I would be interested in hearing thoughts on how a more stringent testing regime could be implemented at the college level.
Look, I agree, the NCAA should do more—but what should that look like?
I think this thread is a perfect example of the complexities of this because it deals with D3, not D1 or even D2.
Testing is costly. Are they doing random testing at all sanctioned meets? If so, the costs of meets will skyrocket. That reduces access. Only testing at a few more high-profile meets? I mean, nationals of course, and maybe any regionals, maybe something else, too?
Then there is the issue with the claims regarding Clevenger here. Competition testing very well might not catch someone doing some EPO or peptides if they time it well. So, does that mean there would be a testing pool a la World Athletics' testing pool? (Some NCAA kids are already in that pool, sure, but not all—and not Clevenger.)
So, I agree, there needs to be more anti-doping regulation and testing, but I do think it is interesting trying to sort out what that would look like.
Also, if anyone has ever put on a track meet, road race, or trail race and sought to get it (1) insured, (2) certified, and/or (3) sanctioned, that already can get costly. There are levels of sanctioning, too, where testing is not required but for a situation where a record may be set. (My understanding, and I haven't had to go too far into this yet, is that you can set up a testing option *if* a record is possibly done AND you wish it to be certifiable, which is a whole process.)
Imagine all these small D3 schools putting on meets having to go through this process—it could have a real impact unless there is more support from the NCAA, USADA, and/or USATF.
So, what should an improved anti-doping testing regime look like?