Wasted Days Collegiate Athletes and Underage Drinking

COLLEGE DATA 2005

 

  

The studies show that: 63% OF COLLEGE CRIMINAL ACTS COMMITTED BY FRESHMAN

• 1,700 college students die every year in alcohol-related incidents. NEARLY HALF FRESHMAN

• More than 600,000 college students are assaulted each year by other students who have been drinking.

• More than 500,000 college students are injured each year in alcohol-related accidents.

• There were 30,517 campus arrests for liquor law violations in 2002.

• About 5 percent of college students are involved with the police or campus security as a result of drinking.

• More than 70,000 students annually are victims of date rape or sexual assault in incidents where alcohol is a factor.

• Two of five college students are binge drinkers.

ATHLETES 82.2% drink 3-5 6-9 10 OR MORE drinks when they drink
84% of Athletes drink 1-2X 3-4X or 5X or > in a normal week

• About 2.1 million students between 18 and 24 drive while intoxicated.

• More than 150,000 students develop an alcohol-related health problem each year.

• Underage drinking costs the country $53 billion annually.

ATHLETES ARE ONE OF THE LARGEST POPULATIONS INVOLVED IN THESE PROBLEM AREAS

 

SOURCES: THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM, THE CAMPAIGN FOR ALCOHOL-FREE SPORTS TV, SECURITY ON CAMPUS INC. AAI

 

The Prevention Basis to Athlete Programs and Team Effectiveness

• Programs to prevent athlete substance abuse inherently rest on certain assumptions about why athletes would use alcohol and other drugs. Strategies for prevention, in turn, are based on these assumptions.
• To date, most prevention efforts have focused on changing the traits and behaviors of individuals, with heavy emphasis on their personalities, their backgrounds, or their ability to respond to their environment. Thus, some educational programs teach individuals about the dangers of substance use in order to promote fear of those dangers.
• Others teach them skills for dealing with inter- and intra-personal social influences (such as stress and peer pressure).
• Still others emphasize the improvement of personal qualities, such as self-esteem, that help people function in a complex world. These education efforts are based on theories that locate the causes of substance abuse primarily within the individual.
• Even in cases where the role of the social environment is given prominence, the responsibility for action is placed on the individual.

Social ecology theories begin with the premise that these assumptions are inherently false. Such theories postulate that instead of looking for causes within the individual, or even in the individual's way of interacting socially, we should focus on the social system itself and how that system affects individuals.

Clearly, some causes of substance abuse lie within the individual, and these should not be ignored. Social ecology theory, however, seeks causes primarily in the social environment. Consequently, efforts to modify use must focus on changing the person's environment rather than the person. For the central tenet of social ecology is that individual behaviors are mainly the result of socialization; to change the behavior, we must change the social institutions that shape it. (HANSEN)

When applied to alcohol and drug abuse, social ecology theory shifts attention to a different set of variables from those that most program developers typically deal with. Of particular interest from this perspective are variables like team culture, traditions, rituals, inter-team relationships (including power relationships), team value systems, and team social norms. Of lesser interest are variables such as personal belief, perception of risk, and intra-personal skills.

The strongest predictors of alcohol and drug abuse among high school or college athletes are social. Among high school and college athletes, for example, the social group dominates as the best predictor of substance use… (other than previous drug use).

Athletes who take drugs usually do so in a social context of one kind or another. From such data, we may conclude that athletes use drugs primarily as a function of the social group with whom they interact. This principle applies directly to casual and experimental use and indirectly to addictive use of substances. Obviously, at some point in an addict's history, physiological and psychological effects drive use. (HANSEN) Adapted UNDERWOOD

If we hope to change a particular behavior (e.g., excessive use of alcohol), we must change the social context-the institution or group-that shapes the behavior. In other words, we must address the effects of social influence, within the team on the members of that team. (HANSEN) Adapted UNDERWOOD

 

 

 Team Dynamics:

The power of being on a team has a magnitude far greater than most peer associations, in that the amount of time spent in such close relationships, compounded by the pack mentality and goal cohesion exerts a pressure to follow social group norms despite personal values that may be in conflict with such decisions.

Within any team lies the power for good and bad…or positive or negative norms, behaviors and lifestyles. For example, positive team or individual values like focus, dedication and commitment, are components associated with team and individual effectiveness and both goal and social cohesion.

Looking for the positive lifestyle both on and off the field has been overlooked far too long. Today’s athlete must begin to think about what they are doing off the field that ruins what they are trying to do on the field.  A four to six year window of opportunity in high school can pass by with the individual failing to realize their full athletic, academic or social potential due to the use of alcohol and other drugs.

It is specifically within the social group, then, that we can expect to find the causes of social alcohol and drug use.  It is quite well established that groups have traditionally had a powerful influence on the behavior of their members…Especially teams. It is also quite well established that time spent in close association with peers has profound impact on group behaviors, especially when there is a strongly established pack mentality.

 

 

NCAA STUDY DATA Athlete Drinking Dynamics

# of drinking occasions in typical school week (7 days)

• None   15.1%
• 1-2x    69.4%
• 3-4x    13.2%
• 5x >     2.4%

#  of drinks usually one sitting

• 1-2 drinks   17.8%
• 3-5 drinks   38.9%
• 6-9 drinks   29.8%
• 10 or more drinks 13.5%

 

• 68.7% 3-5 or 6-9 drinks
• 82.2% total use with (- effect)

Competitive season vs. Off-season and alcohol use

• I don’t use during the competitive season.  18.0%
• Less use during the competitive season.  65.0%
• No difference between competitive or off-season.  15.9%
• More use during competitive season       1.1%             

Do you drink at the following times?

• Before practice  1.2%
• After practice    31.3%
• After competition  66.4%

 

AAI RESEARCH BULLETS

The American Athletic Institute has conducted recent significant studies that have more to say to your athletes than “partying will hurt your performance potential.”

 

Listed below are some of those findings:

• Each time an athlete drinks to intoxication, it negates as much as fourteen days of training effect
• Training hormones are diminished for up to 96 hours (4 days)
• Drinking alcohol after training negates training effect (33% of NCAA athletes report consuming alcohol after training)
• Residual effect of alcohol from elite athlete lab test shows negative effect on Heart Rate, Lactic Acid / Muscle Performance and Respiratory/ Ventilation levels. (from a 23 year old National Team Member)
• Muscle protein synthesis ( repair of muscle fiber ) is diminished, predominately in your fast twitch muscle fibers
• B vitamin deficiency resulting from diuretic effect of alcohol and subsequent dehydration affects recovery and conversion of hormone precursors into androgenic training hormones
• Reaction time can be affected even twelve hours after alcohol consumption.

 

The AMERICAN ATHLETIC INSTITUTE

To ALL Collegiate Athletic Directors and Prevention Specialists

From: John Underwood – Sport Science Educator/Activist

           Founder and CEO of the American Athletic Institute

On the Collegiate level, the use rates for recreational drugs are off the charts. The NCAA 2001 study indicated that 79.5% of NCAA athletes drink alcohol and 27.3% use marijuana. Use rates in one particular sport were 95.6% for alcohol and 60.8% for marijuana. The NCAA has conducted several studies in the past decade and although awareness has increased, the use rates have remained relatively constant. Prevention specialists have failed to realize the magnitude of possibilities that exist in working with this enormous target population.

PROACTIVE PROGRAMS

What can we do to turn around the detrimental impact that recreational drug use has on Collegiate Athletes across our country? First and foremost we must be vigilant. It will never change without on-going programs. Programs that get our athletes to take a serious look at what they are doing in the area of recreational drug use and at the same time realizing that use limits performance.

PURE PERFORMANCE is an innovative approach to helping NCAA Athletes reduce recreational drug use.

 

DETERRENTS

 There are only three deterrents to use among college aged athletes

#1 the knowledge of the negative impact on performance or performance potential

#2 a personal commitment to abstain or reduce use during competitive season

#3 a high level of expectation for performance

 

If our athletes lack all three of these deterrents, there is little hope for success.

 

ATHLETE DATA

There is little sense in simply telling any athlete that recreational drugs hurt your performance, they already know, most from first hand experience. We have needed concrete data, from athletes, not from alcoholics and sedentary populations.

 We have conducted the only physiological test on an elite athlete under the influence of the residual effect of alcohol. The impact has been dramatic when shown to athletes.

Measurements in heart rate, respiration and lactic acid, indicate significant decreases in performance and compromised physiological function for up to 72 hours, in heart, lungs and muscle.

 

PERSONALIZATION

Sitting in an auditorium listening to a lecture about drug use has little impact, unless each individual can introspectively think about their own use

We need to make our athletes take a hard look at their own drug use dynamics. Use of the NCAA Drug Study of 2001 is pivotal in helping our athletes examine how many times per week they use recreational drugs, how much they use on a typical occasion and whether their dynamics change during the competitive season or not. 

This is instrumental in first, realizing they are doing something that is ruining their potential and secondly, considering limiting or abstaining from use.  

 

OUR PROGRAM

Our program has been developed in conjunction with NCAA Collegiate athletes and coaches. It is based on the physiological and psychological mindset of serious athletes, preparing for high performance sport. This program has had sensational reviews. We have gathered our own data and it is a must see for any NCAA athlete. coach or athletic administrator. We have shared our program with 134 institutions in the past three years.