Punishment is quick and sure for athletes who fail a drug test at the University of Georgia. They're suspended from competition. They're ordered to perform 20 hours of community service. They're required to pass two more drug screens before playing again.

A third failed test? Permanent banishment.

At Georgia Tech, a failed drug test sends an athlete to counseling. Three failures warrant a one-year suspension, but with the chance of returning — even, conceivably, for an athlete who fails more drug tests in the meantime.

These differing approaches illustrate the disparities in testing for illicit drug use throughout college sports. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, the governing body for 23 sports played by 1,281 schools, leaves most drug testing to its members: how often they screen, what substances they test for, how to punish violators, even whether to test at all.

Consequently, critics say, the system for monitoring illicit substances in college sports is so porous that athletes are free to take virtually any drug with scant likelihood of getting caught.

This criticism was underscored last month when Michael Hutts, a 21-year-old baseball player for Tech, was found dead in his off-campus apartment. A roommate told police that Hutts sometimes used heroin, and toxicology tests show he died of morphine toxicity, the Fulton County medical examiner's office said Sunday. An overdose of heroin or other narcotics — legal or illegal — could cause such a reaction.

Administrators at Tech defend the integrity of their drug-testing program. Citing privacy concerns, they won't disclose, however, when the school last tested Hutts or the outcome. All Tech athletes are tested near the start of each school year, and officials say no baseball players failed last fall.

Fewer than 1 percent of Tech's drug tests came back positive this year, down from 3.1 percent three years ago. At most schools, the number is below 5 percent.

But so few athletes are tested that the numbers may present a distorted view.

In 2006, the NCAA reported that two-thirds of college athletes said in a survey they had never undergone a drug test. Just two athletic conferences — the Big 10 and the Big 12 — require testing, and the NCAA's own drug-screening program is so limited that athletes face just a 1-in-30 chance of being tested.

"One shouldn't think that drug testing captures all drug use," said Paul Griffin, who oversees Tech's drug testing as the senior associate athletic director. "You hope it serves as a deterrent. But that's about it.

"No one can suggest that a drug screen confirms you have been clean or, most important, will be clean in the future," Griffin said. "It's just a snapshot in time."

Testing spotty

In college sports' drug-testing circles, there are two eras: before Len Bias and after Len Bias.

In June 1986, the basketball star from the University of Maryland had reason to celebrate: The Boston Celtics had just selected him as the second pick in the NBA draft. Then Bias snorted enough cocaine to cause cardiac arrest. He died instantly.

The NCAA already had decided to test athletes during some post-season tournaments. Bias' death proved the need for wider screening, said Frank Uryasz, a former NCAA official who developed the association's first drug-testing program.

But from the start, in a decade marked by widespread use of crack cocaine and other recreational drugs, the NCAA focused mostly on steroids and similar substances that provide a competitive edge.

"There was a growing awareness of the increased use of performance-enhancing drugs, primarily in college football," Uryasz said.

Today, Uryasz runs the National Center for Drug Free Sport in Kansas City, Mo. The firm conducts drug tests for the NCAA and for several college teams.

Random testing, Uryasz said, keeps athletes guessing.

"Every day," he said, "a college athlete should wake up with the understanding their number could come up with their college, their conference or the NCAA."

In practice, the NCAA's testing is spotty, at best.

Examiners visit each of the 119 schools with a Division I football program once a year. At each school, 26 athletes chosen at random are tested for performance-enhancing drugs: steroids; diuretics, which might mask the presence of illicit substances; hormones; and ephedrine, a banned stimulant. Testers return to 15 percent of the schools later in the academic year or the following summer.

Athletes participating in NCAA championships may also be tested, both for performance-enhancing and recreational drugs. Altogether, the NCAA conducts about 13,000 drug tests a year — for almost 400,000 athletes.

Neither the NCAA nor individual schools have much incentive to detect — or disclose — athletes' drug use, said Charles Yesalis, a retired professor at Pennsylvania State University who has written extensively about illicit substances in sports.

"It's a closed system," Yesalis said. "You only know what they tell you."

Many fans, he said, tend to overlook transgressions, particularly among athletes in football and other sports that earn millions of dollars for their schools.

"They don't want to have it shoved in their faces that their boys are dirty," Yesalis said. "The NCAA is meeting the minimum expectation of its customers, the fans."

Mary Wilfert, who supervises the NCAA's drug testing and education program, said the association and most universities contract with outside firms to collect test samples and to analyze results.

"It's all done independently," she said. "There is enough independence to assure there's not bias and that the protocol is good."

Most Division I and II schools test their athletes, Wilfert said, and each sets its own rules. The NCAA, she said, has not considered mandating procedures.

"If a school decided to go ahead and do their own testing, that falls under institutional autonomy," she said. "The NCAA does not have a position on institutional testing."

Practices at Tech

Just after lunch one day each week, 25 Georgia Tech athletes get the word: Report for a drug test between 5 and 7:30 that evening.

The short notice acts as a deterrent, Tech officials say, since most illegal drugs stay in a user's system for two to three days (or longer, in the case of marijuana).

Before the current school year, the tests took place every Tuesday; by then, most drugs ingested over the weekend would be undetectable. Now the tests may occur any day, although typically they fall during the school week.

Because their names are selected at random, any of Tech's approximately 350 athletes may be ordered to take multiple tests during the school year.

Or they could elude testing altogether.

"The likelihood of one getting selected doesn't change," said Griffin. "Everybody who gets picked gets thrown back into the pool every week."

Athletes who test positive are screened more frequently and face suspension after a second positive test. Although a third brings a suspension, the coach and the athletic director can reinstate an athlete after one year, regardless of test results during that time.

"I would expect they would consider what happened in the interim," Griffin said. "But that authority is certainly there."

Tech's policy also calls for testing athletes on teams that qualify for post-season tournaments, as well as any athlete whose behavior arouses suspicion of drug use.

Michael Hutts' father has been quoted as saying his son had engaged in "drug experimentation."

Tech officials won't say whether they ordered additional tests for Hutts. For all athletes, Griffin said, tests and results are "protected information."

Griffin described Tech's testing program as "constantly evolving and updating" — and effective.

"I think it represents the best practices in college athletics."