. Green et al. (1995) researched if there were psychological factors associated with alcohol use or non-use by high school athletes. They found that anger was a significant difference between athletes who use alcohol and those who don't. There were no other significant psychological differences found. The three main reasons athletes gave for drinking were "to have a good time with friends," to "celebrate," and to "make one feel good." Tricker et al. (1989) looked at why college athletes are at risk for drug abuse and effective drug prevention programs. They felt that drug prevention programs should try to improve the overall health of the student athlete along with deterring drug use. Also the drug education process should include more than just giving information and threatening athletes with negative consequences of drug use. Its been found that using sanctions and rules as a deterrent only influences a small number of athletes while the majority continue their drug use patterns.Leichliter et al. (1998) compared alcohol use, binge drinking, and substance abuse related consequences among non-athletes and athletes (including intramural athletics). Male and female athletes consumed significantly more alcohol per week, engaged in binge drinking more often, and suffered more adverse consequences from their substance abuse. Team leaders were found to be no more responsible in using alcohol compared to their teammates. In fact male captains drank more alcohol, binged more often, and suffered more consequences than their team members.Evans et al. (1992) investigated possible psychological factors associated with drug use by college athletes and compared athlete drug users to non-users. They found high alcohol users had significantly higher score on anger, fatigue, and vigor tests. When compared to females in the high use group for alcohol, those in the low/no use group felt more pressure from coaches to perform well. Overall, h...
