Historically, higher education has a goal of moral character development. The National Collegiate Athletic Association has explicitly stated goals based on the notion that sport participation develops one's moral character. Because higher education and the NCAA show goals of moral character development, it is of interest to what extent higher education and intercollegiate sport meet their goals of moral character development. The purpose of this study was to examine the general moral reasoning of Division I college student athletes and athletic training students compared with their moral reasoning about doping in sport as one measure of character development. In this study, 195 male and female athletic training students(ATS) and student athletes (IS = individual sport; TS = team sport) from various Division I sports voluntarily completed two surveys (10 athletes did not answer all questions on the EAMCI and were removed from the analysis = 95% return). The HBVCI (Cronbach alpha .77-.88) measures moral reasoning with relationship to scenarios common in all aspects of sport. The EAMCI, currently in its second pilot stage, was used to measure moral reasoning of individuals with specific reference to issues of doping in sport. No significant difference was found by group, F(2,183) =.50, p =.61 on the HBVCI (ATS = 31.46 ± 5.2; Individual Sport = 29.46 ± 8.88; Team Sport = 29.01 ± 9.43). Scores range from 12 – 60; the higher the score the more principled moral reasoning used to make decisions. A small significant difference was found by group on the EAMCI, F(2,173) =3.03, p =.05, partial eta 2 = .031 (ATS = 8.73 ± 1.28; IS = 8.15, ± 1.5; TS = 7.93 ± 1.46). Scores range from 5-10; the higher the score the more individuals use moral principles relative to anti-doping decisions in sport. Because doping is illegal, is not supported by the NATA Code of Ethics, and athletic trainers have a role in anti-doping education, one would expect athletic training students to choose scenario options of “not to dope” and to score significantly higher in moral reasoning. Although a significant difference was found by group concerning doping, effect size shows no practical importance. It appears that the stated mission of higher education and intercollegiate athletics to develop character may not be supported in practice and that higher education and athletic training programs may want to examine how students learn to make moral decisions. Keyword(s): athletic training, coaching, standards and ethics