A Test Case Mandatory Random Drug Testing Of Athletes In Priest River Is Considered A Huge Success. Should It Be Expanded To Include Sandpoint?
Mandatory drug testing of athletes has been an overwhelming success at Priest River Lamanna High School. The program has been in place for three years now, and not a single student-athlete has tested positive.
The difference in attitudes toward teen drug abuse in our small, tightly knit community is not quite “night and day,” but it’s close. In our school, the athletes tend to be the leaders. Because of their commitment to remain drug-free, other members of the student body are getting a positive, anti-drug message.
In addition, the community’s financial support for the athletic programs has improved, as has attendance at our sporting events. I heartily endorse the Bonner County School District’s plan to introduce drug testing to Sandpoint High.
Our program is modeled after one at a high school in Vernonia, Ore., that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. In our school, each athlete is required to pay $12 for their first test at the beginning of their first sport’s season. After that, our school’s drug prevention fund pays for four students a week to be tested. The athletes are chosen at random to be tested by an independent agency, which collects the samples during the lunch period. The tests are mailed to a laboratory in Texas, which calls with the results within 48 hours.
The tests screen for cocaine, marijuana and amphetamines. It will cost us about $1,800 this year, which I consider money well-spent. Testing for alcohol, which has been mentioned, is expensive and ineffective because of the speed in which the body metabolizes the alcohol. Besides, this is a small community, and word gets around when someone’s been drinking.
I know the system is not perfect. Some kids probably are using drugs in the off-season, and we’ve had a few kids not turn out for sports because of the testing. But most kids accept it and deal with it.
When I first became athletic director, it was pretty apparent to the faculty and members of the community that a number of the student-athletes were not abiding by the conduct code.
We knew that marijuana, in particular, was being abused. So we began meeting with community groups and students to talk about what to do.
We received tremendous support from the Safe Homes Citizens Group and from Tony Lamanna, our school resource officer. The school board, after lengthy deliberation and consultation with its attorney, approved our drug-testing program on a trial basis.
There are no parental waivers to this program. You either test or you don’t participate. It’s a privilege to participate in school sports, it’s not a right. And we know, that for some kids, this program isn’t going to stop them from using drugs. But while they’re athletes, they’re clean.
* Ron Hopkins is principal and athletic director at Priest River Lamanna High School.
At a glance Reasons for and against drug tests Excerpted from Human Kinetics Here’s a brief overview of some of the commonly perceived benefits and drawbacks to drug testing athletes. Benefits of drug testing * Easier to detect drug use among athletes. For some athletes, their superior physical abilities may mask any decline in performance. These factors may make detecting drug use difficult. With technological advances, drug testing can provide an additional and, sometimes, more definitive method of detecting the use of controlled or illegal substances. * May be a deterrent. The threat of positive detection and the resulting consequences may deter or prevent some individuals from using these substances. A rule has a more deterrent effect if there is consistent enforcement. Drug testing may boost the athletes’ perceptions that they are likely to be found out if they violate a rule. * Levels the playing field. Testing for substances that may alter performance is done to ensure that competitive events are won or lost because of the physical and mental skills of the athletes rather than by an advantage gained from drug use. If drugs enhance performance, prohibiting their use and testing for them may be a way to eliminate the possible advantage that an opponent may gain by using them. * Identification and referral. Drug testing may be used to identify and refer for appropriate help those individuals who may be having problems with the use of drugs. Some programs also use drug testing to ensure that an athlete remains free of the use of drugs after returning from a treatment program or after having been previously found to be using illegal drugs.
Drawbacks of testing * Mixed messages. Schools rarely test for all drugs, including tobacco and alcohol (the most commonly used drugs by adolescents). Focusing only on illicit drugs may give the message that these are the only drugs that concern the school. Testing based on a belief that drugs enhance performance also can send the message that to perform better, an athlete should consider using performance-altering drugs. * Negative reaction. Even those who are supportive of a prevention, education or intervention program may be opposed to drug testing because they perceive that it violates an individual’s rights. Some athletes say that drug testing makes them feel that they are guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Thus, testing may be viewed as a punitive measure for those suspected of use and is likely to be met with opposition. * Drug testing can be divisive. Consider how a drug-testing program can interfere with the underlying climate that you are working to establish through prevention efforts: a caring community, respect for students and cooperation among staff, students and families. Drug testing can create a barrier among athletes, their parents, and the school. Drug testing can pit administration and staff against students, as well as place the administration against coaches who do not believe in testing. Drug testing can set one group — athletes — against other groups in the school. Unless students who are involved in other cocurricular activities are tested, what are we saying about athletes? * Cost. Testing many students for all drugs is expensive. Money may have to be diverted from more positive prevention approaches. * Labeling athletes. People can come to the wrong conclusions based on the results of the tests — whether positive or negative. These erroneous conclusions can be harmful to individual athletes and prevention efforts. When tests come back positive, people can make the assumption that an athlete is addicted to drugs. When tests come back negative, people can assume that the athlete is a nonuser. In fact, the only thing that these tests show is whether or not an athlete was using a particular drug during a particular time frame. For some drugs, such as alcohol, the time frame can be extremely short. * The above material was excerpted by permission of Human Kinetics, Champaign, Ill., from “Coaches Guide to Drugs and Sport” by Kevin R. Ringhofer, P.h.D., and Martha E. Harding. Copyright 1996 by Human Kinetics. Available in bookstores or by calling (800) 747-4457. $18.95 plus shipping/handling.