October 6, 2015

Stephanie Mayer
College Athletes and Drug Testing
Right now, there are many controversial issues being argued about surrounding the world
of college sports in the United States. Most of these issues have various viewpoints from many
different news organizations of who, what, when, where, and why. While both sides each have
good evidence to back up their argument, there is always something that one side has over the
other to convince the reader why they should listen to this group instead of the that one. A major
issue currently being discussed is, whether or not student athletes should be drug tested for
recreational or performance enhancing drugs during their season or at any point throughout the
year. This particular argument has many controversial viewpoints from various news
organization such as Fox Sports, NBC Sports, the Huffington Post, as well as NCAA, and ESPN.
With every group having an incredibly different answer to the question, it has become
unbelievably difficult to know who to trust or how to tell the difference between what might be
right or wrong.
Within this essay, I'm looking at the arguments of two specific authors with differing
opinions on drug testing college athletes: Clay Travis from FOX Sports and Eddie Pells from
The Huffington Post. Although the two might agree that drug testing for performance enhancing
drugs is necessary for the health of the athletes and the fairness of the sport, they certainly have
different opinions on whether or not recreational drugs should be tested for among the same
group of athletes. The two journalist approach this question much differently, this is mostly
because of their personal backgrounds and the evidence they choose to focus on when making
their arguments. The arguments the two sports reporters make largely align with the stance of

the news outlets they each represent, with conservative or liberal views.
In the first article, Why Do We Drug Test Athletes for Recreational Drugs? Clay Travis,
a writer for FOX Sports, describes his opinion to the question by explaining the many reasons he
believes college athletes should not be drug tested for recreational drugs at all. Travis begins by
stating how every week a professional athlete gets suspended for using recreational drugs, he
then follows that by asking why do we drug test athletes for recreational drugs at all? Without
being able to come up with a reasonable answer for the question, he continues. Travis explains
that he finds drug testing for performance enhancing drugs sensible and necessary because these
types of drugs create an unfair advantage within the sport, but, if you want to consume nonperformance enhancing drugs, shouldnt that be your risk? The only person being hurt by the
athletes actions is the athlete themselves. After all, athletes can consume alcohol and tobacco
products as they see fit, and eat all the fast food they would like, all of these factors hinder an
athletes performance as recreational drugs would. Pells uses this argument because how can the
NCAA care about some things that affect an athletes performance and not all?
Next, Travis explains that, of all places and leagues in the U.S., colleges are said to have
some of the most rigorous drug testing policies, but, how is it justified to have them at all? Travis
asks why students at college on athletic scholarships should be tested for recreational drug use
over students attending college on an academic or musical scholarships. This time he is able to
come up with an answer, and that is, This isnt about morality, its about power disguised as
morality. Afterward, Travis clarifies that the CEO and coaches of the sports do not have to take
drug tests, and neither do the doctors that put athletes to sleep to do surgeries but, the athletes
tearing their ACLs and getting the surgery have to take drug tests, seems backwards. Some say
that drug testing is necessary simply because these specific drugs being tested for are illegal, but

at the same time, tax fraud, speeding, domestic violence, and underage drinking are all illegal
and happening in college athletics. Most simply, Drug testing is about power, those without it
get tested, those with it, dont. Clay Travis is able to clearly share his point of view on the issue
of drug testing in college athletics by showing many reasons of why drug testing is unnecessary
and unfair in college athletics. When concluding, Pells says that Recreational drug use testing
isnt about protecting the leagues, its about controlling the players, and it should end. Now.
In the second article, NCAA College Drug-Testing All over the Map, Eddie Pells
describes his opinion of the issue by explaining the reasons he believes college athletes should be
drug tested for recreational and performance enhancing drugs under NCAA. Although he does
believe the athletes should be tested, he doesnt believe in testing by blood sample. First, Pells
starts explaining himself by showing that the NCAA has their own drug testing policies that all
colleges should follow, under this policy, once a year a representative from the National Center
for Drug-Free Sport goes to all Division I and II schools to do random drug tests to about 11,000
athletes. While some universities follow NCAAs drug testing policy exactly, some change it
slightly, and others change it completely, Pells believes there does have to be a drug testing
policy in place, at every university. Some schools, like Florida State, have very strict policies
regarding performance enhancing drugs while others never even mentioned them. Most schools
are more concerned with recreational drug use than the use of steroids and other performance
enhancing drugs. A good drug testing policy for all to follow is an evolving process through the
NCAA. It is hard to decide what should be in this policy because no two schools had the same
exact rules, and not all will agree on the same regulations.
Due to everywhere not having the same policy, the football program at Waterloo
University was shut down for an entire year because nine players tested positive for performance

enhancing drugs. The coach looked bad when he tried to test the entire team but, when the tests
came back positive people began to take these issues more seriously. Pells believes that the ideal
drug testing policy under NCAA would be one thats rigorous, unannounced, with a lot of
testing happening at different periods throughout the year. To add to this, blood testing would be
more accurate and more helpful, but, that can become very costly and can also be a health and
safety issue. Pells also considers that since blood tests are not used in the NFL or MLB they
should not be used on college campuses. Another reason Pells thinks student athletes should be
tested, is because Olympic level athletes are tested. Some think college athletes should hold
themselves to the higher standards Olympians are held to, and that is to be the best they can be,
without any drugs. When comparing the NCAA of college athletics with the WADA associated
with Olympic level athletes, Olympians are much more competitive and it makes sense why they
have a much stricter drug policy, but at the same time, athletes are athletes. Olympians should
have a more ridged drug testing policies as well as more harsh punishments for their actions
because they are at a higher level of competition and can play for much longer than college
athletes. Due to this, WADA can make their punishments more severe without an athletes career
being practically over when their consequence is finished, but if the NCAA adopted the same
rules as the WADA, when a player was ready to come back after their penalty, they could have
lost more than half of their playing time at the school. Lastly, Pells concludes that random drug
testing is good because if you believe you could be tested at any time, youre less likely to use.
With many believing this is true the NCAA and college organizations need to take action so the
student-athletes and coaches know we dont just talk the talk. We walk the walk.
With many controversial questions surrounding this issue, people and companies have all
come up with many different responses of how to fix the system or how to improve college

athletics drug policies. After much analysis, it is proven that the question of should college
athletes be drug tested, needs much more research before a single conclusion can be reached.
From just these two points of view, many people could have opinions on the topic that could
have been strengthened or changed from reading the way another person views this issue. I
believe that, with the right amount of determination, any person can make a difference in
anything they choose to do. If someone strongly agrees with one side of this argument they can
easily step in to contact NCAA to change the rules or policies of drug testing athletes. Although,
from just two articles, you can see that this is still a very controversial topic that will most likely
not be resolved anytime soon. Pells view of drug testing verse Traviss view are obviously much
different with the only similarity being that they believe drug testing for performance enhancing
drugs should be allowed and encouraged. Many others, individuals and companies, have views
on this topic as well, and until a perfect policy is placed into the NCAA regulation and rule book
and approved by everyone, the question of whether or not college athletes should be drug
tested? will never be answered.