In the context of a Congressional hearing on the ongoing coronavirus
pandemic that already has killed nearly 130,000 Americans, however, the
idiocy streaming from Paul’s mouth was downright terrifying. When he wasn’t
whining that infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci stood in the way of
Americans playing baseball, Paul was proclaiming that Friedrich Hayek—a
Austrian-born libertarian economist who is very much not an expert on
infectious diseases, and also happens to be dead—somehow had the policy
prescription for un-fucking the United States out of its worst public health
crisis in a generation.
erhaps you’ve heard: College sports are
scheduled to resume this fall. So far,
Nevertheless, athletes already are being quarantined—and the virus is far
from being under control. So what happens when games resume?
Hausman isn’t alone. On Wednesday, University of Illinois football player
Milo Eifler shared similar sentiments:
Back to the NCAA. The organization has issued
two sets
of coronavirus
health and safety guidelines
for schools to follow. Which is all well and good. Only those guidelines
are mere suggestions—not enforceable rules. The NCAA doesn’t
require athletic programs to conduct a certain number of tests at a
certain frequency; or to quarantine positive cases for a certain number of
days; or to cancel practices and games if a certain percentage of athletes
on a team are infected.
Moreover, nobody from the NCAA’s compliance office is checking to see if
schools actually follow the organization’s guidelines and otherwise act
responsibly. And nobody will punish them with fines and sanctions if they
don’t.
Consequently, school efforts to protect athletes such as Eifler are
individualized and scattershot—think pilots and air traffic controllers,
speaking a dozen different languages. The Patriot League already has
announced special restrictions for the fall football season: athletes
won't return to campus until August, and flights to games and overnight
stays are forbidden. Other conferences aren’t taking those precautions.
The University of Houston suspended workouts after six athletes tested
positive for COVID-19; by contrast, schools such as Clemson have allowed
workouts to continue despite dozens of positive tests.
Or take testing itself. Because the coronavirus has an incubation period
from initial infection to symptom onset that can last as long as 14
days—and also can be transmitted by people who never develop
symptoms—medical experts agree that athletes should be tested upon
returning to campus, and at least weekly thereafter. Yet
according to an analysis
conducted by Will Hobson of
The Washington Post, the policies and
plans of the 65 schools in the Power Five conferences:
… vary widely from school to school — most of them subject to change —
ranging from weekly tests for all players, regardless of symptoms, to no
tests for players unless they display symptoms or are discovered to have
been near an infected person.
Athletes at different schools in different conferences receiving different
levels of protection and care is far from ideal. And once the season
starts, it threatens to undo the safety efforts of programs that have
managed to shield their athletes from the virus. Jackie Hamilton, the
mother of Notre Dame football player Kyle Hamilton,
told Hobson
that she worries about her son’s safety:
Notre Dame plans to test all players every week for the novel
coronavirus, and Hamilton said in a phone interview this week she
believes the school is doing everything it can to keep her son safe. But
what about Arkansas — Notre Dame’s opponent for its home opener in
September — where players are getting tested only if they have symptoms
or learn they were near an infected person?
“Do I want my child on the field, tackling some kid who may have it but
doesn’t know because he’s asymptomatic?” said Hamilton, a human
resources manager from suburban Atlanta. “How is that supposed to work?”
If Hamilton’s son ends up infected, it won’t necessarily be because Notre
Dame or any of its opponents did something reckless or unwise. At LSU, for
instance, positive coronavirus tests have been traced not to workouts
within the school’s facilities,
but rather to athletes attending local bars and restaurants.
Still, Hamilton told Hobson that she couldn’t understand why the NCAA
isn’t imposing uniform COVID-19 protections, mandating that every school
follow a set of best practices.
“It just seems like everyone’s freelancing,” Hamilton said. “The NCAA
has rules and guidelines for everything under the sun … how are they not
making any rules for this?”
According to NCAA chief medical officer
Brain Hainline, his organization hasn’t made COVID-19 rules because it
can’t make COVID-19 rules. Not when hundreds of member schools with
different budgets and priorities would have to agree on what those rules
should be, write them up, and then vote on them, a convoluted process that
could take years. And not when medical understanding of the virus is
rapidly evolving.
“I’ve been very strongly discouraged … on the idea of coming up with a
concrete policy or a concrete testing plan or rule when what we know today
is going to be very different than what we know two weeks from now,”
Hainline told The Athletic’s Nicole Auerbach last week. “They have asked me to give as much guidance as possible with built-in
flexibility.”
Hainline isn’t lying. But he isn’t telling the full truth, either. Yes,
the NCAA can be a slow-moving bureaucracy. And yes, national safety
standards put into place today could very well be obsolete by October.
Still, those are reasons to adopt coronavirus rules that can be changed
quickly when needed—not to punt on the idea of having rules at all.
Especially when lives potentially are at stake.
Moreover, Jackie Hamilton is right. The NCAA and its member institutions
are plenty capable of vigorous, top-down governing—
at least when it suits them. Case in point? The association’s 400-plus-page rulebook, which devotes
nearly 40 pages to amateurism rules that cover everything from when
coaches call call high school recruits to limits on the size of housing
stipends available to married athletes.
Those rules are policed by the NCAA’s national enforcement staff and by
on-campus school compliance officers. No case is too small. In 2013, Yahoo
Sports reported that officials at a West Coast Athletic conference school
spotted a member of their women’s golf team washing her car with a campus
water hose. Concerned that doing so would qualify as an impermissible
benefit—the water was not available to all students—they demanded that she
reimburse the school $20. The conference later clarified that the car wash
was a “non-issue,” but only after the school self-reported a violation.
And the NCAA doesn’t just investigate suspected incidents of athletes
getting money and other goodies. It punishes violators with a
Torquemada-like zeal—preventing athletes from playing, stripping schools
of athletic scholarships, levying postseason bans on entire teams, and
often penalizing people whose only offense is being part of a program
where past rule-breaking took place. The organization even has something
called
“Student-Athlete Repayment Plans,”
which sound like a way to pay off the purchase of a new Honda or a iPhone,
but actually are how the NCAA
fines unpaid amateur college athletes for amateurism
transgressions
like
eating too much pasta at graduation banquets
by forcing them to make cash donations to charities.
So what gives? Why does the NCAA forcefully insist that schools and
athletes adhere to amateurism—or else—while balking at the idea of
national coronavirus rules?
College football
has a brain injury problem. The NCAA has known about this for more than a century—in fact, the
organization’s precursor, the 62-school Intercollegiate Athletic
Association of the United States, was founded in the early 1900s in
response to a head trauma crisis that saw multiple schools suspend their
football programs and Harvard University president Charles Eliot liken the
sport to cockfighting.
One of the best ways to prevent and mitigate brain injuries is simple:
immediately removed concussed athletes from play, and don’t allow them to
return while they still are experiencing symptoms. Again, the NCAA has
known this forever. A 1908 study of Harvard football players concluded as
much. So did the NCAA’s 1933 medical handbook for member school, a 1937
declaration from the American Football Coaches Association, and a 1968
statement from the NCAA’s Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical
Aspects of Sports. In 1996, the presidents of the American Academy of
Neurology, the Brain Injury Association, and the American Association of
Neurological Surgeons wrote a letter to then-NCAA executive director
Cedric Dempsey stating that concussions were being “overlooked” by
unqualified coaches and trainers, and imploring the organization to adopt
uniform rules that would prevent injured athletes from returning to play
until they were free of symptoms for at least a week and had been examined
by a neurologist.
And what has the NCAA done in response to a century’s worth of internal
and external red flags?
Almost nothing. Not until 2010 did the NCAA require schools to create
concussion management plans that included provisions for removing athletes
with suspected concussions from play, barring athletes with diagnosed
concussions from returning on the same day, and not allowing those
athletes to return to competition before being cleared by a doctor. And
not until 2014 did the organization release expanded guidelines
recommending that schools implement football practice hitting limits and
have independent doctors make return to play decisions.
To this day, these concussion care guidelines remain just that.
Suggestions, not rules. When an athlete like University of Texas
quarterback Sam Ehlinger
bounces his head against the ground
while being tackled, lies motionless for roughly 30 seconds, returns to
play in the same game, and
is subsequently sidelined with concussion symptoms, the NCAA does not send health and safety investigators to get to the
bottom of what went wrong. Longhorns coach Tom Herman is not required to
make any charitable donations. Everybody really is free to feel good.
The same holds true for offseason workouts. Between 2000 and 2016,
26 NCAA football players died as the result of intense exercise—that is, not from violent collisions during games or practices, but
rather because they worked out too much, too fast, for too long, under
irresponsible direction and without proper medical protections. Basically,
they died of idiot CrossFit.
Scott Anderson, a longtime athletic trainer at the University of Oklahoma
who has spent two decades studying deaths in college football,
insists that workout fatalities are entirely preventable. What’s needed, he says, is a long-overdue cultural shift—away from
using sadistic, pain-based workouts to punish players or purportedly
instill mental and emotional toughness, what Anderson calls
“Junction Boys Syndrome,”
and toward scientifically sound exercise plans that build strength, speed,
and stamina.
Meanwhile, University of Maryland football player Jordan McNair died in
2018 of heatstroke after collapsing during an offseason workout.
From the NCAA’s perspective, guidelines have one major advantage over
rules: the latter create responsibility. Which, in turn, creates legal
liability, at least when things go wrong and athletes get hurt. Sports
injuries can be awfully expensive—you break it, you buy it—and the
organization isn’t exactly keen on footing the bills.
Consider the story of Derek Sheely. In 2011, the Frostburg State
University football player died from a brain injury suffered during
practice, sustaining trauma so severe that doctors asked his parents if he
had been in a car accident. Four times over the three days before he
collapsed on the field, Sheely had visited the school’s athletic trainer
and complained of symptoms, including blood coming from his forehead. He
was not checked for a concussion.
Believing their son’s death was preventable, Sheely’s parents sued the
NCAA in 2013 for failing to implement concussion rules and investigate the
incident. The organization later settled the case for $1.2 million—but not
before arguing in court that it had no legal duty to protect college
athletes from physical harm. This was nothing new: in the 1950s, the NCAA
invented the quasi-legal term “student-athlete” as a liability dodge to
avoid paying worker’s compensation to the widow of a college football
player who had died from a head injury.
Last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business lobbying groups
typically antipathetic to government regulation
wrote a letter to the White House pleading for a nationwide standard on
when mask-wearing should be mandatory—the better to instill confidence in coronavirus-fearing customers and
make it easier for businesses to deny entry to those who will not wear
masks or adhere to social-distance guidelines. The NCAA’s Trump-ian
abdication of basic health and safety responsibility has left athletes in
a similar position to American businesses: fending for themselves, now
more than ever.
Last month, 30 University of California, Los Angeles football players
authored a document
demanding independent COVID-19 protections
as they returned to campus for offseason workouts. Asserting that they did
not trust the school to act in their best interest in regard to their
health, the players demanded that a “third-party health official” be on
hand for all football activities to see that protocols for COVID-19
prevention are being followed; that anonymous whistleblower protections
are provided for athletes and staff to report violations; and that each
player be allowed make a decision about whether to come back without fear
of losing his scholarship or other retaliation.
In a world where the NCAA took its self-proclaimed mission of
“safeguarding the well-being”
of athletes seriously, UCLA’s players wouldn’t have to make such demands.
The NCAA would be the third-party aggressively ensuring that schools are
protecting their athletes with rules and leadership that looks more like
the system that keep airplanes from crashing than Galt’s Coronavirus
Gulch.
Alas, the people in charge of college sports have other priorities.
Two days after Rand Paul’s dunderheaded
remarks,
Congress held another hearing. This one was about college athletes being able to make money from their
names, images, and likenesses.
NCAA amateurism rules currently bar athletes from doing so. States
including California and Florida recently have passed laws—some going into
effect as soon as next summer—that would supersede the NCAA’s prohibition.
In response, the organization has turned both
its attention and lobbying muscle toward Capitol Hill, imploring Congress to create a national NIL law. Arguing that having 50
states with their own NIL laws would harm college sports and make managing
them unwieldy, the NCAA wants lawmakers to put public power behind its
private rules telling athletes what they can and cannot do with their own
property—all while providing a federal antitrust exemption to protect the
organization from lawsuits.
Hayek, it ain’t.
During the hearing, Nevada Democratic Senator Jacky Rosen pointed out that
that the NCAA’s guideline-based response to COVID-19 resembled “what we
see playing out in the states,” a patchwork “potentially resulting in
spikes and transmissions of the virus in some states and some schools and
not in others.” She then asked NCAA Board of Governors chair Michael Drake
if his organization planned to
develop a national strategy to deal with the virus.
Drake’s answer was noncommittal—befitting a machine built not to protect
college athletes, but rather the economic value that can be extracted from
them.
“This is under discussion actively on a daily basis, and we will talk
about this later on in this week,” he replied. “I certainly support that.
But this is a 50-state organization with 1,100 schools, and health
policies tend to be guided locally.”
Less than 48 hours later, the University of Kansas
suspended workouts for its football players, announcing that 12 of them had tested positive for COVID-19. In a
statement, Les Miles, the school’s football coach, said the decision was
rooted in “events outside of our control.”