(1) Recommendation. The committee endorsed the first part of the modification – the change of the penalty application. The committee did not support the proposal not to require mouthguards for goaltenders. The current rules, which require internal mouthguards for all players should be maintained.

(2) Rationale. Mouthguards protect against dental injuries during teeth-to-teeth contact, oral lacerations caused by the teeth biting soft tissue and concussion, especially as a result of a blow to the chin. While goaltenders may experience less player contact, contact still occurs. In addition, the goaltender is exposed to several other head impacts from pucks, sticks, and contact with the ice or goalposts. Each of these traumas poses a potential oral risk; a risk that can be minimized by wearing a properly fitted internal mouthguard.

(3) Budget Impact. None to NCAA. Possible cost savings to institution resulting from injury reduction due to increased mouthpiece compliance.

(1) Recommendation No. 1. Institutions should not be found in violation of NCAA legislation by providing for medical expenses for student-athletes during the summer.

Recommendation No 2. Providing weight-gain muscle/strength building supplements should be made a nonpermissible expense at all times.

(2) Rationale No 1. The committee believes that lifting current NCAA legislative restrictions on summer medical care would provide for an enhanced continuity of care for student-athletes.

Rationale No. 2. A recent request from a Division I conference to reevaluate the position the NCAA has taken on institutions providing supplements to student-athletes during the summer period raises larger questions about the use of these products.

It is not clear to the committee how colleges and universities have reached the point where many are providing these products to student-athletes in the way they might provide a training-table meal or protective equipment.

NCAA legislation clearly delineates those medical and meal expenses that are permissible. In matters related to medical expenses, examples include such permissible expenses as medical exams, eye glasses and athletics medical insurance. Reasonable people would agree that institutions should provide these services to student-athletes to maximize the health and safety of the participants and to provide for a safe environment. Weight-gain supplements should not be treated in the same way.

The NCAA has endorsed a position on the use of these supplements by student-athletes and the provision of these products by athletics personnel. Guideline 2J, Nutritional Ergogenic Aids, is contained in the NCAA’s Sports Medicine Handbook. The guideline notes concerns about supplement-product efficacy, purity, medical necessity, and safety. It also warns that that some of these products have resulted in positive drug tests and those student-athletes have lost eligibility as a result.

At many schools, the sound medical recommendations of NCAA Guideline 2J are not being followed because the Association has adopted an interpretation that providing these products to students is permissible under NCAA legislation. Concerns about competitive equity have overpowered concerns about product efficacy, product safety, institutional liability and cost. This is a contradiction in policy and practice that should not continue.

Therefore, the committee recommends that the provision of weight gain, muscle/strength building supplement products to student-athletes by member institutions and their personnel be nonpermissible at all times.

(3) Budget Impact No. 1. None to NCAA. Institutions may incur additional costs for summer medical care and should examine institutional insurance policies to ensure adequate coverage.

Budget Impact No. 2. There are anecdotal reports of institutions spending tens of thousands of dollars on weight-gain supplements. Making provision of these products nonpermissible will allow institutions to reduce costs or to channel these dollars into sports-safety programs.

(1) Recommendation. The committee recommends that the drug-testing budget be increased by $80,000 for the 1998-99 year only to finance the purchase of carbon isotope ratio (CIR) equipment at the UCLA laboratory.

(2) Rationale. The committee presented its recommendation for CIR equipment in April. Since that time, the cost estimate (presuming NFL involvement) has decreased from $200,000 to $80,000.

The current NCAA drug-testing budget is $2.435 million. No funds are currently allocated for laboratory equipment purchase. The NCAA did provide a grant in 1986 for the purchase of laboratory equipment to another laboratory that is no longer utilized by the NCAA, but has not funded equipment purchases since then.

The NCAA has contracted annually with the UCLA laboratory since 1986. The contract is a fee-for-service contract and does not provide for funding of equipment purchases and research.

The current procedure for identifying the use of synthetic forms of natural hormones like testosterone is expensive, often requiring numerous follow-up collections and tests. The attached drug testing report from August through December 1997 shows 18 NCAA tests that had T/E values greater than six to one that did not result in loss of eligibility. It is our hope that the CIR equipment will reduce the necessity for these types of tests, saving NCAA time and money and reducing the burden on the school and the student-athlete being tested.

(3) Budget Impact. $80,000 for 1998-99 only.

(1) Coach representation on competitive safeguards committee. The roster of the competitive safeguards committee calls for one member who is an active coach. Upon implementation of restructuring, the current position for a coach was used to add a representative from the Division II Management Council. That move was approved because the current representative from the NCAA Football Rules Committee was a coach. While the committee welcomes the management council representation, the current situation does not allow for coach representation other than in the sport of football.