. The associated National Governing 
Body (NGB) receives a copy of the Notice of Decision so that it is 
aware of the outcome and can ensure that any sanctions imposed are 
enforced.
I'm worried that if I participate in the Center's process, someone will 
        retaliate against me.
    It is a violation of the Code to retaliate against any party who 
participates in the SafeSport process. If you feel that you are the 
target of possible retaliation, you are encouraged to immediately 
report those concerns to the Center.
Who made this complaint? Will I learn who that is?
    The Center does not disclose the identity of the person who 
initially reported allegations to the Center, as it is not relevant to 
whether the alleged misconduct actually occurred. However, a Respondent 
will learn the identity of a Claimant and any relevant, participating 
Witnesses during the investigative process.
Are you going to give this information to the police/law enforcement?
    The Center is a mandatory reporter and therefore, in instances that 
require mandatory reporting--such as in the case of allegations 
involving child abuse--the Center will report those allegations to the 
relevant law enforcement agency.
COMMON QUESTIONS FROM A RESPONDENT
How do I know if I am under investigation by the Center?
    When the Center initiates a formal investigation, it will issue a 
Notice of Allegations letter containing the information currently 
available to the Center, including a general description of the alleged 
misconduct, when the incident(s) allegedly occurred, and who's 
involved. The Notice of Allegations will also provide information about 
the Code, your right to have someone advise you during the process, and 
that you will be contacted by a SafeSport Investigator. This Notice may 
be updated as more information and evidence becomes available to the 
Center. Sometimes this letter may come in the form of a Notice of 
Allegations & Temporary Measures, which means the Center is providing 
notice of the allegations as well as implementing corresponding 
Temporary Measures (for more information on Temporary Measures, see the 
related FAQ).
Do I get an attorney?
    Respondents may be accompanied and/or assisted by an advisor 
throughout the process, and that advisor may be an attorney.
Do I have to talk to you?
    Respondents may choose the degree to which they choose to 
participate in the Center's process. However, if a Respondent elects 
not to participate or limits their participation in the Center's 
process, the Center will resolve the matter without the benefit of the 
Respondent's participation based on all information and evidence 
available.
How long will this process take?
    The Center endeavors to resolve all matters as efficiently and 
effectively as possible. Many factors will impact the length of an 
investigation including, but not limited to, the availability and 
location of witnesses and evidence, the number of alleged incidents, 
and the number potential Claimants.
Can I see all the evidence the Center has in advance of an interview 
        with the investigator?
    The Center's investigatory process does not require that an 
investigator share information or evidence with a Respondent prior to 
an interview.
COMMON QUESTIONS FROM A CLAIMANT
Can I be anonymous?
    A Claimant may request that personally-identifying information not 
be shared with a Respondent. The Center will seek to honor the 
Claimant's request(s) if it is possible to do so while also protecting 
the health and safety of the Claimant and the sporting community. 
However, a Claimant's decision to remain anonymous or limit their 
participation in the Center's process may hinder the Center's ability 
to either fully investigate or to render a Decision in a specific 
matter.
What will be shared with the Respondent if I participate in the 
        investigation?
    During the investigation, the Center provides the Respondent a fair 
opportunity to respond to all relevant evidence. A Respondent will 
receive a Notice of Allegations letter and, once the investigation 
concludes, will also receive the Investigation Report and Notice of 
Decision.
What will be shared with me if I participate in the investigation?
    Just as with Respondents, a Claimant will also receive the 
Investigation Report and Notice of Decision.
COMMON QUESTIONS FOR A WITNESS
A SafeSport investigator e-mailed/called me; do I have to talk them?
    Under Federal law and the Code, Participants in the Olympic 
Movement must report all known or suspected instances of sexual 
misconduct to the Center. If a Participant knows or suspects any form 
of child abuse, it must report to both the Center and to law 
enforcement. While in some instances a witness may not be required to 
participate in an investigation, the Center strongly encourages anyone 
with relevant information regarding alleged misconduct to participate 
in the investigation process to help ensure a sport culture free from 
abuse and misconduct.
Who will know that I participated in an investigation?
    The Claimant and Respondent in a matter will be informed of any 
relevant information collected during an investigation, including the 
names of witnesses who provide information. Relevant interview 
statements and any physical, electronic, or documentary evidence 
provided during an investigation will also be shared with the Claimant 
and Respondent, but will otherwise be kept as confidential as possible.
Will I get updates on a case? Will I be informed of the outcome?
    The Center's investigations are confidential. Accordingly, 
witnesses will not receive updates and will not be notified of the 
outcome. However, outcomes resulting in a sanction of ineligibility 
(e.g., suspension) may be available on the Center's online Centralized 
Disciplinary Database.
Will I get a copy of my statement?
    Per the above, the Center's investigations are confidential. 
Accordingly, only the Claimant and Respondent will have access to the 
Investigation Report, including any interview statements recorded as 
part of the investigation.
                         ARBITRATIONS OVERVIEW
    The following is intended to provide answers to frequently asked 
questions related to the Center's arbitration process, which may occur 
after either (1) the Center implements a Temporary Measure affecting a 
Participant's ability to participate in sport (``Temporary Measures 
Hearing''), or (2) the Center completes an investigation and renders a 
Decision (``Merits Arbitration''). This process is governed by the 
SafeSport Code for the U.S Olympic and Paralympic Movements (``the 
Code''), available online at www.uscenterforsafesport.org.
What is the difference between a Temporary Measures hearing and a 
        Merits Arbitration?
    As the name suggests, a Temporary Measures Hearing provides a 
Respondent an opportunity to contest the imposition of certain 
Temporary Measures implemented by the Center, whereas a Merits 
Arbitration is a Respondent's opportunity to contest the Center's 
findings after an investigation has been completed and a Notice of 
Decision issued. For more information about Temporary Measures 
Hearings, please see the corresponding FAQ.
Does a Merits Arbitration occur automatically, or do I have to request 
        it?
    As set forth in the Notice of Decision, you must request a Merits 
Arbitration (or receive an extension of time to request a Merits 
Arbitration) within five business days of the issuance of the Decision. 
If you do not request an Arbitration (or receive an extension of time), 
the Center's decision is final.
I thought the Center made its decision; why is there a hearing?
    The Center's Notice of Decision is one step in the Center's 
process. It represents the Center's determination that the alleged 
conduct either did or did not occur and the appropriate sanction(s), if 
any. To ensure a fair process, Respondents may request that the Center 
present its case to an independent arbitrator. The arbitrator will 
review the facts and evidence and reach an independent and binding 
decision regarding whether the Center has shown a violation more likely 
than not occurred (preponderance of the evidence) and, if so, imposed 
the appropriate sanction.
Who pays for a Merits Arbitration?
    A Respondent is responsible for the JAMS arbitration fee. In 
certain circumstances, an arbitrator may require the Center to 
reimburse a Respondent for some or all of the arbitration fee. A 
Respondent may also apply for a hardship exemption if they are unable 
to pay the arbitration fee. A Claimant is not responsible for any of 
the costs associated with an Arbitration.
Generally, what happens at an Arbitration?
    Typically, a Merits Arbitration looks a lot like a mini-trial. Each 
side will make an opening statement, present witnesses and evidence, 
and make closing statements. The Center has the burden to prove the 
misconduct more likely than not occurred, and that it imposed the 
appropriate sanction.
Who has to testify at a Merits Arbitration?
    To ensure the arbitrator makes a fully informed decision, the 
Center seeks to provide the arbitrator with all relevant evidence, 
including testimonial and documentary evidence. To ensure the best 
presentation of the matter, this typically will include the testimony 
of the Claimant(s) and any relevant witnesses. The Center recognizes 
that it may be difficult for some Claimants to participate fully in an 
arbitration hearing and offers alternative methods of providing 
testimony, including participating in the arbitration through video 
conference rather than in person, and responding to questions from the 
arbitrator rather than from Respondent or Respondent's counsel. A 
Claimant can discuss these and other options for participation with the 
Center's counsel prior to an Arbitration. In some cases, if a Claimant 
chooses not to participate in the Merits Arbitration (as is their 
right), the Center may determine that it cannot move forward without 
such testimony. In such cases, the Center may seek to withdraw its 
Decision until such time as a Claimant decides to participate.
Where is an Arbitration held? Would I have to travel for it?
    Merits Arbitrations are typically held by video-conference. You can 
participate remotely from anywhere in the world through any device 
(such as a laptop) that can access video-conferencing. In some cases, a 
Respondent or the Center may request and be granted an in-person 
hearing. In such instances, you can choose to appear in-person or 
through the video-conference.
How long does an Arbitration hearing last?
    Except in exceptional circumstances (as determined by the 
Arbitrator), Merits Arbitrations are typically to be completed within 
one-day.
Who are the arbitrators who conduct these hearings?
    JAMS, an independent arbitration services provider, administers the 
Merits Arbitrations. The JAMS arbitrators utilized by the Center are 
former judges and practicing attorneys who have experience in sexual 
misconduct cases, and all receive SafeSport arbitrator training.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Colon.
    Mr. Lindley.

             STATEMENT OF TORY LINDLEY, PRESIDENT, 
         NATIONAL ATHLETIC TRAINERS' ASSOCIATION (NATA)

    Mr. Lindley. Good morning. Chairman Wicker, Ranking
    Member Cantwell, and members of the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, thank you for the 
opportunity to participate in today's hearing.
    My name is Tory Lindley. I am an AT, an athlete trainer, 
who serves as the director of athletic training services at 
Northwestern University. I am also very proud to serve as the 
President of the National Athletic Trainers' Association.
    NATA is a professional organization serving more than 
46,000 certified athletic trainers, students of athletic 
trainers, and other health care professionals. Protecting the 
health and safety of athletes is exactly what our members have 
been doing and our organization has been doing since founded in 
1950.
    Athletic trainers are health care professionals who 
collaborate with physicians to provide preventative services, 
emergency care, clinical diagnosis, therapeutic intervention, 
injury rehabilitation, and mental health management. ATs are 
required to graduate from an accredited athletic training 
program, are licensed or otherwise regulated in 49 states and 
the District of Columbia. Further, ATs pass a rigorous national 
certifying board exam.
    NATA has long been a leader in health and safety issues 
facing athletes. We proactively provide our expertise and 
specific recommendations to policymakers at the local, State, 
and national levels.
    Many athletic trainers are doing outstanding work in 
conducting research, analyzing trends, and implementing 
strategies in injury prevention and management.
    NATA strongly believes Congress should fully invest in 
efforts to track youth sports injuries and fatalities. It is 
only with a comprehensive system for collecting and analyzing 
this data that we will be able to understand the scope of the 
problem and the best methods for addressing it.
    I would like to give you some current statistics on 
athletic participation and athletic injuries in the United 
States.
    Currently there are 470,000 collegiate-level athletes who 
experience 210,000 injuries per year.
    At the secondary school level, there are 7.9 million 
athletes who sustain more than 1.4 million injuries a year.
    The 46.5 million children playing organized team sports in 
our country sustain 1.35 million injuries per year.
    Further, 1.6 to 3.8 million sports-related concussions 
occur every single year.
    Studies show that 62 percent of injuries occur in practice 
as opposed to games or competitions.
    According to the CDC, on average there are 2.7 million 
emergency department visits per year by children ages 5 to 24 
for sports-related injuries. This means that there are a 
staggering 7,397 emergency department visits every single day, 
creating an unnecessary burden on our health care system.
    These injury statistics are compelling, but to athletic 
trainers, the most concerning fact is that the secondary school 
athletic population leads the Nation in athletic-related 
deaths. Between 2008 and 2019, there have been more than 400 
sports-related fatalities among young athletes. Let me 
underscore this fact that in an 11-year period, we lost over 
400 children who were simply playing sports. As a nation, we 
must do better at protecting our youth athletes while 
continuing to promote the benefits, the strong benefits, of 
sports participation.
    Athletic trainers are experts in creating and applying 
strategies to decrease the instance of sudden death in athletic 
participation. However, only 37 percent of high schools employ 
a full-time athletic trainer. We need to improve access to 
athletic trainers in secondary schools and youth sports 
organizations as a primary prevention and a primary management 
strategy.
    It is time that we change the culture in this country. The 
costs of having sports must include adequate health care 
coverage and risk management for the reduction of time loss 
injury and the overall better experience in playing sports.
    NATA has made substantial investments, established 
meaningful partnerships, and led numerous initiatives to bring 
attention to youth athlete sport safety at the local, State, 
and national level. Organized sports bring enormous health 
benefits to children, but certain factors may cause them to 
ignore the pain and ignore the injuries which could result in 
lifetime injury or even death.
    As a part of a joint effort between the NATA, the Korey 
Stringer Institutes, and the NFL Foundation, work has already 
begun to host meetings with local high school sport leaders and 
State legislators in all 50 states to encourage the development 
and implementation of policy and best practice to reduce 
catastrophic injury.
    Athletic trainers are also uniquely qualified and extremely 
well positioned to recognize the signs and symptoms related to 
opioid and prescription drug abuse, particularly among patients 
rehabilitating from injuries. ATs are experts in identifying 
other methods of chronic pain management like manual medicine 
and rehabilitation. NATA continues to support proposals to 
increase access to and training in administering naloxone.
    In closing, the interest in making sports safer is at an 
all-time high. We have an opportunity to implement real change 
cooperatively and creatively. The current gaps are simply 
unacceptable. We can and must do better for our children. 
Appropriate medical care and safety in sports must become a 
standard, not a luxury.
    Thank you for organizing this hearing today and this 
opportunity present the views of the National Athletic 
Trainers' Association, and we look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lindley follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Tory Lindley, President, 
             National Athletic Trainers' Association (NATA)
    On behalf of the National Athletic Trainers' Association (NATA), I 
am pleased to have the opportunity to provide testimony to the United 
States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on the 
important topic of protecting the health and safety of American 
athletes. My name is Tory Lindley and I am director of athletic 
training services at Northwestern University. I am also very proud to 
serve as the President of the National Athletic Trainers' Association.
    NATA is a professional organization serving more than 46,000 
certified athletic trainers, students of athletic training, and other 
health care professionals. Protecting the health and safety of athletes 
is exactly what NATA members have been doing since the organization was 
founded in 1950.
             Background on the Athletic Training Profession
    NATA's mission is to represent, engage, and foster the continued 
growth and development of the athletic training profession and athletic 
trainers as unique health care providers. Athletic trainers are health 
care professionals who collaborate with physicians to provide 
preventative services, emergency care, clinical diagnosis, therapeutic 
intervention, and rehabilitation of injuries. As part of the health 
care team, services provided by athletic trainers include injury and 
illness prevention, wellness promotion and education, emergent care, 
examination and clinical diagnosis, and therapeutic intervention.
    Athletic trainers provide urgent and acute care of injuries; they 
specialize in preventing, diagnosing, and treating muscle and bone 
injuries. Athletic trainers are included under the allied health 
professions category as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services and are assigned National Provider Identifier numbers. 
In addition to employment by sports and athletic organizations, 
athletic trainers are employed by hospitals, clinics, occupational 
health departments, wellness facilities, the United States military, 
and numerous other health care settings.
    Athletic trainers are highly qualified, multi-skilled health care 
professionals. To provide appropriate care for patients, athletic 
trainers receive training in prevention, recognition, and treatment of 
critical situations. They must graduate from an accredited athletic 
training program. Currently, 76 percent of athletic trainers currently 
have a master's degree, and by 2022, a master's degree in athletic 
training will be the professional degree for all ATs.
    Using a medical-based education model, comparable to other 
healthcare professions, athletic trainers serve as allied health 
professionals with an emphasis on clinical reasoning skills. The 
curriculum of an accredited athletic training program must include a 
comprehensive basic and applied science background and uses a 
competency-based approach in both the classroom and clinical settings.
    Athletic training education programs are accredited by the 
Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education (CAATE), 
which is recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. 
The CAATE sets forth rigorous standards for the preparation of athletic 
training graduates that are science-based and didactic. CAATE also 
administers post-professional athletic training residency programs.
    Upon completion of an accredited athletic training program, 
athletic trainers are required to pass a rigorous comprehensive 
examination administered by the Board of Certification, Inc. (BOC). The 
BOC certification program ensures that individuals have the knowledge 
and skills necessary to perform the tasks critical to safe and 
competent practice as an athletic trainer. Athletic trainers who pass 
the BOC's examination are awarded the ATC credential.
                    Athlete Health and Safety Issues
    NATA has long been a leader in health and safety issues facing 
athletes. We proactively provide our expertise and specific 
recommendations to policymakers at the local, state, and Federal 
levels.
    As a healthcare professional organization, we pride ourselves on 
developing and educating our members on the latest research, evidence, 
and narratives related to athlete safety. In fact, many athletic 
trainers are doing outstanding work in conducting research and 
analyzing trends in sports injury prevention and sports injury 
management.
    NATA strongly believes Congress should fully invest in efforts to 
track youth sports injuries and fatalities. It is only with a 
comprehensive system for collecting and analyzing this data that we 
will be able to understand the scope of the problem and the best 
methods for addressing it.
    Based upon current studies and reports, we know our Nation faces 
many challenges in balancing an active and healthy sports culture while 
protecting the safety of the youth athlete. I would like to provide the 
below statistics on athletic participation and athletic injuries in the 
United States:

   470,000 collegiate-level athletes experience 210,000 
        injuries per year;

   At the secondary school level, there are 7.9 million 
        athletes who sustain more than 1.4 million injuries per year;

   The 46.5 million children playing team sports experience 
        1.35 million injuries per year;

   Studies show that 62 percent of injuries occur during 
        practice, as opposed to games or competitions; and

   1.6 to 3.8 million sports-related concussions occur every 
        year.

    According to the CDC, on average, there are 2.7 million emergency 
room visits per year by children between five and 24 years of age for 
sport-related injuries. This means there are a staggering 7,397 
emergency department visits per day and 308 emergency department visits 
per hour.
    These injury statistics are compelling, but to athletic trainers, 
the most concerning fact is that the secondary school athletic 
population leads the Nation in athletic-related deaths. Between 2008 
and 2019, there have been more than 400 sports-related fatalities among 
young athletes. Let me underscore this fact; in an 11-year period, we 
lost over 400 children who were merely playing sports. As a nation, we 
must do a better job in protecting youth athletes while continuing to 
promote the benefits of sports participation.
    Athletic trainers are experts in creating and applying strategies 
to decrease the instances of sudden death in athletic participation. 
However, only 37 percent of high schools employ a full-time athletic 
trainer. We need improved access to athletic trainers in secondary 
schools and youth-sports organizations as a primary prevention and 
management strategy.
    The investment in proper safety measures including adequate medical 
supervision, such as a full-time athletic trainer, for sports practices 
and games begins to look like a solemn responsibility and skilled risk 
management when compared to a preventable fatal injury.
            NATA's Leadership on Youth Athlete Safety Issues
    NATA has made substantial investments, established meaningful 
partnerships, and led numerous initiatives to bring attention to youth 
athlete safety issues at a local, state, and national level. To that 
end, in 2010, NATA founded the Youth Sports Safety Alliance (YSSA), 
which is now comprised of more than 300 organizations. The members of 
YSSA range from parent advocate groups and research institutions to 
professional associations, health care organizations, and youth sports 
leagues.
    Organized sports bring enormous health benefits to children, but 
certain factors may cause them to ignore pain and injuries, which could 
result in lifelong injuries or even death. NATA is working to promote 
and preserve sports, but we must also ensure that sports are played 
safely. When injuries occur, there must be qualified and trained 
medical personnel available to respond.
    Since 2013, NATA has sponsored the Safe Sports School Award, a 
program designed to establish a standard for secondary school athlete 
safety and recognize those athletic programs that excel in taking all 
the necessary steps to ensure athlete safety. To date, there have been 
more than 2,100 schools across the country that have received the 
award.
    Beginning in 2019, NATA partnered with the Korey Stringer Institute 
and the NFL Foundation on the Team Up for Sports Safety (TUFFS) 
program, to encourage all states to develop and implement standard 
policies and best practices to reduce sports related injuries for 
student athletes. As part of this effort, KSI and NATA members plan to 
host meetings with local high school sports leaders and state 
legislators in all fifty states. Efforts are focusing on the more than 
90 percent of sport related deaths among secondary school athletes due 
to four causes: cardiac arrest, exertional heat stroke, traumatic brain 
injuries, and exertional sickling.
                      Promoting Physical Activity
    Central to the mindset of an athletic trainer is the understanding 
of the physical and mental health benefits of an active lifestyle. 
While NATA has worked to raise awareness of youth athlete safety 
issues, we have remained steadfast in our efforts to promote the 
benefits of physical activity and sports.
    NATA has taken a leadership role within several national coalitions 
involved in promoting physical activity issues. These include being 
represented on the Board of Directors of the National Physical Activity 
Plan Alliance and the National Coalition to Promote Physical Activity.
    NATA members frequently visit Capitol Hill, urging Members of 
Congress to support the Personal Health Investment Today Act or the 
PHIT Act. We thank Senators Thune and Capito for their leadership on 
the bill and the many committee members who are cosponsors. The 
legislation provides an incentive for adults and their children to get 
fit, which will help prevent health care costs related to preventable 
chronic diseases.
               The Opioid and Prescription Drug Epidemic
    Athletic trainers' involvement in the health and safety of youth 
athletes is not limited to the playing field. Athletic trainers are 
uniquely qualified and extremely well positioned to recognize the signs 
and symptoms related to opioid and prescription drug abuse, 
particularly among patients rehabilitating from injuries. They are also 
experts in identifying other methods of chronic pain management like 
manual medicine and rehabilitation. NATA continues to support proposals 
to increase access to and training in administering naloxone.
         Other Federal Legislative and Regulatory Policy Issues
    Finally, I want to join my fellow athletic trainers and the more 
than 46,000 members of NATA in thanking Senators John Thune and Amy 
Klobuchar, and other members of the United States Senate for passing 
the Sports Medicine Licensure Clarity Act in the 115th Congress.
    Thank you for this opportunity to present the views of the National 
Athletic Trainers' Association.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lindley.
    Mr. Tygart.

STATEMENT OF TRAVIS T. TYGART, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UNITED 
                   STATES ANTI-DOPING AGENCY

    Mr. Tygart. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cantwell, and 
members of the Committee, good morning. My name is Travis 
Tygart and I am the CEO at the United States Anti-Doping 
Agency, or USADA.
    We greatly appreciate the support of Congress, the 
President's Office of National Drug Control Policy, and our 
efforts to protect the health, safety, and rights of clean 
athletes to a fair and level playing field.
    Mr. Chairman, we are at a critical juncture for the soul of 
sport. The challenge facing clean athletes and fair play is 
obvious. There is, however, fortunately consensus on effective 
solutions to these problems.
    First, the challenges: fairness, respect for the rules, and 
integrity in athletic competition hang in the balance. These 
principles are under attack. As a private, independent 
organization, athletes are our north star. But we need to be 
honest with ourselves. How many more athletes will we all allow 
to be taken advantage of by state-sponsored doping schemes? How 
many more podium moments will be stolen from athletes like U.S. 
Olympians Alysia Montano, Katie Uhlaender, or Adam Nelson?
    Russia's state-supported doping system that defrauded 
international sport has exposed the soft underbelly of the 
global anti-doping system. This corruption was orchestrated by 
the Russian Government and sport officials spreading across 30-
plus sports over many years.
    Despite mountains of evidence and calls from athletes, 
democratic governments and anti-doping groups, the 
International Olympic Committee, or the IOC, chose not to stand 
for clean athletes. Instead, the IOC allowed Russia to compete 
in the 2016 Rio Olympic Games and then allowed over 160 Russian 
athletes to compete in the 2018 Winter Olympic Games, agreeing 
to a mere slap on the wrist.
    Sadly, almost 6 years after the Russian fraud first came to 
light, it is yet another groundhog's day for clean athletes. 
Despite an agreement by the Russians to provide the World Anti-
Doping Agency, or WADA, the information necessary to finally 
serve justice, the Russians went to great lengths to cover up 
and manipulate the very evidence they agreed to turn over.
    The IOC president has recently stated that Russia will 
suffer no consequences until the case is finally decided, which 
we now understand may very well be after this summer's Tokyo 
Olympic Games. The IOC president also recently stated that any 
athletes who voice their concerns or protest during the games 
will be subject to harsh penalties. Can you imagine?
    However, out of the Russian doping scandal, two silver 
linings have emerged. First, athletes are mobilizing more than 
ever before and fighting for their rights to a level playing 
field. Second, we all now have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity 
to fix the global anti-doping system.
    The most vital principle of an effective anti-doping system 
is it has to be truly independent. Since our founding in late 
2000, USADA has advocated for a clear separation from those who 
promote sport and those who police it. To do so otherwise is to 
have the fox guarding the henhouse, and it does not work.
    I want to thank Senators Moran and Blumenthal for their 
introduction of the USADA Reauthorization Act of 2020. And why 
it is so vitally important. Passing this reauthorization as 
soon as possible and before the Tokyo Olympic Games would send 
a strong signal to the rest of the world of the U.S.'s 
commitment to the integrity of sport, athlete's rights, and the 
importance of the independent model.
    It was great to see the Appropriations Committee include 
language for this year's budget requiring a report on WADA's 
governance. As the U.S. is WADA's largest financial 
contributor, we need to do much more to ensure its actual 
independence.
    We also appreciate the work of the Helsinki Commission and 
specifically Chairman Wicker in introducing S. 259, the 
Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act of 2019. This bill will prevent 
corrupt organizations from defrauding future athletic 
competitions by protecting the U.S. financial investment in 
sport and further protecting whistleblowers. Let us not forget 
we host the L.A. Olympic Games in 2028, and we want it real, 
not rigged. The Rodchenkov Act will help deter future Russian 
doping scandals, and the Senate should join the House where the 
bill passed unanimously last October. Numerous athlete groups, 
sports organizations, including the major professional leagues 
and the USOPC here in the United States support this 
legislation. By passing into law both the Rodchenkov Act and 
the USADA Reauthorization Act, we can make the 2028 L.A. games 
a pageantry of clean sport and send a powerful message to the 
world that the rules and integrity do matter.
    The truth is if we do not win, we will likely find 
ourselves back in the same position, staring another state-
supported doping scheme in the face that has abused its 
athletes and robbed another generation of clean athletes in the 
process, and we will all be wondering why we did not do more.
    Thank you for your time and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tygart follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Travis T. Tygart, Chief Executive Officer, 
                    United States Anti-Doping Agency
    Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, good morning. My name is 
Travis T. Tygart, and I am the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the 
United States Anti-Doping Agency (``USADA''). I want to thank this 
Committee for its interest in ``Athlete Safety and the Integrity of 
U.S. Sport'' and for the invitation to appear before you today to 
discuss how we can better protect the rights of athletes and the 
integrity of competition. I commend your efforts on these critical 
issues, and I look forward to continuing to work with you all in the 
coming months, especially as the sports world prepares for this 
summer's Olympic Games in Tokyo, Japan.
    It is an honor for me to be here representing the USADA Board, our 
small but talented professional staff, and clean athletes from across 
the United States for whom we advocate every day. It is also an honor 
for USADA, a 501(c)(3), not-for-profit, incorporated in Colorado, to be 
a part of such an important discussion. We also greatly appreciate the 
ongoing support of Congress and the President's Office of National Drug 
Control Policy (``ONDCP'') in our efforts to protect the health, safety 
and rights of clean athletes to a fair and level playing field.
    Over the past several years, we have been at a critical juncture 
for the soul of sport--a time of truth, if you will. And today, I want 
to speak to the Committee about not only the significant and on-going 
threats facing clean athletes and fair play, but also about the sound 
solutions to these problems.
    First, the challenges: fairness, respect for the rules and 
integrity in athletic competition hang in the balance. These principles 
have been abused and are currently under attack. If we don't act soon 
to renew our commitment to protect the rights of clean athletes and to 
preserve a level playing field--both here in the United States and 
around the world--we will be committing an unacceptable injustice to 
all of those who believe in, and invest in, fair and clean competition. 
If we do not act, we also risk shattering the dreams of tens of 
millions of young kids from around the world.
    As an independent anti-doping organization, athletes are our 
guiding light, our North Star. Their inspiration gives us hope, they 
remind us of our purpose, and they provide us the fuel to continue to 
fight for their right to clean and fair competition.
    But, we need to be honest with ourselves. How many more athletes 
will we allow to be taken advantage of by state sponsored doping 
systems? How many more podium moments stolen from athletes like U.S. 
Olympians Alysia Montano, Katie Uhlaender and Adam Nelson? How many 
more medals will be handed over years after a competition--before we 
finally accept the responsibility to ensure clean sport and fair 
competition?
    Russia's widespread, state-supported doping system that corrupted 
and defrauded international sport has exposed the soft underbelly of 
the global anti-doping system. The astounding lengths to which Russia's 
corrupt system went to deceive the world, anti-doping officials and 
other athletes, was in many ways, a nightmare realized--shadow 
laboratories, tampering by Russian intelligence officers, samples 
swapped and passed through a hole in a wall under the cover of 
darkness, male DNA in female samples, and e-mails to and from the 
Russian Ministry of Sport determining which doped athletes the system 
would protect, and which ones it would sacrifice. This corruption was 
orchestrated and supported by the Russian government and sport 
officials within the Russian system, spreading across 30-plus sports, 
lasting from at least 2011 to 2015.
    At the end of the day, despite mountains of evidence and vocal 
opposition from athletes, democratic governments and anti-doping 
groups--ourselves included--the International Olympic Committee 
(``IOC'') chose not to stand up for clean athletes and against state-
sponsored doping. The IOC allowed Russia into the 2016 Rio Olympic 
Games and then put in a farce of a consequence by suspending the 
Russian Olympic Committee for only a few weeks and allowed over 160 
Russian athletes to compete in the 2018 Winter Olympic Games.
    Sadly, four years later, it's ``ground hog's day'' for clean 
athletes. Despite an agreement by the Russians to provide the World 
Anti-Doping Agency (``WADA'') the laboratory information necessary to 
attempt to serve justice, the Russians went to great lengths to cover-
up and manipulate the very evidence they agreed to turn over--in an 
attempt to continue to deny their fraudulent scheme and to actually pin 
the responsibility on a whistleblower--the former Moscow laboratory 
director, Grigory Rodchenkov.
    The IOC President has recently stated that Russia will suffer no 
consequences until the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides the case, 
which we understand will not be in time to avoid tarnishing this 
summer's Tokyo Games. The IOC President has also recently stated that 
any athletes who protest during the Games will be subject to harsh 
penalties. The message is obvious--the Russian case will not be 
complete before this summer's 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo and the IOC 
President's shot across the bow toward athletes standing up for their 
rights is as clear as it is ineffective.
    Certainly, history will not judge any of these decisions kindly.
    However, out of the Russian doping scandal, two silver linings have 
emerged. The first: more than ever before athletes are mobilizing, 
voicing their opinions and fighting for a level playing field. And 
second: We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to break through 
entrenched positions for the good of clean athletes and the future of 
sport.
    To get there . . . the road to reform starts with independence. 
I've had the privilege to speak to Congress several times before about 
the ``matrix of effectiveness'' for anti-doping programs, about the 
elements of an effective anti-doping program--one armed not just to say 
there is ``drug testing'' for sport brand value purposes but to 
actually win the battle for clean athletes. In the U.S. and in many 
countries around the globe, these key elements such as, ensuring year-
round, no-notice, out-of-competition testing for both blood and urine 
and conducting robust intelligence gathering and investigations, have 
been implemented and proved successful. Clean athletes can succeed when 
the current rules are implemented with determination and will to win 
for clean athletes.
    Yet, the problems which currently plague the global anti-doping 
system are even more basic. The most vital principle of an effective 
anti-doping system is that it must be free from the influence of sport 
governing bodies. It must be independent and serious about protecting 
clean athletes.
    Since our founding in late 2000, we at USADA have advocated for a 
clear separation between those who promote sport and those who police 
it. To do so otherwise, we believe, is to encourage the fox to guard 
the henhouse. No matter how well intended it might begin, it simply 
does not work. The conflict of interest is too great and clean athletes 
will always lose out.
    To be clear, the threat of doping is a global problem. And, as a 
nation of laws established on the ideals of justice, fairness and 
equality, the United States must lead the way and ensure we are doing 
everything we can do to protect our United States athletes so that 
their decision to compete by the rules is upheld and that they can be 
the true heroes that they are when competing here at home and 
representing our great nation in competitions around the globe. They in 
many ways are the best example of our American values and the 
importance of our principles when they compete and win the right way.
    And, Senators Moran and Blumenthal, this is precisely why your 
introduction of the ``USADA Re-Authorization of 2020'' is so vitally 
important--so we can ensure that the great strides we have made on 
behalf of clean athletes since USADA was founded, almost twenty years 
ago this year, are reconfirmed and allowed to further blossom in an 
independent way to allow U.S. clean athletes to win. With your 
leadership and that of the U.S. Congress, we can continue to be an 
example of fighting the good fight with the right structure, resources 
and determination to win this battle for the good of sport and its 
fundamental values. Passing the reauthorization bill before the 
beginning of the Tokyo Games this summer would send a strong signal to 
the rest of the world on the United States' commitment to clean sport. 
We thank you for your support.
    We are extremely humbled when we hear from U.S. athletes, coaches 
(and we frequently do) that they believe in the independent model; that 
they have been prevented and deterred from doping here in the U.S.; 
and, that they now have hope that they can not only compete but also 
win the right way--all of this in thanks to our government's commitment 
to clean sport and an independent anti-doping agency.
    Additionally, I can promise that while the burden is enormous and 
the responsibility is great, this independent model established by 
Congress is a light to many others around the world that competing 
clean is the ONLY WAY and that there exist independent organizations 
that will take a stand even when tough to do so, even when involving a 
global icon or high profile sport sponsor-to ensure that the injustice, 
the inequality of doping does not win the day.
    In fact, the two Russian whistleblowers, Yulia and Vitaly 
Stephanov, saw this example and were inspired by it. They saw firsthand 
the efforts of the U.S. and others to truly root out cheating and 
dangerous doping fraud. Vitaly's e-mail to USADA sent on his departure 
from the corrupt Russian Anti-Doping Agency (``RUSADA'') in March 2011 
stating that he wished ``RUSADA was as committed to doping fighting and 
open as USADA'' as confirmed by him a belief that the U.S. and others 
were actually doing it right and an important signal from our great 
country that fairness, the rule of law and healthy sport does matter.
    This matter of independence is without question the most important 
issue facing global anti-doping efforts today. In fact, it's likely the 
entire Russian state-supported doping scandal would have been exposed 
much sooner by the many good men and women staffed at the global 
oversight body for anti-doping in sport--the World Anti-Doping Agency 
(WADA)--had its governance not been hamstrung by its own lack of true 
independence.
    We know now that WADA and the IOC had compelling evidence, from 
whistleblowers Yulia and Vitaly Stephanov and others, about systematic 
Russian cheating for several years prior to the 2014 Sochi Winter 
Olympic Games. Yet, action to protect clean athletes only happened 
after the whistleblowers--frustrated by inaction--took their story to 
the media. Even then, however, it took persistent lobbying by clean 
sport advocates, including some within WADA's own internal staff, to 
finally convince its leaders to open up the initial Russian 
investigation which began in January 2015.
    The good news is that WADA's conflicted governance model could be 
easily solved by removing sport leaders from the WADA leadership and 
implementing a proper conflict-of-interest policy which prohibits 
governing members from simultaneously holding a governing role within a 
sports organization under WADA's jurisdiction. WADA has recognized the 
need for more independence and is in the process of adding two 
independent positions to its Executive Committee. But while they 
acknowledge the importance and benefit of independence with this 
change, it still does not allow for true independence as the WADA 
Executive Committee is filled and controlled by those on the sport side 
with a collective interest in the outcome of its enforcement decisions. 
This must change. As the single largest financial contributor to WADA 
(other than the IOC) with no seat on the Executive Committee, the U.S. 
must act to ensure change. We were happy to see the Senate 
Appropriations Committee include report language last year requiring an 
analysis from ONDCP on these issues concerning WADA's governance model.
    The fix for the IOC--which has experienced significant backlash 
from clean athletes in the wake of its inaction and poor handling of 
this horrid affair since its inception in 2014--is just as simple. In 
fact, we've said publicly on numerous occasions that if the IOC really 
wanted to put clean athletes and fair play first, they could. We 
believe that they could do it today.
    Since this Russian sport corruption was exposed, at least 37 
National Anti-Doping Organizations (``NADOs'') from around the world, 
with the support of athletes and others have put forth a series of 
specific proposals designed to reform and strengthen the global anti-
doping model. The reform principles below were also agreed to in 
October 2018 by a strong coalition of democratic governments, athletes 
and NADOs from around the world who convened at the request of the 
White House.
    The path forward is outlined in what has been called the 
``Copenhagen Reform Declaration'' of 2016 and the 2018 White House 
Declaration--the reforms are simple yet effective and include:

   Remove the fundamental conflict of interest that exists when 
        anti-doping decisions are controlled by sport organizations.

   Strengthen WADA through improved independence, transparency, 
        and increased investment.

   Increase and make clear WADA's ability to investigate, 
        monitor compliance and impose sanctions, so that countries and 
        organizations which engage in state-supported doping are held 
        accountable.

   Provide the opportunity for athletes who have been robbed by 
        doping to have significant and meaningful recognition and 
        celebration, including the swift reallocation of any medals.

   Increase support and protection for whistleblowers around 
        the world.

    The failure of sport to do the right thing in confronting 
institutional fraud through doping and the refusal of sport to 
implement meaningful reforms has directly led us here today. Since 
sport has failed to make the basic reforms necessary to ensure this 
type of corruption never happens again, governments of the world that 
value fair play and that do not want to see athletes or corporations 
defrauded by criminals, dictatorships or kleptocrats should step up and 
fight back. The status quo is doomed to fail, and we support efforts by 
governments and others to ensure that clean, true sport prevails.
    We appreciate the work of the Helsinki Commission and Chairman 
Wicker to specifically enact ways to protect the U.S. financial 
investment in international competition; stop corrupt actors that 
organize and facilitate doping fraud; compensate clean athletes who 
have been defrauded; and protect whistleblowers and clean athletes.
    We whole heartedly support S.259, the ``Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act 
of 2019'' and the goal of ensuring corrupt organizations and 
enterprises that defraud athletic competitions like what the Russians 
did never happens again. The Act, which is mimicked after other current 
Federal statutes, like those used successfully to prosecute corruption 
in the FIFA soccer case out of the Eastern District of NY, protects 
athletes as well as our country's financial investment in international 
sporting competitions.
    Can you imagine the loss of value of a sports sponsorship knowing 
over 100 samples had positive tests after the completion of the 2012 
London Olympic Games--a fact that came to light when the Russian state 
sponsored scheme was revealed and the IOC was forced to re-test samples 
collected during those Olympic Games. What right minded company would 
want to invest in these corrupt competitions in which athletes are 
robbed and abused? What right minded broadcaster would spend a dime on 
airing a deceptive outcome in sport? And, let's not forget, the 2014 
Sochi Olympics were the worst of the worst as they were tarred with the 
state Russian system that covered up doped athletes and knowingly 
allowed cheaters to prevail--an injustice that remains today in many 
individual cases. With the shocking revelations of the Russian state 
sponsored scheme and the lack of meaningful sanctions from 
international bodies, it is not surprise that the Rodchenkov Act has 
gained universal support from a wide range of organizations, including 
athletes' groups, National Governing Bodies and the major pro leagues.
    As you all know, the United States hosts the Olympic Games in 2028 
in Los Angeles. We must not allow this type of corruption and 
destruction of the values of sport to invade our Games. The Act will 
work and the Senate should quickly pass it, as has been done in the 
House, where it was passed unopposed on October 22 last year. Once 
thing we can all agree on is that fraud, deception and robbery of 
athletes should not happen on our home turf during the Games we are 
hosting. I know several members of this Committee have already 
cosponsored the bill, and we thank you for your support. Let's pass the 
USADA Re-Authorization and the Rodchenkov Act and make the 2028 L.A. 
Olympic Games a pageantry of true and clean sport.
    We feel confident that making WADA independent as discussed above 
will preserve the many effective parts of the global system and that, 
combined with the passage of the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act of 2019, 
these changes will work to go a long way in curing the problems that 
allowed state supported fraud to remain secret and then go unpunished 
for so long. Likewise, as mentioned above, we and our international 
partners support greater protection for truthful ``whistleblowers'' to 
encourage and incentivize them in speaking up and making it easier for 
them to obtain access to safe and secure living as well as to end any 
retaliation against them. The Rodchenkov Act allows for this to happen.
    Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, for those of us who value 
the rights of clean athletes and the preservation of a fair, safe and 
healthy playing field--this is our moment. As a global community that 
deeply cares about athletes' rights and health, we must merely find the 
resolve and the courage.
    The personal well-being of the next generation of clean athletes 
hangs in the balance. This is not just about elite Olympic athletes--
this is about every kid on a playground who has an athletic dream and 
asks ``what do I have to do to make my dreams come true?'' And the 
truth is, if we don't push, if we don't win, we will likely find 
ourselves back in this same position, years from now, staring another 
state-supported doping system in the face--one that has abused its 
athletes, and robbed another generation of clean athletes in the 
process.
    And, we will all be wondering why we didn't do more when we had the 
chance.

    The Chairman. Well, thank you, Mr. Tygart, and thank you 
all.
    We will now begin a round of questioning. Each Senator will 
take five minutes in the first round.
    Mr. Tygart, in December, the World Anti-Doping Agency 
issued a decision about Russia. That decision is on appeal. Is 
it your testimony that as long as that appeal is pending, 
Russian athletes will be permitted in the Tokyo Games? Is that 
your testimony?
    Mr. Tygart. That is absolutely right.
    The Chairman. What is the solution there? What do you 
advocate? People have a right to appeal.
    Mr. Tygart. For sure, and we respect and have great 
appreciation for due process.
    The problem is this was first exposed in December 2014. No 
action was taken in 2016 leading into the Rio Olympic Games. A 
mere slap on the wrist was put in place before the Winter Games 
in 2018. It was a charade and a farce of any sort of 
consequence.
    The Chairman. Help us understand the difference between the 
World Anti-Doping organization and the Olympic organizations.
    Mr. Tygart. So WADA is the World Anti-Doping Agency which 
is made up of 50 percent sport, basically the IOC, and we 
believe is controlled in large part by the IOC. It has 50 
percent governance. The United States does not have a seat on 
the executive committee of WADA but we are represented through 
the Americas process.
    The Chairman. It is obviously harder to catch cheating than 
it might seem. Help enlighten us on that. Are the types of 
drugs becoming more sophisticated? And why is it so easy to 
stretch out a dispute and make it take a long time?
    Mr. Tygart. I think in the Russia case, for example, they 
are doing everything possible, from what we understand, to 
delay, to ensure the distance between the current injustice 
that has now been going on for 6 years. It has stretched out as 
far as it can and no penalty is put in place. So I think there 
are games being played from the legal side of it.
    It is very difficult to continue to stay ahead of the 
willingness of those who think they can get away with cheating 
to cheat, or whether it is by drugs of what happened in Russia 
where the state was literally covering up evidence, swapping 
samples, they go to great lengths to try to defeat the system. 
It is good thing it was exposed. The real issue now is the 
length of time it took to expose it and the failure to 
adequately address it in accordance with the rules. And no one 
is asking for anything other than the rules to be enforced in a 
timely manner so that athletes have finality going into the 
games that they are not once again marred by this Russia state-
sponsored doping.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Colon, you mentioned one case where the report of a 
coach sending inappropriate communications was discovered, and 
that coach was not allowed to leave the country with the 
athlete. What became of that situation? And what is your 
interaction with law enforcement in a situation like that?
    Ms. Colon. So that particular case is still under 
investigation. In those cases and many other cases when we are 
investigating allegations of sexual, physical, and emotional 
abuse and misconduct, we work very closely with law 
enforcement. Not only are our staff mandated reporters, but we 
often will share evidence, information that we gather to 
support law enforcement investigations.
    The Chairman. OK. And I understand there are due process 
concerns. In that case, is the coach still coaching? Is he 
still on staff?
    Ms. Colon. So I will have to check and get back with you, 
but under our temporary suspension and sanction, he should not 
be.
    So it is really important to note that the Center provides 
a fair process throughout our entire investigative process, 
meaning that we provide notice of allegations to anyone going 
through the process. We provide a right to have an attorney. We 
give them an opportunity to be heard. Those pieces are very 
important and help support the process in which the Center uses 
each and every day to investigate the thousands of reports that 
we get every year.
    The Chairman. Do sports organizations--do elementary and 
secondary schools have to agree to have a partnership with you 
to come under your supervision, or is it something that is 
imposed on everyone?
    Ms. Colon. So the U.S. Center for SafeSport only has 
jurisdiction over the Olympic and Paralympic movement. So 
secondary schools, high schools, colleges, and universities 
would not have to abide by the Center for SafeSport policies or 
sanctions. However, we do post all of our sanctions, our 
permanently ineligible sanctions, online and provide those to 
the public so that if someone is hiring a coach or if they are 
looking to bring someone into their coaching staff or another 
capacity, that they are able to see and check to make sure that 
those people are not on that list. And we encourage everyone to 
do that as part of their screening process, very similar to how 
you would check and do a background check.
    The Chairman. So in the case of this 14-year-old, she was 
already an athlete on an Olympic track?
    Ms. Colon. So, yes. So when you think about the Olympic and 
Paralympic movement, it not only includes our elite athletes, 
but it also includes all of those that are in the pipeline. And 
a pipeline athlete could be someone who is a 5-year-old 
gymnast, a 12-year-old hockey player. It really just depends on 
how their organization is connected to each one of the national 
governing bodies. So that coach would certainly fall under the 
jurisdiction of the center.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I have three questions, depending on how much time we 
have.
    Mr. Tygart, I want to know what we, Congress, can do to 
help on the whistleblower side as it relates to strengthening 
the laws and helping in protection?
    Mr. Lindley, if you think we should consider this 
Washington State law as a national model on concussions.
    But, Ms. Colon, if I could start with you. Thank you so 
much for your leadership in the Center for SafeSport and 
everything that everybody is doing.
    I wanted to ask if you thought, given the Chairman's 
question, if we should expand this oversight to the NCAA and to 
a broader sports arena because there a million athletes that 
are not covered, and this seems like it would be helpful.
    But I am actually struck most by your comments about 
grooming. Thank you so much. If you could elaborate more on 
what you were trying to bring to light about bad behavior in 
this area.
    Ms. Colon. Sure. So the center is trying to create a 
different culture in sport, and that starts with education and 
it starts with outreach to coaches, administrators, parents, 
and athletes because it is very important that not only our 
parents understand what grooming behavior looks like but also 
those that interact with athletes each and every day. So if 
there are inappropriate comments that are said, if they are 
talking about things with children that they really should not 
be, if they are buying athletes gifts really trying to gain 
their trust and get close to them, which we know that that 
behavior often perpetuates abuse--and so it is really important 
for us to get to that before it happens so that people can 
understand what those red flags are and understand what those 
boundaries should be so that they can certainly correct those 
actions.
    And what we are starting to see now is that people within 
the Olympic and Paralympic movement are calling us earlier. 
They are noticing this behavior before it gets to the point of 
abuse. And that is a win because the more that we can get 
people to understand that, the better off we will all be and 
the safer our athletes will be.
    Senator Cantwell. I think that speaks volumes of what we 
need to do in the culture writ large. People do not realize 
that there is so much of this going on. So thank you so much. 
This seems very important.
    And what about the expansion to other athletes?
    Ms. Colon. So I think that every organization that serves 
you, serves athletes should have policies in place and should 
certainly have mechanisms in place to deal with allegations of 
abuse as they come up. The Center for SafeSport is a fairly new 
organization, and we do not yet have the capacity to take on 
organizations like colleges and universities and NCAA. However, 
we would welcome the opportunity to talk with them further to 
see how we can strengthen our relationship.
    Senator Cantwell. OK. What about the concussion law and 
what about whistleblowers?
    Mr. Lindley. Sure. Thank you, Senator.
    The NATA is thrilled that there are concussion laws in all 
50 states. Those vary slightly but the key components are 
immediate removal from play, absolute assessment by a health 
care provider, and then return to play must include that from a 
licensed health care provider. The opportunities to make them 
more uniform and to improve concussion legislation include 
opportunities to have return to learn be components, as well as 
increased education for coaches and others, as well as a 
culture change that would be connected to that education change 
so that more people understand the importance of being removed 
from play when signs and symptoms occur.
    Senator Cantwell. Mr. Tygart.
    Mr. Tygart. Thanks for the question.
    Obviously, whistleblowers are essential to the job that we 
do. We can go back to BALCO or the U.S. Postal Service's case. 
Even the Russian case was exposed thanks in large part to 
whistleblowers.
    I think what Congress can do and what I would encourage the 
Senate to do is what I said in my oral testimony, to join the 
House and pass the Rodchenkov Act. I think it will increase the 
protections provided to whistleblowers by allowing them to be 
afforded the same protections that other whistleblowers in the 
United States receive when they have evidence of criminal 
violations occurring. So I would strongly encourage you all to 
pass that as soon as possible and let us enact that in law 
prior to the Tokyo Olympic Games.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
    And then on the international basis to join in trying to 
get Russia to be held accountable, are there things that we 
should be doing, resolutions or----
    Mr. Tygart. I think we were thrilled, as I mentioned in my 
oral testimony, about the Senate appropriations language 
requiring a report from the President's office to Congress. 
What I would say that has to be done in 180 days, I would 
encourage you to have another hearing and bring in the 
President of the IOC, the President of WADA and ask the tough 
questions about why this has taken so long, how is our money 
being used in a way that is not being effective to our clean 
athletes and not just the U.S. athletes but athletes around the 
globe who want to do it the right way.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Peters.

                STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

    Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to our witnesses here today. I appreciate it.
    In Michigan, we are all too familiar with the tragedy of 
sexual abuse in sports, and we recently had to deal with the 
heinous actions of Larry Nasser. He is now serving a 175-year 
sentence. But certainly now is the time to make sure that we do 
not ever have another monster like him out there preying on our 
athletes and young people.
    So I want to thank Senators Moran, Blumenthal, and Cantwell 
for working with me on their bill, Empowering Olympic and 
Amateur Athletes Act, and talk a little bit about some of those 
amendments, Ms. Colon. I authored language in the bill that 
would require the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee to 
terminate anyone who has retaliated against athletes, who have 
spoken out about misconduct.
    My question to you is, how does SafeSport currently follow 
up on suspensions and bans that are handed out?
    Ms. Colon. So every time that the Center publishes a ban or 
removes someone from sport, we not only notify the general 
public about this person, but we also notify each and every one 
of the national governing bodies to ensure that those folks do 
not end up at a competition, at a training facility because the 
purpose of those bans is to remove those individuals from 
sport.
    Senator Peters. What steps can SafeSport and other 
organizations do to encourage athletes to actually speak out 
and feel that they are going to be protected from being 
retaliated against, creating that safe space? What are you 
doing and what can other organizations do?
    Ms. Colon. It is critically important that if someone has 
experienced abuse, whether it is emotional, physical, or sexual 
abuse, that they contact the Center and speak up. We certainly 
respect every person's and every claimant's, every victim's and 
survivor's ability to and desire to actually participate in 
this process. But it is really important for us to get that 
information from them and for them to speak up so that we can 
start to do those investigations. And we encourage them in a 
variety of ways. Not only do we have a number of resources 
available on our websites, we work with our NGBs to make sure 
that they have access to that information because communicating 
that to athletes is critically important.
    Senator Peters. Well, one area--and this is an amendment 
that I put into the legislation that passed out of committee 
here--was to require the Olympic Committee to hire a third 
party to consult with the U.S. Center for SafeSport to conduct 
an anonymous survey to include questions related to sexual 
harassment. So can you talk a little bit about that and what 
SafeSport is currently doing to maintain that kind of anonymity 
in reporting?
    Ms. Colon. Sure. So part of that is going to tell us a lot 
about culture and safety within Olympic sport, and that will 
certainly help athletes to come share their voice, let us know 
that those concerns are so that we can continue to provide 
resources to better protect athletes. That is going to be 
critical moving forward so that we can get a real 
understanding.
    As I mentioned, there are 13 million to 18 million 
participants in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement. We 
have got to be able to get more information from them to 
understand what those issues are so that we can adequately 
address them.
    Senator Peters. Does SafeSport have any concerns about a 
high profile case being reported to the media before you have 
actually been able to do the investigations?
    Ms. Colon. So it is certainly complicates things because we 
pride ourselves on doing unbiased investigations. When reports 
are made to the media early on, some information may come out 
that claimants do not want to, you know, want to protect their 
identity. But oftentimes--and this has happened in a number of 
cases--the reports that come out through the media prompt an 
investigation. So this is another way for people to tell us, 
like this is happening, look into this person, and in certain 
cases, the Center will open up that investigation.
    Senator Peters. In your testimony, you have talked about 
how you have increased your capacity because of more reports 
that are coming forward. You mentioned that the Center receives 
more than 200 reports a month I believe in your testimony, 
which is a 500 percent increase. That is a very large increase. 
How are you able to resolve these cases and clear the backlog? 
Where are you in that process?
    Ms. Colon. When we first opened, we had one investigator, 
which was not nearly enough, because this is a very people-
driven action when you are thinking about investigations. In 
the last 3 years, we have significantly increased our response 
and resolution staff, meaning that we have more and more 
investigators that are added and we continue to hire those 
folks that participate in this process with us.
    That is going to be a big part of us moving forward, also 
ensuring that we have the funding to do that and hire 
investigators to do that. But as a process and part of my job 
is to make sure that we continue to look for efficiencies in 
the process. How can we continue to operate? How can we 
continue to do investigations effectively and thoughtfully but 
also making sure that we provide resolution to those who go 
through our process as quickly as possible?
    Senator Peters. Well, thank you. Thank you for your answers 
and thank you for your leadership on this issue. We appreciate 
you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Peters.
    Senator Udall.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, and thank you to 
the witnesses. A very good hearing today and I really 
appreciate, Mr. Chairman, you holding this hearing on this 
important topic.
    As Chairman Wicker knows, I have spent a considerable 
amount of time and effort on two issues: raising awareness on 
concussions and the impact of doping on horseracing. We must 
protect both the jockeys who put their lives at risk every time 
they mount a horse that may be unsound and protect the welfare 
of the animals.
    Mr. Tygart, thank you for your work to protect the 
integrity of our sports and your advocacy to bring about change 
especially to the World Anti-Doping Agency. Your testimony 
outlined ways to increase WADA's independence, including 
ridding the executive committee of conflicts of interest. 
Governing bodies must be independent and strong when they are 
dealing with industries that have profited for too long on 
drugging.
    As to some of the proposals to reform the horseracing 
industry, I am concerned some will not provide the independence 
necessary to really bring about genuinely needed reform. We 
have discussed the need to clean up this sport in the past.
    A question to you, should any legislation from Congress 
ensure that any anti-doping organization created is truly 
independent and not compromised to representatives from 
industries who currently profit from the status quo?
    Mr. Tygart. Senator, thanks for your question and thanks 
for your great work on these issues.
    Absolutely it must be independent. From our standpoint and 
our experience, the USOPC back in late 1999, in conjunction 
with some efforts here on the Hill on this committee 
specifically, put a stake in the ground and said we are going 
to outsource and make independent, meaning folks at USADA who 
serve on our board or on our staff can have no financial 
interests, cannot serve in any capacity for an organization 
that we provide services to. And I think that has been a game-
changer. And so I think it equally applies to horseracing and 
any legislation that may come from this committee or otherwise 
to ensure its independence.
    Senator Udall. Thank you for that answer and for your work.
    Mr. Lindley, thank you for the important work you and your 
colleagues do to prevent and mitigate injuries on our student 
athletes.
    I remain concerned, however, about the claims of some 
equipment manufacturers that their products will reduce impact 
consequences. In the past, I have worked with the Federal Trade 
Commission to bring attention to such claims when manufacturers 
would brazenly claim that a mouth guard could prevent 
concussions. I have one that is here that is doing that right 
now.
    Are you familiar with the University of Wisconsin study 
that was released last year which says in part--and I quote--
the use of protective head gear among high school players does 
not result in fewer or less severe sports-related concussions 
compared to players who wear no head gear at all?
    Mr. Lindley. Senator, thank you.
    Yes, I am familiar with that particular research, as well 
as other components within the research that compare or look at 
equipment specifically with concussion. We have to be reminded 
that the brain floats inside of each of our craniums, and as 
such, it is a movement type of an injury and it can be a 
torsion type injury and injury can occur even without contact 
to the ground or to another person. And so certainly the 
opportunities to continue to improve equipment can be one of 
the mitigating factors or risk mitigation factors. However, it 
is far more important to consider what frontline health care 
providers are in line like athletic trainers to be able to more 
accurately assess those types of injuries by signs and 
symptoms, have immediate removal from play, and to assure that 
further injury is not sustained.
    Senator Udall. Great. Thank you.
    I am troubled that it seems that at least one manufacturer 
is making a claim that their--and this is the ExoShield head 
guard--a headband as the only product shown to statistically 
reduce--this is the claim they are making--the only product 
shown to statistically reduce the risk of head injuries. Except 
this is what the study actually concludes, as Dr. McGwin says, 
the principal investigator, and I quote here. ``While it may 
seem reasonable to assume that using head gear in a contact 
sport like soccer is better than wearing no head gear at all, 
our study proves that assumption may not be accurate.''
    This is unacceptable, and I will continue to work with the 
FTC and other agencies to correct information in the 
marketplace. We should not have companies like this out there 
telling young people, you wear our head gear and you are going 
to be fine as far as concussions. And these are the 
representations they are making right now.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Udall, is that in a form that we 
could add to the record?
    Senator Udall. You bet.
    The Chairman. Let us do that.
    Senator Udall. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add this 
advertisement and the two studies into the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection, that will be done.
    [The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                                 ______
                                 
Study: 'Protective' headgear does not prevent sport-related concussions 
        in soccer players
    The use of protective headgear among high school soccer players 
does not result in fewer or less severe sport-related concussions 
compared to players who wear no headgear at all, according to a new 
study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine 
and Public Health.
    Published this week in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, the 
study is the first of its kind to provide rigorous, scientific evidence 
to guide clinical recommendations about the use of protective headgear 
to reduce sports-related concussions in adolescent soccer players.
    ``Decisions about the health and well-being of our student athletes 
should always be based on strong scientific evidence instead of 
strategic marketing messages designed to sell products,'' says Tim 
McGuine, PhD, principal investigator of the study and distinguished 
scientist in the Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation at the UW 
School of Medicine and Public Health. ``While it may seem reasonable to 
assume that using headgear in a contact sport like soccer is better 
than wearing no headgear at all, our study proves that assumption may 
not be accurate.''
    Researchers enrolled 2,766 high-school soccer players (ages 14-18, 
grades 9-12) from 88 high schools in the Midwest, with a total of 62 
male teams and 88 female teams participating in over 151,000 soccer 
practices and games. Half of the schools were assigned to the 
intervention group, which required players to wear protective soccer 
headgear for all practice and competitions. Players had the choice of 
five different models of headgear, all of which met specific laboratory 
testing standards. The control group did not wear any headgear at all.

        While it may seem reasonable to assume that using headgear in a 
        contact sport like soccer is better than wearing no headgear at 
        all, our study proves that assumption may not be accurate.

        Tim McGuine

    Of the 130 athletes who sustained a sport-related concussion during 
the study, 68 were part of the intervention group and 62 were from the 
control group. The total days off from playing soccer due to a 
concussion did not significantly differ between the two groups either.
    It should be noted, however, that even though all of the headgear 
used in this study is currently allowed for use in high school players, 
the rate of a sport-related concussions sustained by male and female 
players wearing specific headgear models varied a great deal. The 
authors found that the rate of these injuries ranged from 2.7 percent 
to 5.9 percent depending on the type of headgear worn by the players.
Head-to-player contact results in more concussions
    Most previous studies that examined the efficacy of soccer headgear 
were carried out in laboratory settings, during which researchers used 
the impact of a soccer ball to the head as the possible injury-causing 
mechanism. But McGuine says that study design may not accurately 
capture what actually happens on the soccer field. During the UW study, 
only 35 percent of the sport-related concussions recorded were a result 
of a player heading a soccer ball, while head-to-player contact was by 
far the most common mechanism of the injuries.
    ``Our results are noteworthy not just because of the large sample 
size and the multiple styles of headgear we used, but also because we 
used licensed medical professionals in the field to record the onset, 
duration and resolution of each of the concussions sustained by study 
participants,'' McGuine says. ``This gave us the most realistic data 
possible, which will also give parents and coaches the info they need 
to make the most responsible and well-informed decisions before sending 
their kids out onto the pitch.''
    A concern for many soccer purists is that wearing headgear would 
change the game and cause players to sustain other injuries because 
they take more risks than if they were not protecting their head. The 
authors did not find any difference in the frequency and severity of 
other soccer injuries between the players in the two groups.
Concussions more frequent among females
    An important finding that was not part of the study's initial focus 
is that sportsrelated concussions occurred at more than twice the rate 
among females than males. McGuine says he hopes this study will inform 
future research efforts that examine this topic in greater detail.
    ``The soccer community needs to fully recognize the high rate of 
these concussions in female players and take steps to address this 
issue. If headgear isn't the answer, then the soccer community needs to 
examine whether rule changes, stricter penalty enforcement, fewer 
matches or specific player training can reduce the high number of 
[sports-related concussions] that occur in female players.''
    Funding for this study was provided by a $300,000 grant from the 
National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment.
    Other researchers in the study include:

   Eric Post, PhD, School of Exercise and Nutritional Sciences 
        at San Diego State University

   Alison Brooks, MD, MPH, Stephanie A. Kliethermes, PhD, Adam 
        Pfaller and Allison Schwarz, Department of Orthopedics and 
        Rehabilitation, University of Wisconsin-Madison

   Scott Hetzel, Department of Biostatistics and Medical 
        Informatics, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
                                 ______
                                 
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 

    Senator Udall. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Thune.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you all for being here to give us an update on a 
subject that is very important to many people on this Committee 
and many people across the country.
    Mr. Tygart, could you speak to the ways the U.S. Anti-
Doping Agency has modernized and expanded its drug testing 
efforts since the last reauthorization in 2014 and perhaps 
comment on how effective these changes have been?
    Mr. Tygart. Thanks, Senator Thune, for your question.
    So putting education and prevention aside, just focused on 
the testing aspect, what I would say is since 2014 we have, 
obviously, had to stay abreast of the new designer drugs that 
might be coming out and doing everything we can. Whether it is 
a SARMs, whether it is a peptide, growth hormone-releasing 
factor, a lot of substances that are coming in, unfortunately, 
from China and India that are not for human consumption here in 
the United States, we have got to stay ahead of that and ensure 
that our labs have testing for it.
    I would say, number two, we have been able to really refine 
and hone in what is known as our athlete biological passport, 
looking at an individual's testing over time, looking at their 
blood and urine markers and how that may be influenced by 
doping. A great common example is our cholesterol, and you 
monitor it over time to see what is affecting your body and you 
can make changes to ensure that you are staying healthy, but in 
our world, you can see results of whether someone is doping or 
not. And that is a powerful tool looking at the person's own 
individual testing history.
    And then third and final I think is the ability to have 
whistleblowers come forward and the amount of information. Not 
unlike the Center for SafeSport, we in 2018 had over 700 tips 
come in to us. And I think that is a direct result of the 
efforts in BALCO, Russia, and the Lance Armstrong case where it 
was information and those who wanted to take control and 
ownership of their culture in the sporting environment to come 
forward. And they trust now that there are independent 
organizations like us who are going to act responsibly and get 
to the bottom and hold those accountable who break the rules.
    Senator Thune. Thank you.
    Ms. Colon, as I say, over the past several years, there has 
been a lot of--already been mentioned--sexual misconduct and 
abuse in the U.S. Olympic communities, and it surfaces a very 
serious problem perhaps most notably within USA gymnastics but 
also in other Olympic communities such as swimming and Tae Kwon 
Do, which is why I was proud to be part of passing legislation 
authorizing the United States Center for SafeSport back in 
2018.
    With the Tokyo Olympics set for this summer, what is your 
overall assessment of where things stand in terms of the 
problem of sexual misconduct and abuse in the U.S. Olympic and 
Paralympic Committees? And do you think that we are making 
headway in dealing with this problem?
    Ms. Colon. Thank you for your continued support, Senator 
Thune. It is much appreciated.
    Yes, I think that we are making some progress, but there is 
certainly a long way for us to go. You know, again in 3 years, 
we have seen a 500 percent increase in reports. Our assumption 
is that the more people understand what the center does, the 
more people understand what we do, and how successful we have 
been in doing it, we will start to see even more reports come 
through each and every year. We do not anticipate the number of 
reports to go down, unfortunately, any time soon.
    However, we have invested a considerable amount of time and 
energy and resources in developing educational and outreach 
materials so that people can understand what grooming looks 
like, what inappropriate boundaries look like, and what 
potential predatory behavior looks like. And all of that I 
think will ultimately get us to this place where we will start 
to see true change. But there is a long way and a long road for 
all of us to go in this movement.
    Senator Thune. And as you know, the Empowering Olympic and 
Amateur Athletes Act, which passed out of this Committee last 
fall, includes an amendment that I offered which seeks to 
ensure the independence of SafeSport from the USOPC by having 
the GAO annually certify SafeSport's independence.
    At the same time, that amendment also seeks to ensure that 
SafeSport continues to share certain aggregate data with the 
USOPC.
    What information do you currently share with the USOPC, and 
do you think it will be important for SafeSport to continue to 
share this information even after this bill is enacted into 
law?
    Ms. Colon. Absolutely. The information that we gather--it 
does not just help the Center for SafeSport, it helps each and 
every NGB. It helps the USOPC in making decisions.
    Currently we share a number of resources, a number of data 
points with the center quarterly and annually, including but 
not limited to our reports, the number of open cases by sport, 
the number of people who have gone through our educational 
programs, and the number of organizations that we have audited 
through our audit and compliance program, including the USOPC.
    Senator Thune. How would you in your tenure as CEO of 
SafeSport over the past 6 months assess SafeSport's 
independence from the USOPC?
    Ms. Colon. We are an independent organization. I report to 
an independent board. We do not have any employees who have 
worked for the USOPC, and we pride ourselves on that. And in 
fact, we have taken some of the language that is in the pending 
legislation and applied it now where we will not hire anyone 
who has worked inside the USOPC or an NGB for the last 2 years. 
Independence is very important to us, and it is certainly 
something that has been called into question before. But we 
have done everything that we can, I think, to ensure that 
independence from our governance and our rules and our 
structure but also to our investigations, ensuring that no one 
within the USOPC or the NGB can interfere.
    Senator Thune. Thank you and thanks for your work there.
    Mr. Chairman, I have some other questions I will submit for 
the record. My time has expired. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Thune.
    Senator Blumenthal.

             STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 
take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your help 
on the Empowering Olympic and Amateur Athletics Act which 
Senator Moran and I have spearheaded. Senator Moran is at 
another hearing right now, the Veterans Affairs Committee which 
he chairs. I just left there. I am a member of it, but I want 
to thank him as well because this effort has really been very 
much a partnership and a bipartisan work.
    As you well know, it followed the review of more than 
70,000 pages of documents, four subcommittee hearings, numerous 
interviews with Olympic athletes. And Senator Moran and I 
eventually produced a 235-page report which showed not just 
isolated abuses like Larry Nasser's, horrific as it was, but 
really a culture and a pattern of enabling that we have sought 
to confront in this Act. It is more than just a few outliers. 
It is really a system that has to be reformed, and it begins 
with sufficient resources and independence for the SafeSport 
work that you do, Ms. Colon. And I appreciate your emphasis on 
independence as an important feature of your work.
    Our bill would require that USOPC provide SafeSport with 
$20 million annually to ensure that SafeSport is auditing USOPC 
itself with independence, as well as individual national 
governing boards. And I agree with Senator Thune that 
information is vital, but most important, providing the 
conflicts of interest protections to ensure that your work is 
independent.
    So I thank you very much for your help in that effort. I 
know you worked with my staff very closely, and we appreciate 
it.
    Is $20 million enough?
    Ms. Colon. $20 million will be an incredible resource to 
the center. Again, when we opened, we had one investigator. I 
think we had a $4 million budget. It was quite low. And over 
the years, we have been able to grow that budget, and we have 
been able to grow the staff that is needed to run the Center 
for SafeSport. But over time, we will continue to need funding. 
I think that the funding--and I am so very grateful that it is 
included in this pending legislation because it is going to be 
a game-changer for the center.
    But the center will continue to look for additional funding 
sources. We are thankful also for the funding that we received 
from the Department of Justice SMART Office. We also will look 
to diversify our funding through other sources as well.
    Senator Blumenthal. Is there any reason to wait to pass 
this legislation for the next Olympics?
    Ms. Colon. Absolutely not. This should be passed swiftly.
    Senator Blumenthal. Great because I have heard some 
sentiment that maybe we should wait until after the next 
Olympics. I see no reason to wait.
    Ms. Colon. I think that we have waited for a lot of things 
for a long time, and now is certainly the time.
    Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Tygart, I am pleased that Senator 
Moran and I have introduced the reauthorization of the USADA 
legislation recognizing the essential work that you and your 
organization do. And I am very pleased that this funding 
hopefully will be made available.
    How important is that funding to your work?
    Mr. Tygart. It is critical to what we do and to our 
athletes to ensure that their rights are upheld.
    Senator Blumenthal. Are you satisfied that athletes and 
trainers and the community recognize the importance of 
countering doping, substance abuse, and so forth?
    Mr. Tygart. I think so. I think we have a little bit in 
society where those who follow the rules are the suckers, to 
put it bluntly, but our Olympic athletes want to follow the 
rules and they will follow the rules and they have followed the 
rules because they know if they do not, they are going to be 
held accountable. And the only way to be a true winner is to 
play by the rules.
    Senator Blumenthal. I have been interested, as Senator 
Udall expressed, in the problems in horseracing, and I 
understand, although I was not here for it--I apologize--that 
you spoke favorably about extending the jurisdiction of your 
agency to include horseracing to prevent doping and substance 
abuse in that sport.
    Mr. Tygart. I think his question was just about the 
independent model, and we certainly support, whether it is 
horseracing, whether it is college sports, an independent model 
where anti-doping can be handled by a group that does not have 
pecuniary interests or otherwise in the outcome of the 
decisions that it has to make because that is not an effective 
way to handle it.
    Senator Blumenthal. Are you satisfied that college athletes 
are aware and that colleges are taking sufficient action in 
this area?
    Mr. Tygart. I am not and it is for the precise reason of 
the lack of independence. We have the fox guarding the 
henhouse, unfortunately, in the NCAA system. Now some of our 
athletes wear two hats. They are an Olympic athlete and also 
compete for their college. So they are subject to our testing 
program.
    The other issue that we have with the NCAA program is there 
are a number of foreign athletes, and what we do not want is 
for the U.S. college system--and you can look at swimming, 
tennis, sometimes golf, track and field--for Olympic athletes 
to come to the U.S. and have a doping vacation where they are 
subject to I think a pretty weak anti-doping program in the 
NCAA.
    Senator Blumenthal. Have you been in touch with the NCAA 
about strengthening----
    Mr. Tygart. We have and we have had good conversations I 
would say, but time is of the essence and our athletes want it 
changed as quickly as possible.
    Senator Blumenthal. And they have not acted sufficiently so 
far in your view?
    Mr. Tygart. No.
    Senator Blumenthal. I would like to follow up on this 
issue, the NCAA issue. My time has expired.
    I have one last question if the Chairman would permit me.
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    Senator Blumenthal. And thank you to my colleagues for 
their patience.
    It is a quick question to Mr. Lindley. Do you support the 
Empowering Olympic and Amateur Athletes Act?
    Mr. Lindley. Absolutely. It is important that we have 
frontline health care providers, including athletic trainers, 
to be able to have that same access to athletes across their 
entire lifespan and athletes with different opportunities and 
challenges. So ATs are uniquely qualified, and we would 
certainly support that.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. You and 
Senator Moran have provided such great leadership on this topic 
that you are entitled to a little leeway at this hearing.
    Before I recognize Senator Blackburn, since we are on this, 
Mr. Tygart, what is the current protocol for NCAA athletes, if 
you can tell us in a nutshell?
    Mr. Tygart. In a nutshell, they are subject to urine 
testing only from my understanding, so no blood testing. So 
there is a whole host of drugs, human growth hormone being the 
most potent, that are not even detectable in their system. I 
would call it a license to use human growth hormone if you are 
in that system and they do not test for it. There is no true no 
notice out of competition testing from what we understand.
    They asked us a decade or so to bid on running their 
program, and after we reviewed the policy, we asked them if 
they would change this, this, this, and this. They said, no, 
they cannot do that, and we refused to bid on it because it was 
not a program that we would put our gold standard behind.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Blackburn.

              STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    Senator Blackburn. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you all for letting us run back and forth. 
Senator Blumenthal and I have had a veterans hearing that we 
have been in and out of trying to take care of some of our 
veterans.
    Ms. Colon, I want to come to you first. And first of all, 
thank you for your time and attention to the issues around the 
health and wellbeing of athletes, not only physically but 
mentally and emotionally. So I thank you for that.
    I want to go back to something. You mentioned your three 
priorities: prevention, accountability, and transparency, and 
then individual accountability, which we all know is so vitally 
important to not corrupting the entire system.
    You mentioned that there are 5,000 reports that have been 
made to you all. Correct?
    Ms. Colon. Yes.
    Senator Blackburn. And then you have sanctioned 600 of 
those individuals or organizations involved in those reports.
    Ms. Colon. Yes, that is correct.
    Senator Blackburn. And that includes everybody from the 
individual, the athlete, the trainer, the provider, everyone 
involved. Correct?
    Ms. Colon. Yes.
    Senator Blackburn. OK.
    Talk to me a little bit then about how--into this reporting 
system that you all have built, how you bring transparency and 
enforcement. Who is the body that is making that decision? What 
is the due diligence that they walk through in deciding? 
Because if you are only ending up sanctioning 10 percent of the 
reports that come to you or a little more than 10 percent, 12 
percent, talk to me about that.
    Ms. Colon. Sure. So it is important to note that out of the 
5,000 reports that we receive, sometimes we do not necessarily 
have jurisdiction over some of those matters. So, for example, 
someone might call us and say that their coach has embezzled 
funds. So those are looped into there as well.
    Senator Blackburn. So then what percentage would you be 
referring to someone else for action?
    Ms. Colon. I would have to get back to you on the exact 
number.
    Senator Blackburn. I think that is important to see because 
when you say we have had this number of reports and this is the 
action we have taken--and those of us who are parents and 
grandparents and have children that are playing on sports teams 
and we say, well, you know, why is the number as low as it is 
and why is there not an action taken on a larger number, is 
this misappropriation of an accusation or is it something else. 
So some more clarity around that number I think would be very 
helpful to this process because we join you wholeheartedly in 
making certain that there is action taken.
    And, Mr. Lindley, I appreciate what you had to say about 
concussions. Some of us who are mammas who have watched this 
happen have many times thought that a child needed to be 
removed from play or a coach needed to be removed from 
instruction to children. So having that measure of 
accountability I think is vitally important for this, and we 
appreciate what you have done there.
    Mr. Lindley. Yes. The front-end part, of course, is that we 
still have a 34 percent gap in secondary schools where there is 
no health care provider available to protect that student 
athlete independently to help them to be removed from play and 
to get them the appropriate medical care.
    Senator Blackburn. Right, but I think our States are going 
to end up taking the lead with that from what I am hearing back 
in Tennessee. I think more school districts and at the State 
level, they are putting a greater emphasis on that, and it is 
appropriate and it is welcomed. So we appreciate the good work 
there.
    Mr. Tygart, let us talk a little bit about WADA and your 
comment about this being a devastating blow to clean athletes 
and the integrity of the spirit and the integrity of the sport 
and the rule of law. What I have not heard you say concisely in 
this hearing is what you think is the appropriate action and 
then also I have not heard you say how other nations view what 
would be a weak punishment. What is the message that is sent to 
them? And my time has expired, so quickly.
    Mr. Tygart. Yes. So, number one, make WADA independent. And 
I suggested at one of the questions they have a report due to 
the President's office, ONDCP.
    Senator Blackburn. So do you think that is the fix?
    Mr. Tygart. I think that is the silver bullet to all these 
integrity issues in sport. The rule enforcer has to be 
sacrosanct, cannot have an interest, pecuniary or otherwise, in 
the outcome of their enforcement. And that is straightforward.
    I think on Russia, it is too little too late. It first 
arose on WADA's desk in 2010. It was exposed by the media not 
by WADA in 2014. Here we are X number of years later still 
dealing with it. A decision that was not conflicted at the very 
beginning in 2014, this would have been long gone and way 
behind us. We are still dealing with it unfortunately because--
--
    Senator Blackburn. What does it say to other countries?
    Mr. Tygart.--other countries agree. We have a coalition of 
37 national anti-doping organizations from around the world who 
all supported the Copenhagen Declaration, which was also echoed 
by the White House who hosted a meeting in 2018 with 
governments, democratic governments, from around the world but 
also athletes from around the world. And we supported a strong 
WADA, a conflict-free WADA to make good decisive decisions in 
accordance with the rules. No one is asking for anything other 
than decisions in accordance with the rules.
    Senator Blackburn. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. Does it say to other countries I might be 
able to get away with this?
    Mr. Tygart. That is the biggest fear.
    The Chairman. I think that is what you were getting at.
    Mr. Tygart. I am sorry. It absolutely emboldens other 
countries who might be tempted or individual athletes who might 
be tempted to break the rules to see, even if you get caught 
with the depths of intentional fraud that we have caught the 
Russians by attempting to get away with, you are not going to 
be held accountable. So why not take the risk?
    Senator Blackburn. Roll the dice and take the risk.
    The Chairman. Well, help us out because I am glad Senator 
Blackburn got into this. How has cheating changed over time? If 
you are a Russian Olympian, an official in their organization, 
what has happened to make this more sophisticated, harder to 
detect? You mentioned in your testimony shadow laboratories. If 
you could describe that, I would appreciate it. Samples swapped 
and passed through walls, those sorts of things. If you could 
elaborate on that, I think people listening not only in the 
audience but out there around the country would be interested 
in hearing some specifics.
    Mr. Tygart. It is shocking. It is someone who plays clean, 
wants the rule of law enforced--it is their worst nightmare 
realized. I am not here promoting any movie, but if anyone has 
not seen the documentary Icarus that won the Oscar for the best 
documentary--Icarus, the boy who flew too close to the sun--I 
would strongly encourage folks to see it and get a real glimpse 
of what was happening. I cannot possibly describe it all, but 
we literally are talking about military level services in 
Russia setting up--you know, allowing and knowing that athletes 
were doping and using designer cocktails, allowing those 
athletes, even with positive tests. The sports minister's 
office was determining who to save or who not to save and 
allowing to go to international competition. So the government 
making decisions on known doped athletes being allowed to 
compete around the world. The FSB, the military intelligence 
group, literally figuring out a way to take the cap off of 
bottles that hold the urine, and during the Sochi Winter 
Olympic Games having a shadow laboratory on the other side of 
the main laboratory where they would replace known dirty urine 
so athletes on the program that they know were cheating during 
the games who would test positive if they went through the 
normal procedures--dumping out the dirty urine and filling it 
up with that athlete's clean urine.
    The Chairman. They would have to have the cooperation of 
the Olympic Committee----
    Mr. Tygart. It is beyond question I think, Senator, that it 
was orchestrated by the highest levels of the Russian 
Government who oversee and legislate and finance the entire 
Russian sports system. And the powers that be within that 
system have not changed since 2010 when this first started.
    The Chairman. Have the chemicals become harder to detect in 
recent years?
    Mr. Tygart. They are hard to detect, and you have to stay 
abreast. It is why research, 12 percent roughly of our budget, 
is so critically important to ensure we stay ahead of the 
substances that are coming onto the market whether legally 
through the pharma process here or illegally through China and 
India who are flooding our markets with some of these 
substances that are not allowed for human consumption. We have 
to stay ahead and be able to test for those products.
    The Chairman. So the documentary is Icarus.?
    Mr. Tygart. It is Icarus. And to be clear, I have no 
financial interest in the movie Icarus.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. And neither do I. I have not heard of it, but 
I might want to go look at it.
    Let me end my line with Mr. Lindley. You are a certified 
athletic trainer.
    Mr. Lindley. Correct.
    The Chairman. Now, your organization has 46,000 members. 
How many of them are certified athletic trainers?
    Mr. Lindley. The majority are, over 41,000. The rest would 
be comprised of athletic training students and other health 
care professionals.
    The Chairman. Students and health care professionals.
    Now, a certified athletic trainer is a health care 
professional.
    Mr. Lindley. That is correct.
    The Chairman. And 76 percent of them have a master's 
degree. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lindley. Yes. And by 2022, the professional degree will 
be a master's degree.
    The Chairman. And did I understand that some 65 percent of 
high schools do have an athletic trainer in the United States? 
Is that your testimony?
    Mr. Lindley. The testimony is that we have 37 percent of 
high schools who have a full-time athletic trainer. So a third 
have a full-time, a third have no athletic training services, 
no health care provider at all, and another third have part-
time services.
    The Chairman. But in order to be a certified athletic 
trainer, one not only has to be accredited by a commission but 
then there is a board certification process?
    Mr. Lindley. Correct, an independent board exam.
    The Chairman. What information are you and your 
organization able to provide to those high schools that do not 
have the professionals, particularly to look for--to help 
recognize the opioid problem? Your testimony mentioned that, 
and I think we have had some questions about it. But on page 4, 
the athletic trainer's involvement is also related to the 
opioid and prescription drug abuse. So how can you help those 
schools that do not have the resources to hire a professional 
like you?
    Mr. Lindley. Sure. It is really challenging, Senator, and 
that is why we are, as an organization NATA, working with a 
number of parent advocacy groups, and we work directly with 
superintendents and school boards to understand how important 
it is that if a school is choosing to fund an athletic program, 
choosing to pay for coaches, uniforms, alternate uniforms, 
buses, how can you not pay for health care and an athletic 
trainer? And that frontline provider, certainly from a number 
of different perspectives, works in prevention, education, and 
then treatment including alternatives for pain like 
rehabilitation to avoid some of the pathways toward opioid 
addiction.
    The Chairman. What about a half-day seminar for schools 
that are not able to afford this type of professional or a two-
day seminar? It seems to me a good bit of information could be 
imparted in that way. At least every school would have the 
ability to have some expertise in this regard.
    Mr. Lindley. Yes, I appreciate that comment. We have ATs 
that spend time in the communities doing education for parents 
and students alike, as well as teachers, to understand some of 
the dangers and risks around this issue but also talking to 
them about injury prevention methods and concussion and the 
importance of reporting all injury.
    The Chairman. Are there any other questions?
    Senator Blumenthal.
    Senator Blumenthal. Just to follow that line of 
questioning. But the role of the athletic trainer is to deal 
with individual athletes as well, and a seminar really cannot 
provide that kind of service. Correct?
    Mr. Lindley. Correct. It would purely be from a general 
educational standpoint to understand the importance.
    Senator Blumenthal. And to what extent is that kind of 
service important, for example, in preventing concussions which 
obviously is a growing part of the injury issue?
    Mr. Lindley. Sure. As I mentioned before, the concussion 
legislation that we have in all 50 states is an excellent 
start, but where the gap that really exists now is better 
education for everyone to understand. It is unique that 
athletic trainers find--sometimes we are protecting athletes 
from themselves who do not understand the significance of the 
symptoms they are experiencing. We are also protecting athletes 
from their own parents in the cases where parents have an 
external drive of some sort to have their daughter or son 
returning to play long before they should or not reporting 
their injuries. And certainly we understand the challenges of 
coaches who should not be involved in medical decisionmaking. 
And that is where the AT provides that level of autonomy and 
medical decision-making that every high school must have.
    Senator Blumenthal. Just a last couple of questions. Mr. 
Tygart, you mentioned that you were thinking about bidding on 
the NCAA contract and you did not after going down a list of 
conditions. What were those boxes or conditions that they 
failed to check or that were inadequate?
    Mr. Tygart. And they asked us to bid, but when we looked at 
the policy--so a top-of-head recollection--it was about a 
decade ago. There was no out-of-season testing. There was no 
blood testing. There was no non-analytical positives. So in the 
event you did not have a positive test, you cannot move 
forward. The sanctions were way out of line with the WADA code. 
That point has been changed within their policy now. Those were 
the main gaps that we saw I think, just top of the head.
    Senator Blumenthal. A number of those gaps still exist?
    Mr. Tygart. Yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Well, thank you. And thank you to our 
witnesses, as well as to the Senators who participated.
    This hearing has been a real education to me, and I know 
some members have delved very deeply into this subject. But 
this has been most helpful and I think the public benefits 
also.
    I need to close the hearing at this point by noting that 
the hearing record will remain open for two weeks. During this 
time, Senators are asked to submit any questions for the 
record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit 
their written answers to the Committee as soon as possible. Do 
you all swear that you will do that?
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. And so we thank you very much for being here, 
and at this point the hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                             Ju'Riese Colon
    Question 1. As you are aware, I chair the Commerce Subcommittee 
which exercises jurisdiction over amateur sports, and in partnership 
with Ranking Member Blumenthal, my office conducted an in-depth, 18-
month investigation to examine cultural and systemic issues regarding 
abuse in the Olympic movement that culminated with the bipartisan 
Empowering Olympic and Amateur Athletes Act of 2019 along with an 
investigative report, findings, and recommendations. A significant 
component of this legislation is ensuring that the U.S. Center for 
SafeSport has adequate and dependable resources to carry out its 
critical mission of ``making athlete well-being the centerpiece of our 
Nation's sports culture through abuse prevention, education, and 
accountability'' while also distinctly preserving the independence of 
the Center as an investigative body. If this legislation is enacted, 
how do you envision the expected increase of resources to impact the 
capacity and efficiency of the work done by the U.S. Center for 
SafeSport?
    Answer. These new resources will substantially improve the Center's 
capacity and efficiency. This legislation would allow us not only to 
make immediate improvements, such as hiring and training new 
investigators, but allow us to plan for future years so that we have 
the staff and resources we need to handle the significant increase in 
reports.

    a. Does the legislation effectively account for the future 
budgetary needs of the Center?
    Answer. $20 million will be an incredible resource for the Center. 
It will allow us to plan for how to meet our mandate not only this 
year, but in future years. We are also thankful for the grant funding 
we receive from the U.S. Department of Justice SMART Office that 
supports our Education and Audit & Compliance teams. Over time, 
however, we will need additional funding to meet the growing demands 
and to continue fulfilling our mission. We will continue looking for 
additional external funding sources to do so.

    b. Do you think the legislation effectively preserves the 
independence of the Center from other existing entities like the USOPC 
and the National Governing Bodies?
    Answer. Yes. In fact, it increases our independence from the USOPC 
and the National Governing Bodies.
    The perception exists that the USCSS cannot be independent if we 
are funded through negotiations with the USOPC and the NGBs. While 
anyone who works closely with the Center knows that our staff is 
entirely independent despite the current funding mechanism, this 
permanent revenue stream would eliminate this perception and strengthen 
our independence.

    Question 2. During the full committee's markup of the Empowering 
Olympic and Amateur Athletes Act of 2019 on November 13th, there was an 
amendment offered to ``ensure that any action taken by the Center to 
enforce any policy or procedure of the Center related to criminal 
conduct against an amateur athlete or personnel of the Center, the 
[USOPC], or a national governing body, including any investigation, 
disciplinary action, sanction, or other administrative action, is 
carried out in a manner that provides due process protection to such 
athlete or personnel.'' This amendment was not agreed to in the 
committee markup. While I certainly understand the concerns of my 
colleagues related to the protection of due process in issues as 
serious as abuse, I also have strong concerns that this legislative 
language would dramatically impact the Center's current practices and 
procedures as it relates to their ability to immediately remove 
athletes from dangerous situations, including the issuance of temporary 
or interim measures. How would you expect the protocols of the Center 
to be affected if an outright due process requirement was applied to 
all of the Center's investigations, disciplinary actions, sanctions, or 
other administrative actions?
    Answer. As written in the amendment offered before the Committee, 
the Center is concerned that the language of this amendment could be 
used to challenge when the Center needs to take immediate action to 
keep athletes safe--like the minor athlete who was about to travel to a 
foreign country with a coach that we had credible allegations against. 
The Center believes our ability to act fast to protect athletes when we 
have credible allegations is critical.
    But we also agree for the need for a fair process. That's why we 
already allow those who believe we got it wrong to challenge our 
temporary suspensions within 72 hours. During the investigative 
process, respondents receive notice of the allegations against them, 
can be represented by counsel, have an opportunity to be heard during 
the investigation, are issued a reasoned decision with the Center's 
findings, and can challenge those findings before an independent 
arbitrator.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to 
                              Tory Lindley
    Question 1. Do students understand that headbands and other such 
equipment will not prevent concussions?
    Answer. Senator Udall, I cannot accurately speak to the knowledge 
and understanding of all students on this issue. However, when ATs are 
appropriately positioned in organized youth sports, they can be an 
educational resource and a resource for referrals to other experts for 
parents and other stakeholders.

    Question 2. Who is educating students in light of misleading claims 
in the marketplace?
    Answer. Senator Udall, I don't know who is educating our children 
about misleading claims in the marketplace.

    Question 3. Can you explain how you approve equipment for athletes' 
use, including what role clinical or medical information plays in that 
process?
    Answer. Senator Udall, I cannot speak to how all sports equipment 
manufacturers utilize clinical and medical information.
    Question 4. Should there be a Federal role and should more Federal 
resources be dedicated to investigating and testing sports equipment 
manufacturers' claims?

    Answer. Senator Udall, I believe there exist Federal mechanisms for 
investigating claims made by manufacturers, but I do not know if more 
resources should be dedicated to it.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                            Travis T. Tygart
    Question 1. As you know, I introduced the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency 
Reauthorization Act of 2020 this week with Senator Blumenthal. USADA's 
current authorization is set to expire at the end of this Fiscal Year, 
and the legislation is intended to extend Federal financial support for 
the national organization charged with managing the anti-doping program 
through FY2029 including preparation for the 2028 Olympics in Los 
Angeles. As it relates to USADA's current responsibilities of athlete 
testing, results management processes, drug reference resources, and 
athlete education among other things, how would the increased 
authorization levels included in the reauthorization assist USADA in 
fulfilling its mission?
    Answer. We thank both you and Senator Blumenthal for your 
leadership in the sports world and the introduction of the 
reauthorization. The increased authorization levels in the 
reauthorization are essential for USADA to keep up with the ever-
changing world of performance enhancing substances and methods.
    While we are extremely appreciative of our government funding and 
hold ourselves to the highest level of fiscal responsibility, the 
reality is that we have been under-resourced based on the apparent 
misperception that there have been no changes in the anti-doping 
movement since 2010. In 2010, we received $10 million in funding from 
the government, then considerably less for many years, until the 
current Fiscal Year we got back up to $10 million. Based on the 
Consumer Price Index increases over the last ten years, $10 million 
would be $11.9 million today.
    As we know, those who want to break the rules are not using the 
same techniques that were used in 2010, and the number of sports (and 
therefore the number of athletes) entering the Olympics has only grown 
(e.g., surfing, skateboarding).
    Additionally, there are increasingly new and dangerous substances 
entering the market from China, India, and Eastern European countries, 
including anabolic agents (testosterone, nandrolone, methandienone, 
stanozolol, and SARMs), peptide hormones (human growth hormone (hGH), 
human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), and insulin-like growth factor 1 
(IGF-1)), and hormone and metabolic modulators (aromatase inhibitors), 
which has only increased demand within sport. In the United States, due 
to the post-market regulation of dietary supplements, many with raw 
ingredients originating in China, India or other off-shore producers, 
USADA has identified more than 600 dietary supplement products to-date 
which contain a prohibited performance-enhancing drug (PED) or list one 
on the label. The main PEDs contained in these products include 
anabolic agents (e.g., non-FDA approved SARMs such as ostarine and 
ligandrol) as well as stimulants and hormone and metabolic modulators.
    Finally, the Armstrong case has demonstrated to athletes and others 
in sport that USADA is independent and acts responsibly with 
information provided to it. This has resulted in a significant increase 
in the number of tips--more than 700 in 2018--and whistleblowers coming 
forward, which USADA diligently assesses for potential action. In order 
to adequately investigate and respond to this growing number of tips, 
more resources are needed.

    Question 1 (a). Do the bill's authorization levels effectively 
account for the increased resource needs that are likely to arise in 
the years immediately preceding the 2028 Olympic Games?
    Answer. Yes. The built-in increases in funding leading up to the 
2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles account for the increased number of 
Doping Control Officers necessary to implement an effective test 
distribution plan. This testing is designed to lead to a pageantry of 
clean sport during the 2028 Olympics that demonstrates to the world 
that the United States lives up to the ideals it espouses throughout 
the world to promote clean sport and the integrity of competition.
    In 1999, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation conceived the idea of USADA as a public-private 
partnership. This model has proven extremely effective in ensuring 
perceived and actual independence from government and sport. As a 
private, independent not-for-profit organization, we have taken a 
conservative approach to budgeting, given the potential variability of 
our public-private funding model. And anything less than the amounts 
currently authorized would be a serious setback to what this public-
private partnership has achieved since its inception.

    Question 1 (b). The legislation also includes a provision related 
to the information sharing arrangements between USADA and the relevant 
Federal agencies like DOJ, DHS, and FDA. Would you please speak to the 
importance of allowing relevant information relating to the prevention 
of the use of performance-enhancing drugs to be shared among these 
entities?
    Answer. One of the important roles of the World Anti-Doping Agency 
is to publish, after extensive consultation, the World Anti-Doping 
Code, which establishes a common set of anti-doping rules applicable to 
sport worldwide. The Code was first published in 2003 and was revised 
in 2009 and 2015. The U.S. has committed to support the Code through 
its ratification of a UNESCO Convention entitled the International 
Convention Against Doping in Sport on August 4, 2008 and by signing the 
Copenhagen Declaration on Anti-Doping in Sport in March 2003. The U.S. 
government has fulfilled these commitments through not only the funding 
of USADA, but also through law enforcement sharing information with 
USADA. Highlights of USADA's collaboration with law enforcement in the 
past include:

   Serving as an important technical resource for the 
        government in the BALCO cases, USADA's Chief Science Officer, 
        Dr. Larry Bowers (who has a PhD in analytical chemistry and 
        more than 20 years of experience in clinical chemistry, 
        toxicology, and drug analysis) was asked by the BALCO 
        prosecution team to participate in the September 3, 2003 search 
        of BALCO offices. During the search, Dr. Bowers assisted the 
        prosecution team in examining documents and substances to 
        determine which ones were relevant to the investigation. Dr. 
        Bowers testified as an expert before the BALCO Grand Jury, 
        testified in the prosecution of Trevor Graham (a coach 
        convicted of lying to Federal investigators and subsequently 
        received a lifetime ban from sport), and was listed as an 
        expert in the Barry Bonds case.

   In a reciprocal act of cooperation, Agent Jeff Novitzky 
        testified for USADA in its anti-doping case against sprint 
        champion, Tim Montgomery (who at the time was the world's 
        fastest man). The Assistant United States Attorneys also 
        brought with them to the hearing the original BALCO doping 
        calendars seized during the search.

   We were actively involved in Operation Raw Deal, an 
        international steroid investigation. During this investigation, 
        we were in close contact with the DEA and the United States 
        Attorney's Office in the Southern District of California.

   Operation Raw Deal led to the disclosure of evidence 
        obtained by the Western District of Pennsylvania, which 
        substantiated anti-doping charges against a cyclist, Joe Papp, 
        who subsequently accepted a sanction related to distribution of 
        various performance enhancing drugs including EPO and hGH 
        within the sport of cycling. Joe Papp also pled guilty to two 
        felony charges.

    Although the sharing of information between USADA and law 
enforcement agency happens legally with great effect, as the few 
examples above demonstrate, this legislation ensures the sharing of 
information is consistent across departments, agencies, and localities. 
The legislation will also assure maximum collaboration between law 
enforcement and USADA in the lead up to the 2028 Olympic Games, helping 
protect the integrity of the Olympic events.

    Question 2. USADA's mission is to preserve the integrity of 
competition in athletics. Having said that, it is well known that bad 
actors exist in the international athletic community and hold 
themselves to different a set of standards than the United States. We 
need to look to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to uphold these 
principles of clean competition. Does WADA have both the resources and 
time to adequately address bad actors in the international athletic 
community, ahead of the July 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo? Should 
other National Anti-Doping agencies be doing more to address bad actors 
in their country?
    Answer. WADA's primary area of responsibility is making sure the 
highest anti-doping standards are being employed uniformly around the 
world. However, WADA's governance structure and lack of independence 
from sport cripples it from attaining this objective.
    With respect to resources, WADA does not conduct testing of 
athletes, which is delegated to other anti-doping organizations like 
USADA where testing is the single largest expense. WADA, therefore, has 
resources available to make an impact in the fight against doping. Yet 
WADA's lack of independence coupled with no formal oversight has 
permitted WADA to stagnate in the fight against doping.
    For example, we learned from the Independent Observer Report after 
the Rio Olympic Games that 1,913 athletes competing in ten of the most 
high-risk sports had no anti-doping tests in the year prior to those 
Olympic Games. This marks a failure at multiple levels of the 
international anti-doping system. WADA is the entity responsible for 
making certain that athletes are not subject to disparate treatment 
within the anti-doping system. But, as this statistic clearly 
demonstrates, currently U.S. athletes are held to a higher standard 
than the athletes against whom they compete. This is unacceptable. And 
USADA is doing everything in its power to level the playing field and 
appreciates the support of this Committee in this noble effort.
    Although the United States does not have a seat on WADA's Executive 
Committee, the United States is WADA's largest government funder and 
should play a larger oversight role to WADA's conflicted and 
ineffectual decision-making process. We applaud the Senate 
Appropriations Committee for including report language in the Fiscal 
Year 2020 spending bill to require the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy (ONDCP) to report on this very issue, and we look forward to 
reviewing the report.

    Question 2 (a). Should WADA consider a suspension of Russian 
athletes in the Tokyo Olympics in light of recent reports of altered 
doping data?
    Answer. WADA failed to expeditiously investigate the Russian doping 
scandal when it was brought to their attention ten years ago. If 
investigated properly, WADA could have prevented the scandal-ridden 
Olympics in Sochi in 2014. Once the full scale of doping activity 
became known, WADA along with the International Olympic Committee 
dragged out the process that eventually led to a secretly-managed 
process permitting most Russian athletes to compete at both the Rio and 
Pyeongchang Olympic Games, thus escaping all meaningful consequences.
    USADA is concerned that the mishandling of the Russia state-
sponsored doping scheme has created a divide between countries that 
believe in the rule of law on the one hand and a small number of 
countries that will win-at-all costs on the other. While there are very 
effective Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs), there are also ADOs that 
may be corrupt, not transparent, and more troubling still, emboldened 
because of the ineffective consequences in the wake of the Russian-
doping scheme.
    Individual athletes have been continually harmed by the poor 
handling of the Russian doping investigation. Although WADA can make 
the right decision to protect clean athletes in the Tokyo Olympic 
Games, in many respects it is too little too late. But to be clear, 
USADA supports an effective punishment and deterrent that results in 
the ban of Russian athletes from the Tokyo Olympic Games, which is 
allowed for under the rules. Such a result would be a fair and 
proportional consequence to the Russian state-sponsored doping scheme 
and subsequent destruction and manipulation of evidence.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                            Travis T. Tygart
    During the hearing, you testified that USADA had declined to serve 
as the anti-doping enforcement body for the NCAA due to concerns that 
its policies were insufficiently rigorous.
    Question 1. Can you elaborate on what those concerns were?
    Answer. To clarify, the NCAA asked USADA to submit a bid to 
administer its anti-doping program. After receiving this request, USADA 
reviewed the NCAA's anti-doping policy and asked the NCAA to make 
changes to the policy to make it effective. The NCAA declined to make 
any changes, so USADA, necessarily, declined to submit a bid.
    In previous congressional hearings, I have testified about a matrix 
of effectiveness by which anti-doping programs should be evaluated. 
This matrix is made up of the following components.

   Independence from sport such that the entity handling the 
        creation and implementation of testing plans, as well as 
        managing the results of those tests and investigations, is 
        separate from the entity managing and/or promoting the sport.

   Transparency with respect to rules, process, testing 
        numbers, and established violations/sanctions.

   Effective out of season and out-of-competition no advance 
        notice testing.

   A full list of prohibited substances and methods that would 
        capture new, designer drugs as they are developed.

   Implementation of the best legal and scientific policies and 
        practices as they evolve, which must include adequate sanctions 
        and due process protections for those accused of doping 
        violations.

   Significant investments in education to changes the hearts 
        and minds of would be cheaters and to teach the life lessons 
        that can be learned only through ethical competition.

   Significant investments in scientific research for the 
        detection of new doping substances and techniques and the 
        pursuit of scientific excellence.

   Partnerships with government, particularly law enforcement, 
        to ensure that in addition to holding athletes accountable, 
        those who illegally manufacture, traffic and distribute these 
        dangerous drugs and who are typically outside sports 
        jurisdiction are also held accountable for their illegal 
        behavior.

    As I understand it, the NCAA's anti-doping program falls 
significantly short when evaluated under these criteria, which are in 
addition to the significant shortcomings of no blood testing and a lack 
of non-analytical cases (i.e., cases based on witness testimony as 
opposed to a positive test) mentioned during my testimony.
    To highlight two examples of how the NCAA's anti-doping program 
fails clean athletes, it is widely accepted throughout the world that 
the test for testosterone should use a testosterone/epitestosterone 
ratio of 4:1. The NCAA, however, uses a ratio of 10:1 and does not 
employ the test to detect testosterone in a strategic manner, creating 
a large loophole for athletes to abuse one of the most powerful and 
well-known anabolic agents available. In addition, the NCAA does not 
test for human growth hormone or Peptides, which are well known and 
potentially dangerous performance enhancing drugs.
    Although the issues with the NCAA's anti-doping program are many, 
USADA has recently been in touch with NCAA personnel and hopes to have 
a positive influence on changes to its policy.

    Question 2. Do you maintain those concerns today?
    Answer. Yes, as described above, the current NCAA anti-doping 
policy has significant deficiencies.

    Question 3. If the NCAA made the changes that you recommend, do you 
believe that USADA would be the appropriate entity to oversee their 
anti-doping program?
    Answer. Due to the significant shortcomings described above, USADA 
would not be willing to run the NCAA's current anti-doping program. But 
USADA stands ready and willing to assist any organization wanting to 
have an effective anti-doping program. Unlike many other organizations, 
the NCAA has under its jurisdiction a large number of Olympians and 
future Olympians from the U.S. and from other countries competing 
against the U.S. The NCAA is, therefore, uniquely positioned to protect 
the health and safety of the non-professional student athletes under 
its jurisdiction and preserve the integrity of sport at the highest 
levels by implementing an effective, independent anti-doping program. 
The NCAA should be doing more for its student athletes, and given the 
overlap with the Olympic and Paralympic movements, USADA welcomes any 
opportunity to engage on this issue.

    The United States is one of the few developed countries that lacks 
uniform rules, regulations, and enforcement of the use of performance-
enhancing drugs in this horseracing. Additionally, the horseracing 
industry has failed as a self-regulator, while others have routinely 
turned a blind eye, resulting in almost every horse being injected with 
dangerous race day drugs, with little consequence.

    Question 4. Do you believe that USADA is a suitable independent, 
oversight authority to implement nationwide anti-doping rules for 
horseracing?
    Answer. Yes. USADA's involvement in horseracing, through the 
Horseracing Anti-Doping Authority (HADA) in the Horseracing Integrity 
Act (S.1820), would bring to the sport independence and credibility. 
Under the Horseracing Integrity Act, the HADA board would be comprised 
of USADA representatives and non-conflicted representatives from the 
horseracing industry, and their collective expertise and experience 
will enable the creation and maintenance of a robust anti-doping 
program that is based on established science and best practices, 
ensuring the highest levels of integrity.

    Question 5. What role would USADA play in the development of a new 
standard for the regulation and enforcement of drug and medication 
rules in horseracing?
    Answer. As mentioned above, under the Horseracing Integrity Act, 
HADA's board would be made up of USADA and non-conflicted industry 
representatives, benefiting from the experience of independent 
enforcement officials and individuals currently tasked with addressing 
the challenges presented in horseracing today. USADA would hold a 
majority of the board seats on the HADA board, and USADA would play a 
role in the selection of the remainder of the seats as well. HADA would 
be solely focused on anti-doping in horseracing supported by committees 
staffed by equine subject matter experts to advise on anti-doping 
matters. USADA, in turn, will provide expertise in the process of 
creating and implementing an effective, independent, and comprehensive 
state-of-the-art anti-doping program that the industry has thus far 
struggled to implement on its own.

    Question 6. Is the use of race-day drugs and medications in horses 
a contributing factor to ``breakdowns''?
    Answer. USADA is a not-for-profit organization with limited 
resources. USADA has used those limited resources to fulfill, as 
effectively and efficiently as possible, the congressionally authorized 
anti-doping responsibilities within the Olympic and Paralympic 
movements and in additional sports when contracted to do so. USADA has, 
therefore, not had the opportunity to study the specific issue 
identified in your question. But published reports indicate that there 
is a higher fatality rate among racehorses in the United States than 
anywhere else in the world. We also know that the United States and 
Canada allow Lasix to be administered on race day. Determining the 
therapeutic and performance enhancing value of medications will be one 
of the first objectives for HADA under the Horseracing Integrity Act, 
but clearly, the culture of permissive medication use for performance 
enhancement in or near competition needs to end.

    Question 7. Do you support banning the use of race day medication 
within this industry? Do you support strict doping penalties for 
violators and cheating?
    Answer. As mentioned above, determining the therapeutic and 
performance enhancing value of medications will be an issue of primary 
importance for HADA under the Horseracing Integrity Act, but USADA 
certainly supports the Horseracing Integrity Act, including its ban on 
race-day medications.
    We believe that strict penalties for doping violations are an 
essential part of any effective anti-doping program. Along with a 
robust out-of-competition testing program, which is currently lacking 
across all horseracing jurisdictions, strict penalties are the most 
effective mechanism to deter potential violators from cheating.

    Question 8. Do you agree that Federal legislation is essential to 
ensuring adequate oversight of this industry?
    Answer. A successful anti-doping program requires independence, 
uniformity, and no conflicts of interests. As a whole, the current 
state-based horseracing anti-doping program in the U.S. cannot claim to 
have these attributes. USADA fully supports Federal legislation to 
ensure independent oversight of the industry.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to 
                            Travis T. Tygart
    Question 1. Has USADA partnered with a sport's previous anti-doping 
authorities then share authority over drug regulation and enforcement? 
If no, why not?
    Answer. Typically, USADA does not partner with any sport's prior 
anti-doping authorities. However, when USADA is approached by a non-
Olympic sport to assist with their anti-doping program, we ultimately 
have to make an assessment about how to create the most effective 
program and we consider all potential options. The unnegotiable part of 
any program is the complete independence of the organization (with 
strong conflict-of-interest rules), which includes the ability to 
operate and apply penalties without any interference from the sport.

    Question 2. Does USADA allow individuals who previously or recently 
had significant financial interests in a sport to join its board?
    Answer. USADA has a robust conflict of interest policy to safeguard 
its independence. And USADA would not permit a Board or staff member to 
have an actual or perceived conflict of interest that undermines 
USADA's independence. One of the requirements under USADA's policy is 
that Board members not have any financial interest in a sport under 
USADA's jurisdiction. Because athletes' voices are critical to 
fulfilling our mission, former athletes/coaches add significant value 
to USADA's Board, as long as there are no current conflicts of 
interest.

    Question 3. Will USADA allow board membership for individuals who 
have family members, former business partners or other close associates 
who have ongoing business interests in any sport regulated by USADA?
    Answer. As stated above, USADA would not permit a Board or staff 
member to have an actual or perceived conflict of interest that 
undermines USADA's independence. As stressed during the hearing 
testimony, independence--perceived or actual--is the cornerstone of an 
effective anti-doping program. USADA's current policy does not allow 
any Board or staff member or an immediate family member of a Board or 
staff member to have a business, commercial, governance or even 
volunteer interest in any sport under USADA's jurisdiction. USADA is 
always willing to consider recommendations to ensure its independence.

    Question 4. Have USADA ever allowed sports associations and 
competition sponsors to decide how much funding USADA will be allotted 
to conduct effective anti-doping regulation?
    Answer. USADA typically negotiates a budget for any sports 
association, including with USOPC, that it provides anti-doping 
services. For our contract with the UFC, for example, we negotiate a 
budget up front on what we believe will be the cost of the program. As 
we would for any anti-doping program, if we think the amount will not 
be sufficient to operate an effective program, then we will no longer 
participate and remove any USADA involvement.

    Question 5. Can you imagine a scenario where USADA agree in advance 
to turn over anti-doping regulation for an Olympic sport to others or 
self-regulation after five years? Is the role USADA plays one that it 
sees as temporary?
    Answer. USADA does not enter in any agreement where we envision 
exiting after five years. In the Horseracing Integrity Act (HIA), we 
supported mechanisms that allow the HIA-designated regulator to be 
replaced after five years in very limited circumstances and with 
extensive protections towards ensuring the integrity of competition. We 
did so since our participation was mandated by law. Another provision 
in the HIA allows USADA to withdraw from board participation if USADA 
ultimately determines that the industry is just too fractious and 
intransigent to operate a successful program, as we feel the need to 
have an escape clause. Having said that, if HIA were to pass, we would 
devote significant energies to establishing the program, running it 
efficiently and effectively, and maintaining our involvement for a very 
long time.

                                  [all]