NCAA Study ofSubstance Use of College Student-Athletes

SU

BS

TAN

CE

US

E

NCAA 54814-3/06 SU 06

2

THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATIONP.O. Box 6222

Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6222317/917-6222www.ncaa.org

Prepared By: Denise M. DeHass, Associate Director of Research.

NCAA, NCAA seal, NCAA logo and NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC

ASSOCIATION are registered marks of the Association, and use in anymanner is prohibited unless prior approval is obtained from the Association.

©2006 by the National Collegiate Athletic Association

3

Table of ContentsPage

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................5

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................8

Methods ....................................................................................................................................9

Sampling ..............................................................................................................................9

Survey Administration ........................................................................................................9

Questionnaire ......................................................................................................................9

Subjects ............................................................................................................................11

Analysis ..............................................................................................................................11

Results ....................................................................................................................................12

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................13

Tables and FiguresTables

1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample ..........................................................18

2. Ergogenic Drug Use by NCAA Division ....................................................................22

3. Social Drug Use by NCAA Division............................................................................22

4. Ergogenic Drug Use by Ethnic Group ......................................................................23

5. Social Drug Use by Ethnic Group ..............................................................................23

6. Ergogenic Drug Use in Men's Sports ........................................................................24

7. Ergogenic Drug Use in Women's Sports ..................................................................24

8. Social Drug Use in Men's Sports ..............................................................................25

9. Social Drug Use in Women's Sports..........................................................................26

10a. Ergogenic Drug Use in Other Men's Sports ............................................................27

10b. Social Drug Use in Other Men's Sports ....................................................................28

11a. Ergogenic Drug Use in Other Women's Sports ........................................................29

11b. Social Drug Use in Other Women's Sports ..............................................................30

12. Frequency of Spit Tobacco Use ................................................................................31

13a. Frequency of Cigarette Use ......................................................................................31

13b. Amount of Cigarette Use ............................................................................................32

14. Initial Use of Ergogenic Drugs ....................................................................................32

15. Initial Use of Social Drugs ..........................................................................................33

16. Main Reason to Use Ergogenic Drugs ......................................................................34

4

17. Main Reason to Use Social Drugs ............................................................................35

18. Reasons to Not Use Ergogenic Drugs ......................................................................36

19. Reasons to Not Use Social Drugs ............................................................................37

20. Sources of Ergogenic Drugs ......................................................................................38

21. Sources of Social Drugs ............................................................................................38

Figures

1a. Patterns of Ergogenic Drug Use ................................................................................19

1b. Patterns of Alcohol Use ..............................................................................................20

1c. Patterns of Marijuana Use ..........................................................................................20

1d. Patterns of Spit Tobacco Use ....................................................................................21

1e. Patterns of Cocaine Use ............................................................................................21

Questionnaire with Overall Results ......................................................................................39

5

This study is the sixth in a series conducted for or bythe NCAA to measure the substance-use patterns ofNCAA college student-athletes. The initial NationalStudy of the Substance Use and Abuse Habits ofCollege Student-Athletes was presented in 1985.Subsequent studies, now known as the Study ofSubstance Use of College Student-Athletes, havebeen conducted at four-year intervals.

For the 1997 replication, several changes were madein the survey methodology. However, this study ismeant to build on analyses conducted in the previouswork. Specifically, the sampling base was broadenedso that student-athletes in all NCAA sports would besurveyed, and all NCAA institutions were included inthe sample. These were significant changes from theprevious studies, when all student-athletes in 10sports at only 11 selected NCAA member institutionswere surveyed. Nevertheless, since both samplingplans were designed to represent the entirety of thestudent-athlete population and the survey questionswere similar, if not exactly the same, comparisonsacross studies are appropriate.

The other major difference between the current repli-cations (1997, 2001 and 2005) and the previous stud-ies was the way in which the surveys were adminis-tered. In the past, the researchers traveled to the 11institutions in the sample and administered the sur-veys in person. In more recent studies, the surveyswere sent to the faculty athletics representative (FAR)on campus. The FAR was given explicit instructionsregarding administration of the survey instrument. Itis important to keep these differences in mind whencomparing the data to those from studies done before1997.

The sampling plan was designed to require surveyresponses from 12 percent of the student-athletes in allNCAA championship sports at all NCAA divisions.All NCAA member institutions were asked to give thesurvey instrument to at least one of their athleticsteams. These teams were identified by the NCAA in

accordance with the sampling plan. The surveys weresent to the institutional FAR who administered thesurvey at the institution. Provisions were made so thatthe student-athletes would be assured of confidential-ity in the process. A total of 19,676 usable responseswere received by the NCAA. Once received, the sur-vey data were cleaned and analyzed by the NCAAresearch staff. The results from the descriptive analy-sis include data back to the 1989 study and led to thefollowing findings from the study:

FINDINGS ABOUT ERGOGENIC DRUG USEFinding 1: Among the entire group of student-ath-

letes, the use of amphetamines has con-tinually increased since 1997. The use ofephedrine, first calculated in 1997, hasremained stable. Anabolic steroid use hasdecreased slightly from 2001.

Finding 2: Analysis by division indicates thatamphetamine use has increased across alldivisions with use highest in Division III.Conversely, anabolic steroid use hasdecreased in all three divisions.Ephedrine use decreased in Division II,but was relatively stable in the other twodivisions.

FINDINGS ABOUT SOCIAL DRUG USEFinding 3: Among the entire group of student-ath-

letes, the use of alcohol has decreaseddramatically, while spit tobacco and mar-ijuana use are also at the lowest levelssince the study began. Reported use ofcocaine is up just slightly from 2001.

Finding 4: Analysis by division indicates that theusage of alcohol, psychedelics, marijua-na and cigarettes seem to be down in alldivisions. Spit tobacco is down in alldivisions, but more so in Divisions II andIII. Cocaine usage is up slightly in alldivisions since 2001. Further, Division

Executive Summary

6

III continues to report the highest rates ofsocial drug use of all three divisions, withthe exception of spit tobacco usage,which is slightly higher in Division II for2005.

FINDINGS ABOUT USAGE WITHIN ETHNIC AND SPORT GROUPSFinding 5: Amphetamine use continued an upward

trend for both Whites and African-Americans. However, African-Amer-icans still report the lowest rates of drugusage for amphetamines and all socialdrugs. Anabolic steroid use was reportedat an all-time lowest level for Whites andwas used by African-Americans and oth-ers at a slightly higher rate. Ephedrineuse has decreased within all ethnicgroups reported.

Finding 6: Amphetamine use has increased in allmen's sports except basketball, footballand swimming. Tennis, gymnastics, soc-cer and volleyball were the only sportsfor women that did not report increasedamphetamine use. Anabolic steroid use isdown for men and women with theexception of men's swimming and waterpolo and women's ice hockey. Socialdrug use generally decreased for bothmen and women, but more consistentlyso across women's sports.

FINDINGS ABOUT FREQUENCY AND INITIAL USE OF DRUGSFinding 7: The vast majority of student-athletes who

reported using marijuana during the pre-vious 12 months used it only one or twotimes or “occasionally,” a decrease fromthe previous report. The number ofrespondents who reported smoking morethan two marijuana cigarettes alsodecreased significantly from 2001.

Finding 8: More than 85 percent of student-athleteswho reported using alcohol in the lastyear say they did so an average of two orfewer times per week, an increase from2001. While the number of student-ath-

letes using alcohol decreased from 2001,the number of student-athletes drinkingmore than five drinks in a sitting in-creased significantly.

Finding 9: A similar trend to the alcohol use wasreported in cigarette use. The number ofdaily users decreased dramatically withmany more student-athletes reportingthat they only smoke at social occasions.However, there was an increase amongsmokers in those who smoke a pack ormore a day.

Finding 10:The percent of student-athletes usingergogenic drugs during high school orbefore increased significantly. More thantwo-thirds of amphetamine, ephedrineand nutritional supplement use nowappears to start before college. More thanhalf of anabolic steroid use begins in highschool as well.

Finding 11: Reversing a previous trend, more thanhalf of the cocaine users indicated havingfirst tried cocaine in high school orbefore. The percent of student-athletestrying alcohol, marijuana or cigarettes injunior high or before also increased.

FINDINGS ABOUT WHY STUDENT-ATHLETES USE DRUGSFinding 12:More than half of the users of anabolic

steroids say they use them to improveathletic performance. Continuing a trendfrom 2001, the number of student-ath-letes using anabolic steroids for the treat-ment of an injury continued to decrease.The number of users now stating they useanabolic steroids to improve appearancedecreased from 2001.

Finding 13:Use of amphetamines to improve athleticperformance appears to be down signifi-cantly from the 2001 study. The mainreason stated for using amphetamines isfor the treatment of attention deficit dis-order followed by using to get more ener-gy. The top two reasons stated for using

7

ephedrine reversed order in 2005 toweight loss, followed by to improve ath-letic performance.

Finding 14:Alcohol, cocaine, marijuana and spittobacco users are most likely to use forrecreational or social reasons. Marijuana,cocaine and spit tobacco users also statedthat they use to make them feel good.Spit tobacco users also cite use to helpdeal with the stress of college life andcollege athletics. Very few state they usesocial drugs to improve athletic perform-ance.

FINDINGS ABOUT WHY STUDENT-ATHLETES DO NOT USE DRUGSFinding 15:The majority of student-athletes who

choose not to use ergogenic or socialdrugs are reporting concerns abouthealth, they do not desire to experiencethe effects and that the idea of usingdrugs is against their beliefs.

Finding 16:A main reason given by student-athletesto not use nutritional supplements andspit tobacco is that they do not like it andanother top reason given for not usingalcohol was that it hurt athletic perform-ance.

FINDINGS ABOUT SOURCES OF DRUGSFOR STUDENT-ATHLETESFinding 17:The main source for student-athletes who

continue to use amphetamines or anabol-ic steroids is a friend or relative followedby another physician for amphetamineusers and Web site or mail order for ana-bolic steroid users. Nutritional supple-ments are mainly purchased in a retailstore.

Finding 18:The primary source for student-athleteswho continue to use either cocaine, mar-ijuana or psychedelics continues to be afriend or relative.

FINDINGS ABOUT STUDENT-ATHLETES'OVERALL PERCEPTION OF DRUG USE Finding 19:Almost 60 percent of student-athletes

continue to believe that their use of alco-holic beverages has no effect on athleticperformance or on their general health.

Finding 20:Almost 30 percent of student-athletesstated that one or more times they per-formed poorly in practice or a game dueto drinking or drug use.

FINDINGS ABOUT ATTITUDES TOWARDDRUG TESTINGFinding 21:The number of respondents who believe

that the NCAA and their institutionsshould drug test student-athletes in-creased from 2001, with nearly two-thirds believing that the NCAA shoulddrug test student-athletes. The number ofrespondents believing that drug testingby the NCAA and the institutions hasdeterred college athletes from usingdrugs also increased.

Finding 22:There continues to be a split among stu-dent-athletes surveyed who believe thatimposing team penalties for individualpositive tests would be fair and appropri-ate.

FINDINGS ABOUT HAZING AND ALCOHOL USEFinding 23:Less than 10 percent of the respondents

reported any involvement in hazing with-in college sports. Men were more likelythan women to be the victim of hazing intheir college sports program and to hazeothers in the program.

Finding 24:For those student-athletes who had beeninvolved in a hazing incident, approxi-mately 50 percent said that alcohol hadbeen involved. Women were more than10 percent more likely to say that alcoholhad been involved in the hazing.

8

IntroductionThis study is the sixth in a series conducted for orby the NCAA to measure the substance-use pat-terns of NCAA college student-athletes. The ini-tial National Study of the Substance Use andAbuse Habits of College Student-Athletes waspresented in 1985. That study and the two subse-quent replications, now known as the Study ofSubstance Use of College Student-Athletes, wereconducted for the NCAA by researchers atMichigan State University. The 1997 and 2001studies were conducted by the NCAA researchstaff with the assistance of Dr. Percy Bates fromthe University of Michigan. The current study wasconducted solely by the NCAA research staff.

This study, while not a direct replication of theprevious work, is meant to build on the analysis oftrends in the five previous studies. Thus, data arepresented that compare results from this study toresults from the past work. Such comparisons arepossible due to the fact that many questions fromthe previous surveys were retained in thisresearch. The sampling procedures that were usedbeginning in 1997, however, were much differentthan they had been in the previous studies.Specifically, the previous studies sampled athleteson 10 specific sports teams at 11 NCAA memberinstitutions. Each institution involved requestedsurvey responses from all members of all 10requested teams. The same 10 sports teams weresampled at each institution. The more recent stud-ies, on the other hand, requested data on one ormore sport teams from every NCAA memberinstitution. The sampling was designed so that atleast 12 percent of institutions sponsoring a given

sport in a given NCAA division would be asked toprovide data for that particular team. Thus, teamsin all NCAA championship sports were sampledin the three most recent replications. The othermajor difference between the current replications(1997, 2001, and 2005) and the previous studieswas the way in which the surveys were adminis-tered. In the past, the researchers traveled to the 11institutions in the sample and administered thesurvey in person. In the last three studies, the sur-veys were sent to the faculty athletics representa-tive (FAR) on campus and they were given explic-it instructions regarding administration of theinstrument. It is important to keep these differ-ences in mind when comparing the 2005 data tothose from previous studies.

Even with the sampling and survey administrationdifferences described above, the data from 1997forward should be able to be compared with priordata as both sampling structures were designed toprovide a random sample from the overall student-athlete population at NCAA member institutions. The results of this study will provide NCAA poli-cy makers with data related to current levels ofdrug and alcohol use by student-athletes, and howthose levels have changed over time. These datawill also provide information regarding why stu-dent-athletes do or do not use specific substances,where they obtain illegal drugs, when they startedto use drugs and attitudes regarding differentdrugs. In addition, the data provide insight aboutstudent-athletes' attitudes regarding drug testing.New to the 2005 survey are questions regardingstudent-athletes' participation in hazing and theinvolvement of alcohol in that hazing.

Introduction

9

SamplingAs stated above, a sampling plan was designed sothat at least 12 percent of the NCAA memberinstitutions that sponsor a given sport would beasked to survey their athletes in that sport. Thesampling plan was also designed so that no singleinstitution would be asked to give the survey tomore than three of its athletics teams. This sam-pling plan was devised to achieve a better repre-sentation of all NCAA student-athletes. It also hadthe benefit of surveying student-athletes in allNCAA championship sports, as opposed to aselection of 10.

After the sampling plan was devised, Dr. StevenM. Boker, University of Notre Dame, created acomputer program that sampled the institutions atrandom and assigned one to three sports to eachNCAA member institution. In the end, 1,032member institutions and 1,985 teams wererequested to participate in the study. From thatgroup 19,676 usable survey forms were returnedto the NCAA. In contrast to previous years, spe-cific institutions returning surveys were not iden-tified to better assure respondent anonymity.Therefore, institutional response rates cannot becalculated. However, based on the total number ofsurveys returned, we estimate approximately a 70percent institutional response rate.

Survey AdministrationOnce institutions were identified and sports wereassigned, a letter was sent to the FAR at eachmember institution. The letter asked for the FAR'scooperation in conducting the survey and identi-fied the athletics teams that the institution wasbeing asked to survey. Detailed instructions forconduct of the survey administration were provid-ed to the FAR. These instructions, and the instruc-tions that were printed on the survey form, madeit clear to the student-athletes that cooperation in

this study was completely voluntary and that allresponses would be completely anonymous. TheFAR was instructed to give the survey to all mem-bers of a particular team on the same occasion.The FAR was provided with a pre-addressed, pre-paid envelope in which student-athletes were todeposit surveys upon completion. Then, the laststudent-athlete to complete the survey was askedto seal the envelope and see that it was ready tosend to the NCAA. No reference to any particularindividual or institution was to be printed eitherinside or outside the return envelope. It was hopedthat these procedures would reassure student-ath-letes that the process would be secure and that allresponses would remain anonymous. Even withthese measures to ensure anonymity, self-reportdata of this kind can be problematic due to thesensitive nature of the issues. Therefore, absolutelevels of use might be underestimated in a studysuch as this. However, broad trends in use patternsacross years and among types of drugs can beattended to with more confidence as to their valid-ity.

QuestionnaireThe questionnaire itself was modeled on the onethat had been used in the five previous studies,most specifically the 2001 study. The list of 11 spe-cific drugs that were included in the survey wassomewhat different from that used in prior workand sections were included for the first time onephedrine and ecstasy. In all, there were 13 sectionsto this survey. First, an overview of demographicquestions was asked as well as some questionsrelated to drug testing. The 13 sections asked forresponses related to the following issues:

1. Demographic information and attitudes aboutdrug use among student-athletes.

2. Specific questions related to anabolic steroiduse.

Methods

10

3. Specific questions related to ephedrine use.

4. Specific questions related to nutritional sup-plement use.

5. Specific questions related to spit tobacco use.

6. Specific questions related to cigarette use.

7. Specific questions related to alcohol use.

8. Specific questions related to amphetamine use.

9. Specific questions related to marijuana use.

10. Specific questions related to ecstasy use.

11. Specific questions related to psychedelics/hal-lucinogen use.

12. Specific questions related to cocaine use.

13. The effects of drug use among teammates andself and participation in hazing

In the 2001 survey, there was one question regard-ing ecstasy use in the last 12 months that was

asked under the section for psychedelics/hallu-cinogen use. In 2005, an entire section of ques-tions regarding ecstasy use was added separatefrom the questions on other psychedelics.

In the 2001 survey, there was one question regard-ing ephedrine use in the last 12 months that wasasked under the section for nutritional supplementuse. In 2005, an entire section of questions regard-ing ephedrine use was added separate from thequestions on other nutritional supplements.

In all, data were collected on more than 300 vari-ables on the student-athlete questionnaire.

The specific drugs that have been included in thequestionnaire have changed over the years. Thefollowing table indicates which specific drugclasses were included in each study:

DRUGS SURVEYED IN EACH STUDYPerceived Ergogenic Drugs

1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005

Amphetamines Amphetamines Amphetamines Amphetamines Amphetamines Amphetamines

Anabolic steroids Anabolic steroids Anabolic steroids Anabolic steroids Anabolic steroids Anabolic steroids

Barbiturates and Barbiturates and Barbiturates Ephedrine Ephedrine Ephedrinetranquilizers tranquilizers tranquilizers

Major pain Major pain Major pain Nutritional Nutritionalmedications medications medications supplements* supplements*

Anti-inflammatory Weight-loss medications products

Minor pain medications

Vitamins/minerals

* Not all nutritional supplements are ergogenic.

Socially Used Drugs1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005

Alcohol Alcohol Alcohol Alcohol Alcohol Alcohol

Cocaine Cocaine and crack Cocaine and crack Cocaine and crack Cocaine and crack Cocaine and crack

Marijuana and Marijuana and Marijuana and Marijuana and Marijuana and Marijuana and hashish hashish hashish hashish hashish hashish

Spit tobacco Spit tobacco Spit tobacco Spit tobacco Spit tobacco Spit tobacco

Psychedelics Psychedelics Psychedelics Psychedelics Psychedelics

Caffeine Caffeine Cigarettes Cigarettes

Cigarettes Ecstasy

11

SubjectsA total of 19,676 usable individual surveys werereceived from the institutions that responded.Sixty-one percent of the responses were frommales and 39 percent were from females.Regarding ethnicity, 76 percent were white, 14percent were African-American, four percent wereHispanic and the remainder was other races.Forty-four percent of the respondents were fromNCAA Division I institutions, 22 percent werefrom Division II schools, and 34 percent of therespondents were Division III student-athletes.These representation rates are somewhat similarto the proportions of student-athletes in the threedivisions: 41 percent of all student-athletes are inDivision I, 21 percent in Division II and 39 per-cent in Division III. Overall, there is a slight bias

toward Division I respondents; however this dif-ference should not make a serious impact on theinterpretation of the overall results.

AnalysisComplete packets of surveys were mailed backdirectly to Pearson NCS Data Management, whichwas responsible for scanning the surveys into adatabase. The data were then checked by theNCAA research staff for inconsistencies, and anyquestionable data were removed from the data-base. The SPSS library of statistical packages wasused to compile the descriptive statistics reportedin this study. The usage rates reported are basedonly on those individuals who actually respondedto questions regarding use of specific drugs.

12

The figures and tables included in this report aresimilar to those created for the earlier studies con-ducted on drug use patterns of student-athletes.This was done to maximize our ability to comparedata across time. This year's study compares databack to the year 1989 for a more accurate look atfour of the drug studies. It is important to note thatthe usage rates reported in the tables include allindividuals who reported using a drug within thepast 12 months, regardless of whether they werecurrently using the drug at the time of the survey.

Table 1 presents demographic characteristics ofthe sample. Figures 1A and 1B present overallusage data for all of the drug categories includedin the survey compared across years. Tables 2 and3 report drug use by NCAA division and Tables 4and 5 report the rates by racial/ethnic classifica-tion. Tables 6 - 9 provide usage rates by sport, butonly those sports that were included in prior stud-

ies are reported in these tables. Tables 10a and breport usage rates for all men's sports that werenot included in prior studies, and Tables 11a and breport usage rates for all women's sports that werenot included in prior studies. Table 12 providesdata related to the frequency of spit tobacco usage,and Tables 13a and b show the frequency andamount of cigarette usage. Tables 14 and 15 giveinformation related to the reported age of "firstuse" for people who are still using drugs in thevarious categories. Tables 16 and 17 provideinformation related to the reasons that people whouse drugs do so, and Tables 18 and 19 provide thesame sort of data for those who do not use drugs.Tables 20 and 21 have data regarding where userswho continue to use get their drugs. Finally, theappendix reports response rates for all questionsincluded in the survey on a copy of the surveyform. Data that have not been reported in tabularform are available in the appendix.

Results

13

A review of the data presented in the tables and fig-ures leads to the following sets of findings:

FINDINGS ABOUT ERGOGENIC DRUG USEFinding 1: Among the entire group of student-ath-

letes, the use of amphetamines has con-tinually increased since 1997. The use ofephedrine, first calculated in 1997, hasremained stable. Anabolic steroid use hasdecreased slightly from 2001.

Finding 2: Analysis by division indicates thatamphetamine use has increased across alldivisions with use highest in Division III.Conversely, anabolic steroid use hasdecreased in all three divisions. Ephed-rine use decreased in Division II, but wasrelatively stable in the other two divi-sions.

FINDINGS ABOUT SOCIAL DRUG USEFinding 3: Among the entire group of student-ath-

letes, the use of alcohol has decreaseddramatically, while spit tobacco and mar-ijuana use are also at the lowest levelssince the study began. Reported use ofcocaine is up just slightly from 2001.

Finding 4: Analysis by division indicates that theusage of alcohol, psychedelics, marijuanaand cigarettes seem to be down in all divi-sions. Spit tobacco is down in all divisions,but more so in Divisions II and III. Cocaineusage is up slightly in all divisions since2001. Further, Division III continues toreport the highest rates of social drug useof all three divisions, with the exception ofspit tobacco usage, which is slightly high-er in Division II for 2005.

FINDINGS ABOUT USAGE WITHIN ETHNICAND SPORT GROUPSFinding 5: Amphetamine use continued an upward

trend for both Whites and African-Americans. However, African-Amer-icans still report the lowest rates of drugusage for amphetamines and all socialdrugs. Anabolic steroid use was reportedat an all-time lowest level for Whites andwas used by African-Americans and oth-ers at a slightly higher rate. Ephedrineuse has decreased within all ethnicgroups reported.

Finding 6: Amphetamine use has increased in allmen's sports except basketball, footballand swimming. Tennis, gymnastics, soc-cer and volleyball were the only sportsfor women that did not report increasedamphetamine use. Anabolic steroid use isdown for men and women with theexception of men's swimming and waterpolo and women's ice hockey. Socialdrug use generally decreased for bothmen and women, but more consistentlyso across women's sports.

FINDINGS ABOUT FREQUENCY ANDINITIAL USE OF DRUGSFinding 7: The vast majority of student-athletes who

reported using marijuana during the pre-vious 12 months used it only one or twotimes or “occasionally,” a decrease fromthe previous report. The number ofrespondents who reported smoking morethan two marijuana cigarettes alsodecreased significantly from 2001.

Finding 8: More than 85 percent of student-athleteswho reported using alcohol in the lastyear say they did so an average of two orfewer times per week, an increase from2001. While the number of student-ath-letes using alcohol decreased from 2001,the number of student-athletes drinking

Conclusions

14

more than five drinks in a sitting increa-sed significantly.

Finding 9: A similar trend to the alcohol use wasreported in cigarette use. The number ofdaily users decreased dramatically withmany more student-athletes reportingthat they only smoke at social occasions.However, there was an increase amongsmokers in those who smoke a pack ormore a day.

Finding 10:The percent of student-athletes usingergogenic drugs during high school orbefore increased significantly. More thantwo-thirds of amphetamine, ephedrineand nutritional supplement use nowappears to start before college. More thanhalf of anabolic steroid use begins in highschool as well.

Finding 11: Reversing a previous trend, more thanhalf of the cocaine users indicated havingfirst tried cocaine in high school orbefore. The percent of student-athletestrying alcohol, marijuana or cigarettes injunior high or before also increased.

FINDINGS ABOUT WHY STUDENT-ATH-LETES USE DRUGSFinding 12:More than half of the users of anabolic

steroids say they use them to improveathletic performance. Continuing a trendfrom 2001, the number of student-ath-letes using anabolic steroids for the treat-ment of an injury continued to decrease.The number of users now stating they useanabolic steroids to improve appearancedecreased from 2001.

Finding 13: Use of amphetamines to improve athleticperformance appears to be down signifi-cantly from the 2001 study. The main rea-son stated for using amphetamines is forthe treatment of attention deficit disorderfollowed by using to get more energy. Thetop two reasons stated for using ephedrinereversed order in 2005 to weight loss, fol-lowed by to improve athletic performance.

Finding 14:Alcohol, cocaine, marijuana and spittobacco users are most likely to use forrecreational or social reasons. Marijuana,cocaine and spit tobacco users also statedthat they use to make them feel good.Spit tobacco users also cite use to helpdeal with the stress of college life andcollege athletics. Very few state they usesocial drugs to improve athletic perform-ance.

FINDINGS ABOUT WHY STUDENT-ATH-LETES DO NOT USE DRUGSFinding 15:The majority of student-athletes who

choose not to use ergogenic or socialdrugs are reporting concerns abouthealth, they do not desire to experiencethe effects and that the idea of usingdrugs is against their beliefs.

Finding 16:A main reason given by student-athletesto not use nutritional supplements andspit tobacco is that they do not like it andanother top reason given for not usingalcohol was that it hurt athletic perform-ance.

FINDINGS ABOUT SOURCES OF DRUGSFOR STUDENT-ATHLETESFinding 17:The main source for student-athletes who

continue to use amphetamines or anabol-ic steroids is a friend or relative followedby another physician for amphetamineusers and Web site or mail order for ana-bolic steroid users. Nutritional supple-ments are mainly purchased in a retailstore.

Finding 18:The primary source for student-athleteswho continue to use either cocaine, mar-ijuana or psychedelics continues to be afriend or relative.

FINDINGS ABOUT STUDENT-ATHLETES'OVERALL PERCEPTION OF DRUG USE Finding 19:Almost 60 percent of student-athletes

continue to believe that their use ofalcoholic beverages has no effect onathletic performance or on their generalhealth.

15

Finding 20:Almost 30 percent of student-athletesstated that one or more times they per-formed poorly in practice or a game dueto drinking or drug use.

FINDINGS ABOUT ATTITUDES TOWARDDRUG TESTINGFinding 21: The number of respondents who believe

that the NCAA and their institutionsshould drug test student-athletes increasedfrom 2001, with nearly two-thirds believ-ing that the NCAA should drug test stu-dent-athletes. The number of respondentsbelieving that drug testing by the NCAAand the institutions has deterred collegeathletes from using drugs also increased.

Finding 22:There continues to a split among student-athletes surveyed who believe that

imposing team penalties for individualpositive tests would be fair and appropri-ate.

FINDINGS ABOUT HAZING AND ALCOHOLUSEFinding 23: Less than 10 percent of the respondents

reported any involvement in hazing withincollege sports. Men were more likely thanwomen to be the victim of hazing in theircollege sports program and to haze othersin the program.

Finding 24: For those student-athletes who had beeninvolved in a hazing incident, approxi-mately 50 percent said that alcohol hadbeen involved. Women were more than 10percent more likely to say that alcohol hadbeen involved in the hazing.

16

17

TABLES AND FIGURES

18

Number of usable surveys = 19,676

GENDERMen 11,814 60.0%Women 7,474 38.0%Not answered 388 2.0%TOTAL 19,676 100.0%

ETHNICITYAfrican-American 2,765 14.1%American-Indian 163 0.8%Asian 394 2.0%Hispanic 776 3.9%White 14,629 74.3%Other 621 3.2%Not answered 328 1.7%TOTAL 19,676 100.0%

ELIGIBILITYFirst year 7,211 36.6%Second year 4,971 25.3%Third year 4,162 21.2%Fourth year 2,704 13.7%Fifth year 504 2.6%Not answered 124 0.6%TOTAL 19,676 100.0%

RESIDENCEResidence Hall 11,138 56.6%Fraternity/SororityHouse 227 1.2%

Apartment/house 7,076 36.0%Parent’s Home 842 4.3%Other 217 1.1%Not answered 176 0.9%TOTAL 19,676 100.0%

DIVISIONI-A 6,551 33.3%I-AA 1,278 6.5%I-AAA 714 3.6%Total Division I 8,543 43.4%II 4,341 22.1%III 6,493 33.0%Not answered 299 1.5%TOTAL 19,676 100.0%

19

Fig

ure

1a

Pa

tte

rns

of

Erg

og

en

ic D

rug

Us

ein

Pa

st

12

Mo

nth

s

4.1

3.4

3.1

2.1

2.8

1.2

1.5

1.1

2.5

4.9

2.5

2.4

3.5

0123456

19

89

19

93

19

97

20

01

20

05

Year

Am

phe

tam

ine

s

Ana

bo

lic S

tero

ids

Ep

he

drin

e

Percent ofTotal Sample

20

Figure 1c

Patterns of Marijuana Use

21.4 20.3

28.128.4

27.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1989 1993 1997 2001 2005

Year

Figure 1b

Patterns of Alcohol Use

76.9

81.180.5

88.288.9

70

75

80

85

90

1989 1993 1997 2001 2005

Year

Pe

rce

nt

of

Tota

l Sa

mp

leP

erc

en

t o

fTo

tal S

am

ple

21

Figure 1d

Patterns of Spit Tobacco Use

16.317.7

22.5

26.927.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1989 1993 1997 2001 2005

Year

Figure 1e

Patterns of Cocaine Use

1.1

1.8 2.1

5.4

1.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1989 1993 1997 2001 2005

Year

Pe

rce

nt

of

Tota

l Sa

mp

leP

erc

en

t o

fTo

tal S

am

ple

22

TA

BL

ES

2 A

ND

3

Erg

og

enic

Dru

g U

seb

y N

CA

AD

ivis

ion

Div

isio

nI

Div

isio

nII

Div

isio

nII

I

Dru

g1993

(n=1,422)

1997

(n=6,123)

2001

(n=8,776)

2005

(n=8,543)

1993

(n=681)

1997

(n=3,254)

2001

(n=4,867)

2005

(n=4,341)

1993

(n=409)

1997

(n=4,537)

2001

(n=7,520)

2005

(n=6,493)

Am

ph

eta

min

es2.1%

2.5%

3.2%

4.0%

2.0%

3.3%

3.3%

3.8%

1.9%

3.7%

3.7%

4.6%

An

ab

oli

cst

ero

ids

1.9%

1.2%

1.6%

1.2%

4.3%

1.1%

2.5%

1.2%

1.9%

1.3%

1.4%

1.0%

Ep

hed

rin

eN/A

3.0%

2.4%

2.4%

N/A

4.2%

4.1%

2.6%

N/A

3.8%

2.5%

2.6%

Nu

trit

ion

al

Su

pp

lem

ents

N/A

N/A

46.0%

33.4%

N/A

N/A

41.5%

27.9%

N/A

N/A

39.8%

28.1%

So

cia

lD

rug

Use

by

NC

AA

Div

isio

n

Div

isio

nI

Div

isio

nII

Div

isio

nII

I

Dru

g1993

(n=1,422)

1997

(n=6,123)

2001

(n=8,776)

2005

(n=8,543)

1993

(n=681)

1997

(n=3,254)

2001

(n=4,867)

2005

(n=4,341)

1993

(n=409)

1997

(n=4,537)

2001

(n=7,520)

2005

(n=6,493)

Alc

oh

ol

86.3%

79.2%

80.5%

74.7%

89.1%

79.7%

78.8%

74.5%

93.2%

82.6%

83.3%

81.5%

Co

cain

e/c

rack

0.6%

1.2%

1.8%

2.0%

1.9%

2.0%

1.6%

1.9%

1.2%

1.5%

1.8%

2.3%

Ma

riju

an

a/h

ash

ish

17.6%

26.4%

26.3%

17.3%

22.5%

29.2%

24.7%

17.8%

33.1%

30.3%

32.5%

25.8%

Sp

itto

ba

cco

24.3%

21.7%

16.4%

16.2%

30.6%

23.8%

18.3%

16.6%

29.4%

22.6%

19.0%

16.4%

Cig

are

ttes

N/A

N/A

21.3%

12.3%

N/A

N/A

23.8%

14.0%

N/A

N/A

25.5%

16.6%

Psy

ched

eli

cs/

ha

llu

cin

og

ens

N/A

4.6%

4.5%

2.3%

N/A

6.1%

3.8%

2.0%

N/A

6.6%

5.7%

2.9%

*AllN/A’sreflectthatquestionsregardingthatdrugwere

notasked

inthatparticularyear.

*All

N/A

s re

flec

t tha

t que

stio

ns r

egar

ding

that

dru

g w

ere

not a

sked

in th

at p

artic

ular

yea

r.

23

TA

BL

ES

4 A

ND

5

Ergogen

icD

rug U

seb

y E

thn

icG

rou

p

Wh

ite

Afr

ica

n-A

mer

ican

Oth

er

Dru

g1993

(n=1,968)

1997

(n=10,850)

2001

(n=16,706)

2005

(n=14,629)

1993

(n=408)

1997

(n=1,883)

2001

(n=2,908)

2005

(n=2,765)

1993

(n=116)

1997

(n=903)

2001

(n=1,611)

2005

(n=1,954)

Am

ph

eta

min

es2.1%

3.2%

3.6%

4.5%

1.8%

1.3%

1.7%

2.4

%1.8%

3.2%

4.0%

3.4%

An

ab

oli

cst

ero

ids

2.6%

1.1%

1.3%

1.0%

2.2%

1.1%

1.5%

1.6%

1.7%

2.1%

2.2%

1.6%

Ep

hed

rin

eN/A

3.8%

2.7%

2.5%

N/A

1.2%

0.9%

2.2%

N/A

3.5%

2.4%

1.6%

Soci

al

Dru

g U

seb

y E

thn

icG

rou

p

Wh

ite

Afr

ica

n-A

mer

ican

Oth

er

Dru

g1993

(n=1,968)

1997

(n=10,850)

2001

(n=16,706)

2005

(n=14,629)

1993

(n=408)

1997

(n=1,883)

2001

(n=2,908)

2005

(n=2,765)

1993

(n=116)

1997

(n=903)

2001

(n=1,611)

2005

(n=1,954)

Alc

oh

ol

91.0%

84.3%

85.1%

82.1%

73.7%

59.6%

59.1%

52.9%

89.7%

77.2%

77.4

%70.1

%

Co

cain

e/c

rack

1.1%

1.6%

1.8%

2.2%

0.4%

0.6%

1.1%

1.4%

3.5%

1.3%

2.8%

1.8%

Ma

riju

an

a/h

ash

ish

22.6%

29.3%

29.2%

19.7%

15.5%

23.5%

21.9%

14.0%

20.9%

27.0%

27.1%

19.7%

Sp

itto

ba

cco

31.2%

26.0%

20.2%

18.6%

5.0%

5.4%

3.9%

5.3%

29.3%

16.0%

15.4%

12.0%

Cig

are

ttes

N/A

N/A

25.8%

15.3%

N/A

N/A

7.9%

6.0%

N/A

N/A

24.1%

15.2%

Psy

ched

eli

cs/

ha

llu

cin

og

ens

N/A

6.5%

5.2%

2.6%

N/A

1.2%

1.8%

1.5%

N/A

4.5%

4.8%

2.0%

*AllN/A’sreflectthatquestionsregardingthatdrugwere

notasked

inthatparticularyear.

*All

N/A

s re

flec

t tha

t que

stio

ns r

egar

ding

that

dru

g w

ere

not a

sked

in th

at p

artic

ular

yea

r.

24

TA

BL

ES

6 A

ND

7

Erg

og

enic

Dru

g U

sein

Men

’sS

po

rts

Men

’s

Ba

seb

all

Men

’s

Ba

sket

ba

ll

Men

’s

Fo

otb

all

Men

’s

Ten

nis

Men

’s

Tra

ck/F

ield

Dru

g1993

1997

2001

2005

1993

1997

2001

2005

1993

1997

2001

2005

1993

1997

2001

2005

1993

1997

2001

2005

Am

ph

eta

min

es1.7%

1.9%

2.7%

3.9%

0.7%

1.3%

1.5%

1.2%

2.9%

2.1%

4.3%

3.9%

0.0%

3.0%

2.2%

3.9%

1.1%

1.6%

1.4%

3.1%

An

ab

oli

c

ster

oid

s0.7%

1.9%

2.3%

2.3%

2.6%

0.6%

1.4%

1.5%

5.0%

2.2%

3.0%

2.3%

0.0%

0.5%

0.6%

0.3%

0.0%

1.3%

1.3%

0.8%

Ep

hed

rin

eN/A

3.3%

3.2%

3.3%

N/A

1.4%

1.9%

1.0%

N/A

5.3%

3.8%

4.2%

N/A

2.9%

1.6%

1.1%

N/A

2.4%

1.8%

1.8%

Erg

og

enic

Dru

g U

sein

Wo

men

’sS

po

rts

Wo

men

’s

Ba

sket

ba

ll

Wo

men

’s

Soft

ball

Wo

men

’s

Sw

imm

ing

Wo

men

’s

Ten

nis

Wo

men

’s

Tra

ck/F

ield

Dru

g1993

1997

2001

2005

1993

1997

2001

2005

1993

1997

2001

2005

1993

1997

2001

2005

1993

1997

2001

2005

Am

ph

eta

min

es

1.5%

1.0%

2.0%

2.9%

4.0%

4.7%

3.9%

5.2%

2.2%

4.7%

3.3%

4.4%

0.0%

2.5%

2.7%

2.6%

1.4%

2.1%

1.7%

1.9%

An

ab

oli

c

ster

oid

s1.5%

0.4%

0.7%

0.3%

1.7%

0.9%

0.8%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.3%

0.1%

2.7%

0.3%

0.0%

0.2%

2.7%

0.6%

0.6%

0.1%

Ep

hed

rin

eN/A

1.8%

1.3%

1.5%

N/A

1.1%

2.3%

2.9%

N/A

0.5%

2.2%

1.7%

N/A

1.9%

1.2%

1.2%

N/A

0.9%

1.3%

1.1%

*All

N/A

s re

flec

t tha

t que

stio

ns r

egar

ding

that

dru

g w

ere

not a

sked

in th

at p

artic

ular

yea

r.

25

TA

BL

E8

Socia

lD

ru

g U

sein

Men

’sS

ports

Men

’s

Ba

seb

all

Men

’s

Ba

sket

ba

ll

Men

’s

Fo

otb

all

Men

’s

Ten

nis

Men

’s

Tra

ck/F

ield

Dru

g1993

1997

2001

2005

1993

1997

2001

2005

1993

1997

2001

2005

1993

1997

2001

2005

1993

1997

2001

2005

Alc

oh

ol

93.1%

80.7%

84.5%

82.1%

86.1%

74.4%

74.1%

63.4%

87.5%

75.2%

77.9%

75.2%

92.4%

76.8%

79.1%

72.5%

83.8%

69.4%

71.5%

68.2%

Co

cain

e/

cra

ck1.0%

1.6%

1.3%

2.3%

2.5%

0.6%

1.3%

1.7%

1.4%

1.6%

1.8%

2.4%

0.0%

2.1%

1.6%

1.8%

0.4%

0.8%

0.8%

1.7%

Ma

riju

an

a/

ha

sh22.7%

25.8%

27.2%

20.6%

21.0%

25.2%

23.6%

18.5%

23.2%

25.8%

28.2%

21.0%

26.4%

24.4%

27.8%

18.9%

13.3%

16.6%

17.6%

16.1%

Sp

it

To

ba

cco

54.9%

45.6%

41.2%

42.0%

19.7%

19.2%

12.2%

10.4%

35.6%

30.3%

29.3%

29.8%

35.9%

19.6%

12.8%

10.5%

22.0%

14.4%

12.6%

12.5%

Psy

ched

eli

cs/

ha

llu

cin

og

ens

N/A

3.5%

4.0%

2.2%

N/A

3.1%

2.6%

2.3%

N/A

3.9%

5.0%

2.9%

N/A

5.5%

3.1%

2.3%

N/A

3.2%

2.4%

2.0%

Cig

are

ttes

N/A

N/A

23.5%

13.7%

N/A

N/A

14.5%

8.6%

N/A

N/A

18.1%

12.4%

N/A

N/A

26.5%

15.6%

N/A

N/A

25.5%

9.5%

*All

N/A

s re

flec

t tha

t que

stio

ns r

egar

ding

that

dru

g w

ere

not a

sked

in th

at p

artic

ular

yea

r.

26

TA

BL

E9

Socia

lD

ru

g U

sein

Wom

en

’sS

ports

Wo

men

’s

Ba

sket

ba

ll

Wo

men

’s

So

ftb

all

Wo

men

’s

Sw

imm

ing

Wo

men

’s

Ten

nis

Wo

men

’s

Tra

ck/F

ield

Dru

g1993

1997

2001

2005

1993

1997

2001

2005

1993

1997

2001

2005

1993

1997

2001

2005

1993

1997

2001

2005

Alc

oh

ol

85.3%

78.5%

72.0%

67.4%

91.3%

81.4%

85.8%

80.9%

92.2%

84.3%

88.3%

83.3%

96.1%

78.4%

84.4%

73.1%

82.5%

72.9%

71.3%

64.6%

Co

cain

e/

cra

ck0.7%

0.8%

0.8%

0.7%

1.2%

1.8%

1.3%

1.4%

1.7%

1.5%

1.6%

1.1%

0.0%

0.8%

1.5%

1.4%

0.0%

0.2%

0.6%

0.5%

Ma

riju

an

a/

ha

sh14.7%

22.4%

21.3%

12.1%

24.2%

26.5%

29.1%

18.2%

29.5%

29.0%

29.9%

19.6%

21.6%

21.4%

20.4%

14.0%

11.5%

17.5%

14.8%

10.4%

Sp

it

To

ba

cco

7.4%

5.3%

3.5%

1.6%

8.6%

8.5%

4.9%

2.9%

9.5%

5.4%

3.2%

1.4%

10.7%

1.4%

3.6%

1.6%

6.9%

4.1%

1.5%

0.9%

Psy

ched

eli

cs/

ha

llu

cin

og

ens

N/A

1.9%

1.6%

0.7%

N/A

2.6%

4.0%

0.9%

N/A

5.6%

3.7%

2.2%

N/A

3.2%

2.1%

0.6%

N/A

2.8%

1.5%

0.5%

Cig

are

ttes

N/A

N/A

18.9%

10.9%

N/A

N/A

35.3%

22.6%

N/A

N/A

31.3%

16.8%

N/A

N/A

30.1%

17.0%

N/A

N/A

11.6%

6.2%

*All

N/A

s re

flec

t tha

t que

stio

ns r

egar

ding

that

dru

g w

ere

not a

sked

in th

at p

artic

ular

yea

r.

27

TA

BL

E1

0a

Erg

og

enic

Dru

g U

seP

att

ern

sin

Oth

erM

en’s

Sp

ort

s

Am

ph

eta

min

esA

na

bo

lic

ster

oid

sE

ph

edri

ne

Sp

ort

1997

2001

2005

1997

2001

2005

1997

2001

2005

Fen

cin

g4.0%

5.4%

**

0.0%

1.8%

**

4.0%

0.9%

**

Go

lf4.4%

1.6%

3.5%

0.9%

1.4%

1.3%

2.5%

1.6%

1.1%

Gy

mn

ast

ics

0.0%

3.2%

**

0.0%

1.1%

**

0.0%

0.0%

**

Ice

Ho

ck

ey5.6%

4.6%

5.2%

1.2%

1.6%

1.2%

9.1%

3.6%

5.5%

La

cro

sse

8.8%

7.2%

13.4%

1.3%

2.2%

1.8%

6.9%

3.9%

4.1%

Rif

le5.0%

**

**

5.0%

**

**

0.0%

**

**

Sk

iin

g0.0%

3.4%

**

0.0%

0.6%

**

18.8%

0.6%

**

So

ccer

4.3%

3.0%

5.4%

0.6%

0.9%

0.9%

4.7%

1.6%

1.5%

Sw

imm

ing

5.9%

4.4%

3.3%

1.3%

0.2%

0.8%

4.7%

3.1%

1.8%

Wa

ter

Po

lo7.1%

5.1%

5.6%

2.8%

5.2%

10.5%

5.8%

3.0%

7.9%

Wres

tlin

g4.0%

6.1%

7.3%

1.9%

1.6%

2.2%

10.4%

4.9%

5.6%

**In

dica

tes

that

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

as to

o lo

w to

rep

ort p

erce

ntag

es.

28

TA

BL

E1

0b

Socia

lD

ru

g U

seP

att

ern

sin

Oth

er

Men

’sS

ports

Alc

oh

ol

Co

cain

e/cr

ack

Ma

riju

an

aS

pit

tob

acco

Psy

ch

edel

ics

Sp

ort

1997

2001

2005

1997

2001

2005

1997

2001

2005

1997

2001

2005

1997

2001

2005

Fen

cin

g68.6%

88.2%

**

2.0%

3.7%

**

27.4%

37.0%

**

5.7%

9.0%

**

7.9%

4.6%

**

Go

lf87.2%

83.3%

82.3%

2.4%

1.8%

2.7%

25.1%

27.1%

24.8%

37.4%

27.7%

24.5%

7.3%

3.9%

2.4%

Gy

mn

ast

ics

86.7%

83.9%

**

0.0%

2.2%

**

26.6%

31.9%

**

11.3%

8.5%

**

2.3%

8.5%

**

Ice

Ho

ck

ey93.4%

93.2%

94.0%

2.8%

2.5%

4.0%

35.5%

28.4%

20.8%

36.3%

35.4%

36.7%

12.8%

6.0%

4.7%

La

cro

sse

94.8%

90.2%

94.9%

3.7%

5.0%

8.0%

58.6%

48.6%

47.8%

44.0%

32.4%

27.1%

17.6%

14.4%

9.7%

Rif

le75.0%

**

**

0.0%

**

**

20.0%

**

**

55.0%

**

**

0.0%

**

**

Sk

iin

g93.8%

96.1%

**

0.0%

2.3%

**

56.3%

41.4%

**

43.8%

13.3%

**

13.3%

7.9%

**

So

ccer

85.6%

84.3%

79.8%

1.8%

1.8%

2.3%

40.4%

33.2%

28.4%

30.2%

20.7%

16.8%

12.8%

6.4%

4.3%

Sw

imm

ing

90.8%

84.8%

80.8%

2.4%

2.3%

2.0%

42.5%

38.1%

28.4%

30.6%

18.7%

9.1%

12.3%

8.8%

4.1%

Wa

ter

Po

lo86.1%

92.9%

86.8%

5.8%

7.1%

11.1%

44.4%

58.7%

37.8%

40.9%

25.5%

8.1%

14.1%

23.7%

5.6%

Wres

tlin

g88.9%

85.9%

80.2%

2.5%

2.8%

4.7%

34.6%

30.6%

24.6%

47.2%

38.8%

34.6%

8.7%

8.4%

5.6%

**In

dica

tes

that

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

as to

o lo

w to

rep

ort p

erce

ntag

es.

29

TA

BL

E11

a

Erg

og

enic

Dru

g U

seP

att

ern

sin

Oth

erW

om

en’s

Sp

ort

s

Am

ph

eta

min

esA

na

bo

lic

ster

oid

sE

ph

edri

ne

Sp

ort

1997

2001

2005

1997

2001

2005

1997

2001

2005

Fen

cin

g0.0%

0.0%

**

0.0%

0.0%

**

3.0%

2.5%

**

Fie

ld

Ho

ckey

4.6%

4.1%

4.4%

1.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.5%

1.9%

3.1%

Go

lf5.1%

3.0%

4.6%

0.0%

0.5%

0.4%

1.5%

1.9%

3.0%

Gy

mn

ast

ics

3.3%

3.4%

2.1%

0.0%

0.0%

1.0%

1.1%

3.4%

1.1%

Ice

Ho

ck

ey0.0%

2.4%

4.9%

0.0%

0.8%

2.4%

0.0%

3.2%

11.9%

La

cro

sse

3.2%

2.9%

8.6%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.1%

0.3%

2.7%

Sk

iin

g4.3%

**

**

0.0%

**

**

0.0%

**

**

So

ccer

5.3%

4.6%

4.3%

0.5%

0.5%

0.1%

3.3%

1.6%

1.0%

Vo

lley

ba

ll3.0%

4.1%

2.9%

0.8%

0.1%

0.6%

2.1%

1.7%

1.7%

**In

dica

tes

that

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

as to

o lo

w to

rep

ort p

erce

ntag

es.

30

TA

BL

E1

1b

So

cia

lD

rug

Use

Pa

ttern

sin

Oth

erW

om

en’s

Sp

ort

s

Alc

oh

ol

Co

cain

e/cr

ack

Ma

riju

an

aS

pit

tob

acco

Psy

ch

edel

ics

Sp

ort

1997

2001

2005

1997

2001

2005

1997

2001

2005

1997

2001

2005

1997

2001

2005

Fen

cin

g78.8%

80.0%

**

0.0%

0.0%

**

12.1%

10.0%

**

3.0%

0.0%

**

3.0%

0.0%

**

Fie

ldH

ock

ey88.8%

88.4%

88.8%

1.0%

2.5%

0.9%

34.9%

38.2%

23.6%

6.6%

4.1%

0.9%

9.3%

5.6%

1.0%

Go

lf89.8%

83.9%

75.1%

3.0%

1.4%

2.5%

28.6%

20.9%

14.5%

5.1%

2.9%

4.1%

2.9%

1.6%

0.4%

Gy

mn

ast

ics

75.3%

78.4%

87.5%

0.0%

1.1%

1.1%

21.4%

13.6%

13.5%

5.4%

1.1%

2.1%

1.1%

1.1%

0.0%

Ice

Ho

ck

ey83.4%

87.9%

92.9%

0.0%

1.6%

0.0%

35.3%

28.5%

34.1%

22.3%

5.6%

19.5%

0.0%

5.8%

2.4%

La

cro

sse

95.9%

93.7%

93.3%

1.1%

1.6%

3.6%

51.5%

42.8%

36.5%

12.4%

2.8%

4.6%

14.3%

3.8%

0.9%

Sk

iin

g83.3%

**

**

0.0%

**

**

16.7%

**

**

12.5%

**

**

0.0%

**

**

So

ccer

86.9%

87.4%

83.4%

1.1%

1.3%

2.3%

37.6%

29.5%

24.1%

6.0%

3.5%

3.3%

7.6%

4.9%

2.6%

Vo

lley

ba

ll81.9%

77.9%

79.1%

1.2%

1.2%

1.6%

24.6%

22.6%

15.9%

5.0%

2.1%

1.6%

3.4%

3.5%

1.7%

**In

dica

tes

that

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

as to

o lo

w to

rep

ort p

erce

ntag

es.

31

TA

BL

ES

12

AN

D1

3a

an

db

Freq

uen

cy

of

Sp

itT

ob

acco

Use

Per

centa

ges

Bas

ed o

n T

hose

Who C

onti

nue

to U

se

Tim

esP

erD

ay

1989

(n=

399)

1993

(n=

465)

1997

(n=

1,9

41)

2001

(n=

2,3

93

)

20

05

(n=

3,1

63

)

Les

sth

an

on

ce45.9

%47.7

%36.7

%37.1

%5

2.1

%

On

eto

fiv

e41.1

%40.2

%50.0

%53.4

%3

9.6

%

Six

to

ten

10.5

%10.1

%10.6

%7.3

%6

.3%

Ele

ven

to f

ifte

en1.8

%0.9

%1.8

%

More

than

fift

een

0.8

%1.1

%0.9

%*2.3

%*

2.0

%

*Q

ues

tio

nw

as

wo

rded

on

20

01

surv

eyas

“mo

reth

an1

0ti

mes

per

day

”.

Freq

uen

cy o

fC

iga

rett

eU

se

Per

centa

ges

Bas

ed o

n T

hose

Who C

onti

nue

to U

se

Tim

esP

erD

ay

2001

(n=

2,3

77)

20

05

(n=

2,5

71

)

Da

ily

26.1

%1

1.7

%

Cou

ple

tim

esa w

eek

15.8

%1

1.9

%

Wee

ken

ds

on

ly10.4

%9

.6%

At

soci

al

occ

asi

on

sw

ith

frie

nd

son

ly45.9

%6

6.7

%

32

Am

ou

nt

of

Cig

are

tte

Use

Per

centa

ges

Bas

ed o

n T

hose

Who S

moke

Dai

ly

TA

BL

E1

4

Init

ial

Use

of

Ergogen

icD

rugs

Per

centa

ges

Bas

ed o

n T

hose

Who C

onti

nue

to U

se

*N

utr

itio

nal

Supple

men

tre

late

d q

ues

tion w

asnot

incl

uded

pre

vio

us

to t

he

2001 s

urv

ey.

Am

ou

nt

smo

ked

da

ily

2001

(n=

619)

20

05

(n=

37

2)

pa

cko

rle

ss82.1

%7

9.6

%

1 p

ack

14.4

%1

5.6

%

More

than

1p

ack

3.6

%4

.8%

Am

ph

eta

min

esA

na

bo

lic

ster

oid

sE

ph

edri

ne

All

nu

trit

ion

al

sup

ple

men

ts*

Res

po

nse

Ch

oic

e1

99

7

(n=

19

7)

20

01

(n=

34

5)

20

05

(n=

12

23

)

19

97

(n=

61

)

20

01

(n=

10

0)

20

05

(n=

39

7)

19

97

(n=

25

4)

20

01

(n=

52

0)

20

05

(n=

17

29

)

20

01

(n=

61

91

)

20

05

(n=

82

71

)

Ju

nio

rh

igh

or

befo

re

10

.1%

5.7

%1

4.3

%2

6.9

%1

5.4

%1

7.4

%3

.4%

3.5

%6

.4%

5.7

%9

.2%

Hig

hsc

ho

ol

53

.7%

46

.2%

51

.4%

25

.0%

41

.8%

39

.3%

37

.4%

58

.0%

66

.4%

57

.3%

66

.1%

Du

rin

gfr

esh

ma

ny

ear

of

coll

ege

15

.4%

26

.0%

19

.1%

19

.2%

16

.5%

16

.4%

18

.9%

17

.3%

16

.0%

20

.0%

14

.7%

Aft

erfr

esh

ma

ny

ear

of

coll

ege

20

.7%

22

.1%

15

.1%

28

.8%

26

.4%

27

.0%

40

.3%

21

.2%

11

.2%

15

.9%

9.9

%

33

TABLE15

InitialUse

ofSocialDru

gs

Per

centa

ges

Bas

ed o

n T

hose

Who C

onti

nue

to U

se

*C

igar

ette

rela

ted q

ues

tion w

asnot

incl

uded

pre

vio

us

to t

he

2001

surv

ey.

Alcohol

Cocaine/crack

Marijuana/hashish

Spittobacco

Cigarettes*

Response

Choice

19

97

(n=

92

79

)

20

01

(n=

14

40

5)

20

05

(n=

15

84

9)

19

97

(n=

78

)

20

01

(n=

13

9)

20

05

(n=

64

7)

19

97

(n=

18

65

)

20

01

(n=

28

99

)

20

05

(n=

68

65

)

19

97

(n=

19

41

)

20

01

(n=

23

93

)

20

05

(n=

39

82

)

20

01

(n=

46

06

)

20

05

(n=

40

19

)

Juniorhighorbefore

14

.2%

13

.1%

17

.0%

10

.7%

10

.2%

9.9

%8

.6%

14

.8%

16

.3%

17

.8%

17

.0%

15

.5%

16

.6%

25

.9%

Highschool

63

.2%

64

.9%

60

.7%

34

.7%

32

.8%

45

.4%

62

.7%

63

.7%

65

.7%

58

.7%

57

.0%

57

.9%

59

.0%

53

.9%

Duringfreshmanyearofcollege

18

.2%

17

.1%

16

.9%

10

.7%

21

.9%

21

.2%

17

.4%

12

.9%

11

.8%

15

.0%

16

.4%

17

.3%

14

.6%

12

.1%

After

freshmanyearofcollege

4.3

%4

.9%

5.4

%4

4.0

%3

5.2

%2

3.5

%1

1.4

%8

.6%

6.1

%8

.4%

9.7

%9

.3%

9.8

%8

.1%

34

TA

BL

E1

6

Percen

to

fU

sers’

Resp

on

ses

to t

he

Qu

est

ion

:

“What

isth

eon

em

ain

reaso

nyou

use

_______________?”

Per

centa

ges

Bas

ed o

n T

hose

Who C

onti

nue

to U

se

Am

ph

eta

min

esA

na

bo

lic

ster

oid

sE

ph

edri

ne

All

nu

trit

ion

al

sup

ple

men

tsR

esp

on

seC

ho

ice

19

97

(n=

19

7)

20

01

(n=

34

5)

20

05

(n=

71

7)

19

97

(n=

61

)

20

01

(n=

10

0)

20

05

(n=

20

8)

20

01

(n=

52

0)

20

05

(n=

43

3)

20

01

(n=

6,1

91

)

20

05

(n=

5,1

48

)

Sp

ort

inju

ry2

.7%

2.6

%N

/A2

8.3

%1

6.7

%8

.1%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

No

n-s

po

rtin

jury

9.7

%3

.9%

3.4

%2

3.3

%1

1.5

%7

.7%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Soci

al/

per

son

al

reaso

n2

4.9

%2

7.4

%1

4.1

%N

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/A

Imp

rov

em

y a

thle

tic

per

form

an

ce9

.2%

23

.8%

7.4

%4

6.7

%4

2.7

%5

1.0

%2

3.6

%3

0.7

%2

7.3

%3

9.7

%

Imp

rove

my a

pp

eara

nce

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

19

.8%

15

.9%

20

.3%

11

.8%

18

.8%

9.8

%

Giv

em

em

ore

ener

gy

21

.1%

21

.5%

27

.9%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Ap

pet

ite

sup

pre

ssan

t/w

eig

ht

loss

13

.5%

11

.7%

3.9

%N

/A3

.1%

1.1

%2

1.7

%3

6.3

%1

9.7

%2

3.0

%

Oth

erre

aso

n1

8.9

%9

.1%

11

.4%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

To r

ecover

from

inju

ryN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/A5

.9%

6.7

%6

.0%

3.5

%

For

hea

lth

reaso

ns

ingen

eral

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

21

.5%

11

.8%

19

.6%

21

.8%

To p

reven

tin

jury

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6.3

%6

.3%

7.0

%3

.0%

8.6

%2

.2%

Tre

atm

ent

of

att

enti

on

def

icit

dis

ord

erN

/AN

/A3

1.9

%N

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/A

*A

llN

/A’s

refl

ect

that

qu

esti

on

sre

gard

ing

that

resp

on

sew

ere

no

task

edin

that

yea

r.*A

ll N

/As

refl

ect t

hat q

uest

ions

reg

ardi

ng th

at r

espo

nse

wer

e no

t ask

ed in

that

yea

r.

35

TA

BL

E1

7

Percen

to

fU

sers’

Resp

on

ses

to t

he

Qu

est

ion

:

“What

isth

eon

em

ain

reaso

nyou

use

_______________?”

Per

centa

ges

Bas

ed o

n T

hose

Who C

onti

nue

to U

se

Alc

oh

ol

Coca

ine/

crack

Mari

juan

a/h

ash

ish

Sp

itto

ba

cco

Res

po

nse

Ch

oic

e1

99

7

(n=

9,2

79

)

20

01

(n=

14

,40

5)

20

05

(n=

14

,04

7)

19

97

(n=

78

)

20

01

(n=

13

9)

20

05

(n=

34

7)

19

97

(n=

1,8

65

)

20

01

(n=

2,8

99

)

20

05

(n=

3,5

76

)

19

97

(n=

1,9

41

)

20

01

(n=

2,3

93

)

20

05

(n=

2,8

94

)

To

im

pro

ve

my

ath

leti

c

per

form

an

ce

0.2

%0

.2%

0.0

%3

.9%

9.2

%6

.3%

0.6

%0

.7%

0.9

%0

.8%

1.4

%2

.0%

Itm

ak

esm

efe

el

go

od

13

.7%

12

.9%

13

.6%

44

.7%

35

.1%

34

.9%

34

.7%

33

.8%

30

.1%

29

.3%

28

.0%

28

.1%

Fo

rre

crea

tion

al

or

soci

al

reaso

ns

83

.4%

83

.9%

82

.6%

42

.1%

53

.4%

53

.6%

61

.2%

60

.4%

63

.0%

54

.4%

47

.9%

46

.8%

To

hel

pm

ed

eal

wit

hth

est

ress

of

coll

ege

life

an

d

coll

ege

ath

leti

cs

2.7

%3

.0%

3.3

%9

.2%

2.3

%5

.2%

3.5

%5

.1%

6.0

%1

5.5

%2

2.8

%2

1.2

%

Hel

ps

me

fit

in

wit

hth

ete

am

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

1.8

%

*A

llN

/A’s

refl

ect

that

qu

esti

on

sre

gard

ing

that

resp

on

sew

ere

no

tas

ked

inth

at

year

.*A

ll N

/As

refl

ect t

hat q

uest

ions

reg

ardi

ng th

at r

espo

nse

wer

e no

t ask

ed in

that

yea

r.

36

TA

BL

E1

8

Perc

ent

of

No

n-U

sers

’R

esp

on

ses

to t

he

Qu

est

ion

:

“If

you d

o n

ot

use

or

ha

ve

sto

pp

edu

sin

g_______________,

mar

kth

eone

mai

n r

easo

n w

hy?”

Am

ph

eta

min

esA

na

bo

lic

ster

oid

sE

ph

edri

ne

All

nu

trit

ion

al

sup

ple

men

tsR

esp

on

seC

ho

ice

19

97

(n=

12

,28

1)

20

01

(n=

20

,29

4)

20

05

(n=

16

,48

1)

19

97

(n=

13

,00

7)

20

01

(n=

20

,91

0)

20

05

(n=

17

,02

1)

19

97

(n=

12

,17

8)

20

01

(n=

20

,14

1)

20

05

(n=

17

,21

8)

20

01

(n=

14

,69

2)

20

05

(n=

13

,92

0)

No

need

33

.8%

35

.6%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Reco

ver

edil

lnes

s/in

jury

0.1

%0

.2%

N/A

0.8

%0

.9%

N/A

0.0

%3

.9%

N/A

2.1

%N

/A

Co

nce

rned

ab

ou

th

ealt

h1

1.3

%1

2.8

%4

8.4

%2

7.0

%2

3.0

%3

5.3

%2

5.5

%2

0.3

%3

8.9

%1

5.9

%2

2.1

%

Ag

ain

stm

yb

elie

fs1

8.3

%1

0.5

%1

4.3

%2

8.4

%1

9.2

%1

9.3

%2

2.1

%2

2.3

%1

6.2

%9

.5%

9.3

%

Oth

ers

wo

uld

dis

ap

pro

ve

0.2

%0

.1%

0.2

%0

.2%

0.2

%0

.4%

N/A

0.0

%0

.3%

0.2

%0

.5%

Ha

rdto

get

0.2

%0

.2%

0.7

%0

.6%

0.4

%0

.7%

N/A

N/A

0.7

%N

/AN

/A

Ba

d e

xp

eri

ence

wit

hit

0.3

%0

.2%

0.3

%0

.1%

0.1

%0

.1%

N/A

1.9

%0

.5%

0.7

%0

.7%

Did

n’t

get

des

ired

effe

cts

0.8

%0

.6%

0.6

%0

.2%

0.2

%0

.2%

0.8

%1

0.1

%0

.6%

5.9

%5

.8%

Co

sts

too

mu

ch0

.3%

0.4

%0

.5%

0.9

%0

.8%

1.2

%0

.4%

15

.0%

0.6

%6

.8%

7.4

%

Hu

rt

my

per

form

an

ce

0.4

%0

.4%

1.0

%0

.3%

0.3

%0

.6%

0.4

%1

.3%

0.7

%0

.8%

0.9

%

Fea

r o

fa

dd

icti

on

0.5

%0

.4%

0.4

%0

.5%

0.3

%0

.3%

0.6

%N

/A0

.2%

N/A

N/A

Fea

r o

fg

etti

ng

cau

gh

t0

.3%

0.3

%0

.7%

1.0

%1

.1%

2.1

%N

/A2

.7%

1.1

%0

.3%

0.9

%

Do

n’t

lik

e it

3.9

%5

.3%

6.4

%N

/AN

/A2

.2%

4.5

%N

/A2

.9%

N/A

17

.9%

Co

ach

esru

les

0.3

%0

.1%

0.2

%0

.3%

0.3

%0

.2%

N/A

2.1

%0

.2%

0.7

%0

.5%

No

des

ire

tog

etth

e

effe

ct2

5.8

%2

1.7

%1

8.3

%2

7.8

%3

0.2

%2

3.7

%3

3.2

%1

5.4

%2

3.8

%3

9.7

%2

5.0

%

It’s

ille

ga

lN

/AN

/A4

.1%

4.2

%5

.5%

6.2

%N

/AN

/A5

.4%

N/A

N/A

Fea

r o

flo

sin

gel

igib

ilit

y0

.7%

0.3

%0

.7%

0.8

%1

.2%

2.3

%N

/AN

/A1

.8%

1.4

%2

.1%

Oth

erre

aso

n2

.9%

2.0

%3

.1%

7.0

%5

.3%

5.1

%1

2.5

%2

5.0

%6

.1%

9.9

%6

.9%

*All

N/A

s re

flec

t tha

t que

stio

ns r

egar

ding

that

res

pons

e w

ere

not a

sked

in th

at y

ear.

37

TA

BL

E1

9

Perc

ent

of

No

n-U

sers

’R

esp

on

ses

to t

he

Qu

est

ion

:

“If

you d

o n

ot

use

or

ha

ve

sto

pp

edu

sin

g_______________,

mar

kth

eone

mai

n r

easo

n w

hy?”

Alc

oh

ol

Coca

ine/

crack

Mari

jua

na

/ha

shis

hS

pit

tob

acc

oP

sych

edel

ics/

ha

llu

cin

og

ens

Res

po

nse

Ch

oic

e2

00

1

(n=

6,2

74

)

20

05

(n=

7,3

52

)

20

01

(n=

20

,44

2)

20

05

(n=

16

,59

3)

20

01

(n=

17

,72

6)

20

05

(n=

14

,83

4)

20

01

(n=

18

,44

7)

20

05

(n=

15

,63

9)

20

01

(n=

19

,97

0)

20

05

(n=

16

,52

1)

Co

nce

rned

ab

ou

th

ealt

h1

8.5

%2

5.9

%3

1.3

%4

7.4

%2

4.1

%3

6.5

%2

2.8

%5

0.2

%2

8.9

%4

6.6

%

Ag

ain

stb

elie

fs1

8.5

%1

4.2

%1

6.5

%1

5.4

%1

3.4

%1

1.5

%7

.6%

9.8

%1

5.0

%1

4.8

%

Oth

ers

wo

uld

dis

ap

pro

ve

1.0

%1

.5%

0.2

%0

.2%

1.0

%1

.4%

0.4

%1

.0%

0.3

%0

.3%

It’s

ha

rd

to

get

0.4

%N

/A0

.3%

0.3

%N

/A0

.5%

N/A

N/A

0.8

%1

.0%

Ha

db

ad

exp

erie

nce

2.9

%5

.0%

0.1

%0

.2%

N/A

1.3

%N

/AN

/A0

.7%

0.5

%

Did

n’t

get

des

ired

effe

cts

0.9

%0

.8%

0.4

%0

.2%

N/A

1.0

%N

/A1

.3%

0.6

%0

.3%

Co

sts

too

mu

ch0

.9%

2.9

%0

.5%

0.7

%0

.7%

0.7

%0

.3%

0.8

%0

.5%

0.4

%

Hu

rt

my

per

form

an

ce

5.0

%1

0.2

%0

.4%

0.7

%2

.5%

2.9

%0

.4%

1.3

%0

.5%

0.7

%

Afr

aid

of

ad

dic

tio

n0

.9%

1.4

%1

.0%

0.9

%1

.2%

1.0

%0

.7%

1.4

%0

.4%

0.3

%

Afr

aid

of

get

tin

gca

ug

ht

1.7

%3

.4%

0.3

%0

.5%

5.2

%5

.5%

N/A

N/A

0.7

%0

.6%

Id

on

’t l

ike

it1

0.1

%9

.5%

4.3

%4

.4%

10

.0%

8.9

%2

0.9

%2

5.4

%5

.3%

5.0

%

Co

ach

es’

rule

s2

.7%

4.2

%0

.1%

0.1

%0

.6%

0.4

%0

.1%

0.3

%0

.2%

0.1

%

No

des

ire

for

eff

ect

16

.7%

7.5

%3

1.4

%1

9.8

%2

7.1

%1

5.2

%3

1.2

%N

/A3

1.9

%2

0.6

%

It’s

ille

ga

l/u

nd

er

21

2.0

%7

.5%

2.4

%6

.5%

N/A

7.5

%N

/AN

/A2

.1%

5.8

%

Fea

r o

flo

sin

gel

igib

ilit

yN

/A1

.8%

0.2

%0

.4%

N/A

2.9

%N

/AN

/A0

.3%

0.5

%

Oth

erre

aso

n4

.5%

4.1

%2

.1%

2.4

%3

.1%

2.8

%3

.6%

8.8

%2

.4%

2.6

%

*All

N/A

s re

flec

t tha

t que

stio

ns r

egar

ding

that

res

pons

e w

ere

not a

sked

in th

at y

ear.

38

TA

BL

ES

20 A

ND

21

So

urc

eso

fE

rgo

gen

icD

rug

s

Per

centa

ges

Bas

ed o

n T

hose

Who C

onti

nue

to U

se

Am

ph

eta

min

esA

na

bo

lic

ster

oid

sN

utr

itio

na

l

sup

ple

men

tsR

esp

on

seC

hoic

e1

99

7

(n=

19

7)

20

01

(n=

34

5)

20

05

(n=

75

1)

19

97

(n=

61

)

20

01

(n=

10

0)

20

05

(n=

20

9)

20

01

(n=

6,1

91

)

20

05

(n=

5,6

32

)

Coach

or

train

er2

.2%

2.4

%5

.4%

3.8

%1

2.0

%1

6.8

%4

.8%

8.7

%

Tea

mp

hy

sici

an

1.1

%0

.3%

3.7

%5

.7%

5.0

%4

.3%

0.3

%0

.6%

Oth

erp

hy

sici

an

29

.0%

10

.1%

25

.4%

32

.1%

15

.0%

9.1

%1

.2%

1.6

%

Tea

mm

ate

or

oth

erath

lete

4.9

%6

.7%

8.5

%2

0.8

%7

.4%

15

.3%

1.5

%2

.8%

Fri

end

or

rela

tiv

e4

0.4

%4

2.3

%4

7.7

%1

7.0

%1

9.0

%2

5.4

%9

.0%

11

.2%

Pro

sco

ut/

ag

ent

2.7

%2

.0%

0.8

%9

.4%

3.0

%5

.3%

0.1

%0

.4%

Oth

erso

urc

e1

9.7

%2

9.6

%1

1.0

%1

1.3

%1

1.0

%8

.6%

1.4

%1

3.7

%

Str

eng

thco

ach

N/A

N/A

1.5

%N

/A2

.0%

1.4

%5

.2%

8.0

%

Web

site

/ma

ilo

rder

N/A

N/A

2.8

%N

/A5

.0%

22

.0%

3.5

%1

3.2

%

Ret

ail

store

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

15

.0%

11

.5%

58

.7%

69

.4%

Sou

rces

of

Soci

al

Dru

gs

Per

centa

ges

Bas

ed o

n T

hose

Who C

onti

nue

to U

se

Co

cain

e/cr

ack

Ma

riju

an

a/h

ash

ish

Psy

ched

elic

s/

ha

llu

cin

og

ens

Res

pon

seC

ho

ice

19

97

(n=

78

)

20

01

(n=

13

9)

20

05

(n=

35

6)

19

97

(n=

1,8

65

)

20

01

(n=

2,8

99

)

20

05

(n=

3,6

30

)

19

97

(n=

38

2)

20

01

(n=

51

9)

20

05

(n=

41

2)

Tea

mm

ate

or

oth

erath

lete

5.3

%1

1.5

%1

7.4

%9

.1%

13

.1%

20

.2%

7.4

%9

.4%

11

.9%

Fri

end

or

rela

tiv

e7

0.7

%5

6.8

%7

3.3

%8

1.3

%7

1.0

%7

6.3

%8

0.4

%7

1.5

%7

3.8

%

Pro

sco

ut/

ag

ent

N/A

N/A

7.3

%N

/AN

/A1

.8%

N/A

N/A

5.6

%

Oth

erso

urc

e2

4.0

%1

8.0

%1

1.5

%9

.6%

12

.5%

13

.3%

12

.2%

14

.8%

17

.5%

*All

N/A

s re

flec

t tha

t que

stio

ns r

egar

ding

that

res

pons

e w

ere

not a

sked

in th

at y

ear.

39

STUDENT-ATHLETE QUESTIONNAIRE

40

STUDENT-ATHLETE QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaire is part of a nationwide study of college student-athletes. The questions ask about youropinions and experiences with alcohol and other drugs.

If this study is to be helpful, it is important that you answer each question thoughtfully and honestly. If youfind a question that you feel you cannot answer honestly, we would prefer that you leave it blank. All youranswers will be kept strictly confidential and anonymous. Only the researchers will see the completedquestionnaires. Also, only national questionnaire results will be reported -- no individual athlete, team, orschool results. It will be impossible for anyone to identify your answers.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. You can omit answers to any question or discontinue yourparticipation in the study at any time without penalty. Your voluntary completion of this questionnaireconstitutes your informed consent to participate in the study.

Be sure to read the instructions carefully before you begin. If you have any questions, ask the individualadministering the survey. Thank you for your help in this important national study.

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

NCAA Study ofSubstance Use of College Student-Athletes

SU

BS

TAN

CE

US

E

NCAA 54814-3/06 SU 06