Friday, Aug. 14, 2009

Experts: NASCAR drug policy deeply flawed

In a U.S. District courtroom in July, Charlotte attorney William Diehl launched a defense of his client, Jeremy Mayfield, by targeting the NASCAR drug policy that led to Mayfield’s suspension earlier this year.

That policy, according to Diehl, was so open-ended that NASCAR could administer any penalty for any substance it deemed dangerous, even if a driver did not learn it was banned until after a positive test.

“If they decide to ban Coca-Cola or coffee or orange juice, their argument is, we can,” Diehl said.

NASCAR’s response? We can, but we wouldn’t.

Drug policy experts say NASCAR’s substance abuse rules, unlike other sports, allow the governing body to make those same kind of on-the-fly calls regarding testing protocol and punishment. The result, experts say, is a deeply flawed program.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” said Charles Yesalis, a Penn State health policy professor and advisor to sports organizations. “For a sport that promotes itself as being red, white and blue, these rules are almost Stalinist. It’s un-American.”

The Mayfield case has turned attention toward a drug policy that is emblematic of the control NASCAR has over its drivers — a relationship that is a source of occasional friction between the organization and its talent. Until now, that has mostly involved grumbling about what drivers see as arbitrary changes to racing rules and mid-race interpretations of those rules.

Now, say Mayfield’s attorneys, someone’s career is at stake.

“If you’re going to have a policy in place that you’re going to utilize to suspend drivers,” said attorney John Buric, “the policy should be clear and unambiguous.”

NASCAR spokesperson Ramsey Poston did not return calls regarding the drug testing program, but in court proceedings, NASCAR has defended the sweeping policy as necessary in a sport where drivers compete at up to 200 miles per hour. The substance program is not collectively bargained, as in other professional sports, because NASCAR operates as a private enterprise in which drivers are independent contractors with little or no official say over policy.

After some early questions about the drug policy’s lack of specifics, drivers have publicly supported the program. Three drivers — Jeff Gordon, Jimmie Johnson and Robby Gordon — signed affidavits for the Mayfield case saying the policy is “vital to the safety and integrity of the drivers, crew, owners and fans at the races.”

-----------------

For decades, NASCAR’s substance abuse program fit the independent ruggedness of the sport and its drivers. Rules stated simply that drivers who were suspected of using illegal drugs or abusing legal substances could be tested or banned.

Mostly, problems were handled informally, said Humpy Wheeler, former Lowe’s Motor Speedway president. If a driver — often a young driver — had an alcohol issue or was suspected of cocaine use, two or three veteran drivers would invite him to a trailer for a talk.

“That would usually take care of it,” said Wheeler.

But when truck series driver Aaron Fike was arrested in 2007 with heroin, then admitted to using the drug before a race, NASCAR began playing catch-up to other major sports. Most professional and amateur organizations developed formal programs beginning in the late 1980s, when U.S. labs were first equipped with tests that could identify performance enhancing drugs.

Last year, NASCAR announced a new drug policy that included preseason testing and random, in-season testing of drivers, crew and officials. Among the first to be snagged this season was Paul Chodora, a pit crew member for Mayfield’s No. 41 Sprint Cup team. Chodora was suspended indefinitely.

Mayfield, at the time, approved.

“We as an organization appreciate NASCAR’s drug testing policies and policing efforts as it makes the sport stronger overall,” said Mayfield in a statement.

Others were critical of NASCAR’s policy — both before and after Mayfield became ensnared by it.

“In this day and age, it leaves me speechless that they can put this forth as an anti-doping program,” said Gary Wadler, an associate professor at the New York University School of Medicine and chairman of the sub-committee that maintains the list of prohibited substances for the World Anti-Doping Agency. “The NASCAR program falls apart all over the place.”

Wadler and others say that unlike other major and amateur sports organizations, NASCAR’s substance abuse policy lacks exactness in several areas, including testing and lab protocol, punishments and appeals processes. Most troubling to drug policy experts is a lack of a comprehensive list of banned substances.

Instead, said Penn State’s Yesalis, NASCAR takes a “guess what’s on my mind” approach with drivers.

“It’s beyond my comprehension that how you can have a drug program without a list of prohibited drugs,” said Wadler. “If I’m a race car driver and I have a medical condition, am I allowed to take a drug my doctor prescribes, or is there a process if there’s a legitimate need for that drug, or an alternative drug that can be used?”

-----------------

One improvement available to NASCAR, experts say, is to bring in outside help in administering its program. Unlike NASCAR, which contracts directly with a lab — Aegis Sciences Corporation of Nashville — for drug testing, most professional and amateur sports organizations use an independent third party to help administer its drug program.

“That became the norm about a decade ago,” said Frank Uryasz, president of Drug Free Sport, which consults with and conducts drug programs for several sports, including Major League Baseball, the NFL, NBA and the NCAA. “There was a decision to add transparency and to eliminate the perception that the fox was guarding the hen house.”

That house, say drivers, is in good enough hands for them.

“I think asking questions about how the process works is good,” said Jeff Burton. “I believe we need to be looking at that. I have no concerns whatsoever going over and giving a test right now. I don’t believe my test will be inaccurate.”

Said Greg Biffle: “You don’t want your airline pilot to be flying the plane if he comes back with something in his system and his decisions may be a little but cloudy? Or are we going to weigh on the side of safety and say, ‘You know what? I’ll take the next flight.’”

Get The State newspaper delivered to your home. Click here to subscribe.