Welcome, Guest!
Drug testing? No problem if you’re innocent
Published: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 10:42am
Next year, if you’re a varsity athlete, you may be forced to take a test a bit different from the ones for history or math class. A drug test.
This week the IHSA — the organization that governs Illinois high school sports — approved random testing of athletes for performance-enhancing drugs starting in 2008-09.
The policy applies to student-athletes who compete in the postseason, which, given how most IHSA sports organize their playoff systems, means almost anyone on a varsity team could be tested for banned substances.
I’m not sure if this applies to people on the chess team, but otherwise, this ruling makes perfect sense.
The sports world in general has been a lot tougher on their athletes lately. The Mitchell Report brought light to one of the darkest problems in baseball, and proved even Roger Clemens is not above the law. Only yesterday, Congress held a hearing regarding performance-enhancing drugs in baseball. And now this.
The vast majority of athletes at the high school level don’t use illegal PEDs, I’d be more than willing to bet. But some do, and this ruling should be one more step in the right direction. Sure, a lot of innocent people will take the test, and it may be annoying, but it proves your innocence, at least. Some young people may take steroids or other PEDs to succeed at the next level, so this recent anti-PED media craze has enforced the message that if you cheat, you will get caught.
I agree with the majority (as of now) who voted for the first option in this Gargoyle poll. To those who voted that it’s unnecessary, it’s necessary for whoever does take PEDs, however small that population of students is (though it probably isn't necessary for chess).
I suppose I can sympathize with whoever doesn't have an opinion, but to those who think it's an invasion of privacy I say: Deal with it. There's only one way to prove your innocence, and by not wanting to take a test, you're implying that you may be guilty.
Just take the test.
Comments
Random Testing and Civil Liberties
Chris -- great article and I respect your reasoned approach. However, maybe there are a few things you haven't considered. First, why should high school athletes have fewer rights than other groups when it comes to drug testing? Normally the government cannot conduct a search (a drug test is a type of search for Constitutional purposes) without probable cause unless it has a "special need" and the way the search is conducted balances the individual interest against intrusion with the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. The Supreme Court has consistently held that maintaining order in schools is a legitimate government interest that outweighs nearly all interest students might have in maintaining their privacy. However, even government workers can't be subject to random drug testing unless they are in "safety sensitive" positions like operating heavy equipment, or particular jobs like law enforcement drug interdiction. And Major League baseball players are only subject to drug testing because they agreed to it as part of their labor agreement, not because it is required by law.
Second, your approach turns our normal assumptions upside down; normally we assume people are innocent until proven guilty. Why should high school athletes have to take a drug test to prove they aren't taking PEDs when, as you state, only a small number of them are probably taking such drugs? Even the Mitchell Report only uncovered evidence (sometimes unreliable or suspect) that a very small percentage of players were taking drugs.
Finally, many drug-free athletes might prefer to maintain their privacy and not have to take a drug test, even if that means that people might assume they are taking drugs. For instance, athletes might not want to take a drug test because it could reveal other private information, such as the presence of a health condition or that they are taking particular legal medications. Intrusions into privacy are frequently necessary to meet legitimate governmental interests, but even in the case of random drug testing there is a price to that intrusion.
Like any audit.
It's just like how the IRS randomly audits some people just to say accurate, on average. If you know there is a possibility you will get audited, you'll be more likely to ensure your tax returns are filed correctly and accurately. If you know there is a chance you'll get your license suspended (or into an accident? or killed?) for DUI, you're less likely to drive drunk. If there is a chance you could get caught taking illegal performance enhancing drugs, people will be deterred from taking them. And the system could be a blind system where the person is not associated with the sample analysis unless PEDs are indicated by the test.
American Academy of Pediatrics JUST SAYS NO to drug testing
The viewpoints of Chris and Isaac are well taken, and they reflect conventional wisdom. However, recent studies have led policy-making groups to revise recommendations re testing for drugs, including those that pose greatest risk to teens:
"March 7, 2007 — The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued guidelines recommending that at-home and school-based drug testing of adolescents not be done until more research is conducted, according to an addendum statement published in the March issue of Pediatrics.
"The American Academy of Pediatrics continues to believe that adolescents should not be drug tested without their knowledge and consent," write John R. Knight, MD, and colleagues from the Committee on Substance Abuse and Council on School Health. "Recent US Supreme Court decisions and market forces have resulted in recommendations for drug testing of adolescents at school and products for parents to use to test adolescents at home. The American Academy of Pediatrics has strong reservations about testing adolescents at school or at home and believes that more research is needed on both safety and efficacy before school-based testing programs are implemented."
The AAP also suggests that more adolescent-specific substance abuse treatment resources are needed so that testing will result in early rehabilitation rather than only punitive measures.
These guidelines update a policy statement issued in 1996 and reaffirmed in 2006, which opposed involuntary testing of adolescents for drugs of abuse and also stated that laboratory testing for drugs under any circumstances is improper unless the patient and clinician can be assured that the test procedure is valid and reliable and that patient confidentiality is ensured.
Since a 1995 US Supreme Court ruling that random drug testing of high school athletes is constitutional, national interest in school-based drug testing has increased. In June 2002, the US Supreme Court ruled that public schools can perform random drug tests on all middle and high school students participating in extracurricular activities. Shortly thereafter, the President's Office of National Drug Control Policy published a guidebook encouraging schools to incorporate drug-testing policies for all students.
The AAP Committee on Substance Abuse reviewed available data on drug testing of adolescents and concluded that much has been written about the advantages and disadvantages of testing adolescents for drugs, but relatively little has been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
A comparison of 2 schools, only 1 of which implemented a mandatory drug-testing program for student athletes, showed that the use of illicit drugs was significantly lower among athletes who were drug tested, but that these athletes also experienced an increase in known risk factors for drug use, including an increase in normative views of use, belief in lower risk for use, and poorer attitudes toward the school.
In a larger observational study, there was no association between school-based drug testing and students' reports of drug use, and drug testing was not significantly associated with reduction in the use of marijuana or any other illicit drug among students in any grade studied. However, the AAP committee notes that a single observational study is insufficient to establish causation or lack of causation....
Key recommendations in the updated guidelines are as follows:
Both the safety and efficacy of school- and home-based drug testing of adolescents should undergo rigorous scientific study.
School- and home-based drug testing should not be implemented before safety and efficacy are established and adequate substance abuse evaluation and treatment services are available.
Rather than rely on school-based drug screening or home drug-testing products, parents who are concerned that their child may be using drugs or alcohol should consult their child's primary care clinician or other healthcare professional.
Healthcare professionals who obtain drug tests or assist others in interpreting the results of drug tests should be knowledgeable about the relevant technical aspects and limitations of the procedures.
Potential benefits of school- and home-based drug testing are increased number of adolescents who are screened for use of drugs of abuse and the potential for providing early intervention and treatment services to more adolescents diagnosed with substance abuse and/or dependence.
'Proponents of drug testing also claim that the existence of a school- or home-based drug-testing program will help adolescents refuse drugs and provide legitimate reasons to resist peer pressure to use drugs, although these claims are not yet proven," the authors write. "On the negative side, drug testing poses substantial risks — in particular, the risk of harming the parent-child and school-child relationships by creating an environment of resentment, distrust, and suspicion.'
Pediatrics. 2007;119:1-4."
From http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/553260?sssdmh=dm1.333040&src=nldne
Perhaps the IHSA should reconsider this policy.
Students would know about testing
You implied that students would not be aware of the drug testing. While the testing would be random, presumably the students would know that they are going to be tested... unless the IHSA wants to hire urination detectives to track and recover pee samples in secret.
As a teen myself, I really don't see this as an invation of privacy or a trust issue.
This is private health information. Be careful who gets it.
New Guidelines Recommend Against Drug Testing of Teens in School, Home
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/553260?sssdmh=dm1.333040&src=nldne
Post new comment