Bud Held, 81, and his partner Nadine O'Connor, 67, bought property to construct their own pole vaulting pit and Held will coach O'Connor in the seven events she is entered in at USA Masters Outdoor Track and Field Championships this week. O'Connor holds the world record in the pole vault for women 55 and older 10 feet, 4 ¾ inches, but O'Connor is still a spring chicken compared to the three 95-year-old men entered into this year's championship.

Held was a 1952 Olympian in the javelin at the Summer Games in Helsinki but may be kept on the sidelines this year due to recent surgeries and injuries.

Keep track of how this duo does at usatf.org.

The student-athlete had been removed from practice to stretch after complaints of cramping and collapsed after rejoining the team. The cause of his death is still very much unclear and it is unknown if the he had any pre-existing conditions that contributed to his death.

Stories like those from Western Carolina underscore a problem faced by many athletics programs: How do you protect student-athletes from the vast variety of ailments that could result in death or serious injury?

We've argued before on this blog that all student-athletes should undergo heart testing to prevent complications from unknown defects. But, is testing for the heart and other issues the answer, or do we also need to better train and equip our athletics staffs?

Rashidi Wheeler, who collapsed in August of 2001 during an off-season practice with his Northwestern football squad, was only 22-years-old when he experienced a fatal exercise-induced asthma attack. According to UWire, Wheeler's father, George Wheeler, has since created the National Sport Safety Organization and works to ensure necessary safety precautions are taken during competition and at practice. Wheeler has worked with paramedic professionals to come up with an NSSO Sports Safety Kit, which includes some essentials, including a defibrillator.

There are also common sense guidelines that coaches should remain diligent about, especially during hot summer workouts.

Last year the death of a Kentucky high school student-athlete, Max Gilpen, sparked a debate over proper training and hydration in extreme heat. Although a recent report investigating the case found that the coaching staff adhered to the rules and regulations of heat safety as spelled out by the Kentucky High School Athletic Association (KHSAA), Gilpen's death and the subsequent backlash against the school should serve as a warning to schools tempted to walk the line between safe and unsafe behaviors.

For his part the Jefferson County Public Schools Supt. Sheldon Berman (the district where Gilpen competed) announced changes that will have wide-ranging impact on Kentucky schools including:

• Expediting the new KHSAA rule requiring assistant coaches to join head coaches in attending approved sports safety courses;
• Requiring that each athlete and a parent attend a seminar on healthy habits, nutritional recommendations, injury prevention and treatment, medication and supplement use, and heat- related guidelines; and
• Requiring that every JCPS athlete list all non-prescription medications and supplements he or she is taking; this list is to be reviewed by the physician who conducts the student's physical examination prior to athletic activity.

So, what can be learned from these tragedies? How can we protect student-athletes in the future?

According to scores of media reports over the last two months, the NBA's rule that a young man must be out of high school a year and at least 19 years old to enter its draft - termed by most as the one-and-done rule - is the ruination of college basketball. Others decry it as a violation of some sacred right to professionalize oneself regardless of whether one is ready to do so or not.

Despite the dire warnings of the conspiracy theorists, this is the NBA rule; not the NCAA rule. It is the result of a collective bargaining agreement between the NBA and its players' association (otherwise the rule likely would be illegal). The NCAA neither had nor has any role to play in either the original creation or any future amendment of the rule.

Other than all the articles written, it has little impact on the college game.

"But wait," shout the naysayers, "What about the fact that the rule guarantees there will be basketball players - student-athletes - who have no intention of being students and even stop going to classes their second semester? And what about the fact that some may cheat to become eligible for their required one year?"

The problem with the majority of the media reports is that they focus on the same two or three examples and fail to point out that the number of one-and-doners is no more than a handful in any one year.

To be honest, the one-and-done rule is not perfect. It creates a few examples of disingenuous matriculation on the part of young men who would rather have bypassed college to play basketball at a professional level. But for the life of me, I can't see that the rule has increased the number of such examples.

The overwhelming majority of male college basketball players who yearn for "the league" realize the college game will improve their chances of being successful as professional players. Most, but not all, will stay until they have their degree (although increasingly they return get it), but we don't find fault with musicians who leave early for "the pros" or entrepreneurs who forgo a degree for the fortunes of a new business enterprise.

I would prefer that all who enter college stay to earn a degree or return to do so. As an educator for more than 40 years, I'm convinced they will be happier, be more productive, and be better citizens if they do. But not all will...whether they are student-athletes or not.

And it should be noted that there are other opportunities for those elite few basketball standouts who just don't want to go to college. They can take the European route, or they can enter the NBA's developmental league. They should seriously consider those alternatives.

And as for the cheaters?

Well, they're cheaters. Do we really think the one-and-done rule made them that way?

Let's be clear on a few points:

• If I understand David Stern's unambiguous message, the rule is a business decision on the part of the NBA. It no longer wants to risk large bonuses on high school graduates who may or may not be pro ready. Sounds right.

• The players association members may have seen that there is more salary to distribute to the proven talented if less is spent on unproven speculation.

• And even though the NCAA has no dog in this fight, I have been clear that I like the fact the rule reminds most high school boys that they can't just write off their education. The rule tends to keep the heads of a larger number of young basketball athletes in their books long enough at least to prepare them for a potential college opportunity.

What I would like even more is an NBA rule (Did I mention that only the NBA and its players association, not the NCAA, can amend the rule?) that requires two years out of high school before entering the draft. In my mind, it would improve the situation for the college game and enhance the business benefits for the NBA.

The marketability of the stars would be increased in that they would be better known before beginning their professional careers. They would also be further along in their physical and skill development. Good things for the NBA.

From the college perspective, there are clear advantages. Even if players leave after a year and a half, it is likely they would have attended two summer sessions (one before the start of their freshman year to address any deficiencies and one between their freshman and sophomore years). That's five semesters and a lot further down the road than the one-and-done allows.

It would also mean that high school basketball athletes would come to college much better prepared, and those who just don't want the college experience may more seriously consider other opportunities.

To be sure, a two-year rule will not resolve all the problems, even though it is an improvement. The recruiting environment will not change simply by moving to a 20-year-old age rule. To fix that, and related issues, the NCAA will need to strongly enhance its enforcement.

Third parties will still hang around programs, perhaps for longer periods of time. The trouble that such parties can get young athletes - and colleges and universities - into is not to be taken lightly. Enforcement, including at state and federal levels, is still the answer.

I have no idea how the next round of collective bargaining between the NBA and players' association will go. The age-limitation rule is in their hands. I'm not as opposed to the one-year rule as many others are. There are some disadvantages, but there are also some clear advantages.

A two-year limitation makes more sense to me. It does better what the one-year rule was intended to do from both the NBA and collegiate perspectives.

Of one thing I'm certain regardless of what those two parties do.

It will not mean the demise of civilization. But the pundits will likely tell you to get under shelter because the sky is falling.