The Charlotte Country Day Athletic Department's
ALCOHOL, DRUG TOBACCO PLEDGE AND THE '97 VARSITY LACROSSE TEAM

Several years ago, the varsity lacrosse team at Charlotte Country Day established a pledge against the use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs. The pledge was to be signed by each member of the team, pre-season, to ensure a season uninterrupted by the problems caused when team members partake in behavior deemed detrimental to the program. This pledge became the pioneer for an Athletic Department pledge to be signed by the members of every team.

In the fall of 1995, each coach was presented with a copy of the Athletic Department's pledge and asked to inform parents of its existence and the consequences of breaking the pledge, which at the same time included a two game suspension for first offende rs and team dismissal for any multiple indiscretions. In its infancy, communication with parents and lukewarm coaching support for the pledge were the policy's only weaknesses.

In an effort to improve the effectiveness of the pledge, coaches were required to discuss it in their pre-season parents' meeting and the athletic director presented the policy to each team, in person. Also for '96-'97, the punishments were changed to a two week suspension for a first offense and dismissal thereafter. Also, included was an understanding that these punishments were not in lieu of any punishments imposed by the school's administration if the violation took place at a school function or on a school sponsored trip (like out-of-town games).

There were occasional infractions over the first two years of the policy's existence that came to the attention of coaches or administrators and fell under the category of pledge offenses. Obviously, not every infraction was addressed or even identified, but the pledge seemed to be working. Players were not required, but encouraged, to report the wrongs of their teammates. However, understanding that, for teenagers, the most sacred code is one of silence, the athletic department knew there would be no such reports. Incidentally, if a student-athlete decided, for whatever reason, that he would not sign the pledge, he would be ineligible to hold a leadership position on any given team and his parents would be notified of their child's decision. Leaders hip positions include being a team captain or even leading the team's stretch before practice.

That brings us to the spring of 1997, and the varsity lacrosse team. every member of the team signed the pledge during pre-season. During a weekend trip to play several games in Wilmington, an eighteen year old senior was caught "dipping" in his hotel r oom. He was immediately suspended from the team for two weeks. He was required to attend practice, but would be ineligible for any games during his suspension. Because the infraction took place on a school sponsored trip, he was also subject to punishm ent from the administration. He was suspended from school for three days, had to go before the Honor Council and was to see a doctor after it was decided that his problem was an addiction. Word spread fast of his penalty and it became clear that this wa s not an isolated incident and that there were probably several members of the team breaking the pledge on any given weekend.

Because it is a basic tenet of any honor system that a person's honor cannot be challenged or used against them without probable cause, the coaches and administration had to proceed very carefully. The coaches decided that the information they were given gave them probable cause for further investigation. Rather than ask the boy who had already been punished to turn in any of his teammates, the coaches decided to simply ask each player, one at a time, if they had violated the pledge since signing it. T he results shocked even the most cynical members of the community. 32 of 38 players admitted breaking the pledge. 32 players were suspended and since there were not enough players left to play the four scheduled games during the suspensions, those games were forfeited, including an at-home meeting with the only other undefeated team in the state.

Unsure of the possible fallout, the coaches and athletic department braced for the worst as they contacted each parent by mail and prepared for the phone calls. There were calls, but all were positive and supportive. The reason cited for this unpreceden ted response was that the parents were informed ahead of time of the possible consequences of pledge violations, leaving no surprises. It has become clear that the parents appreciate the message being sent.

The athletic department also invited four speakers to talk to them about these issues. The student body was encouraged to attend, but the meetings were mandatory for lacrosse players. Parents were also encouraged to attend. The four speakers included a representative from Amethyst to deal with steroids and hard drugs, a counselor from Chemical Dependency Center and an oral surgeon to address "dipping."

The situation was reported in the local paper, but generated nothing but support for the school and it's position. Parents from other schools phoned wanting us to know that they were impressed. Because sports, even at the high school level, have been co rrupted by a sliding moral scale, people find it refreshing that there is a school willing to take a possibly unpopular stand without concern for wins and losses or bad press.