[82 Card]

This was in 1992, but I remember that when I signed the NCAA contract I had a choice of whether to accede to drug testing or not.  Is that no longer the case?

You came in when Hill v. NCAA was working its way through the California courts. In 1990, Stanford athletes, eventually supported by the university, challenged NCAA mandatory drug testing. The challenge was successful in Superior Court and the Court of Appeals. However,  the California Supreme Court sided with the NCAA in a January 1994 decision. After that, Stanford no longer had legal cover for refusing to follow NCAA rules.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/...ge-sports/

[82 Card]

This was in 1992, but I remember that when I signed the NCAA contract I had a choice of whether to accede to drug testing or not.  Is that no longer the case?

You came in when Hill v. NCAA was working its way through the California courts. In 1990, Stanford athletes, eventually supported by the university, challenged NCAA mandatory drug testing. The challenge was successful in Superior Court and the Court of Appeals. However,  the California Supreme Court sided with the NCAA in a January 1994 decision. After that, Stanford no longer had legal cover for refusing to follow NCAA rules.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/...ge-sports/