Pubdate: Mon, 16 Jul 2012
Source: Register-Guard, The (OR)
Copyright: 2012 The Register-Guard
Contact: http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion/#contribute-a-letter
Website: http://www.registerguard.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/362

RANDOM TESTS HAVE PITFALLS

Drug Testing With Cause May Be Best For UO Athletes

The University of Oregon, stung by an ESPN report of widespread
marijuana use by members of its Rose Bowl-winning football team, is
considering a program of random drug testing for student-athletes. Any
such program must avoid creating false confidence that the problem of
illegal drug abuse has been solved. And the primary aim of testing
must be to promote student-athletes' health and well-being, not to
protect the university's reputation. With those purposes in mind, the
UO may conclude that a more vigilant application of its current policy
of testing with cause would best serve the university and its athletes.

The UO clearly has the legal right to conduct random tests, and many
universities do so already. The U.S. Supreme Court settled questions
about whether such tests constitute unreasonable searches or are
violations of due process in a 1995 case arising from the Vernonia
School District in Oregon. School officials can require athletes to
submit to drug testing as a condition of their participation in
sports. The UO's legal position is even stronger than that of a high
school, particularly in regard to athletes receiving
scholarships.

But there are doubts about the effectiveness of random drug testing --
and the doubts were raised, just as the legal questions were settled,
in Oregon. Last year researchers at the Oregon Health & Science
University conducted the first clinical trial of random drug and
alcohol testing in schools. The study found that the testing programs
made no difference in athletes' rates of drug and alcohol use. What's
more, athletes at schools with drug testing programs, on average,
perceived their school authorities as being less opposed to drug use.

Both findings seem counterintuitive, until a couple of possibilities
are taken into account. First, testing may make little difference in
rates of drug use because athletes' reasons for using illegal drugs
are powerful enough to overcome the fear of the consequences that
would follow a failed test. This would help explain unchanged drug use
rates -- obviously, an athlete who takes illegal drugs has already
failed to be deterred by the risk of arrest. Drug testing is just one
more deterrent, and not the strongest one, that can be brushed aside
for reasons ranging from peer pressure to addiction.

Second, athletes who are subject to random drug tests may feel their
schools don't care about illegal drug abuse because the testing
programs become a substitute for other efforts. Administrators
institute random drug testing, and then, overtly or implicitly,
communicate the message that they've done all they need to do about
athletes' drug problems.

A third factor must be considered: The ESPN report concerned
marijuana. That's the drug most likely to show up in random drug
tests, because its fat-soluble matabolites can be detected for longer
periods. The UO would not want to inadvertently encourage its athletes
to favor more dangerous drugs, such as cocaine or methamphetamine,
that metabolize more quickly.

Any program of random drug testing at the UO would need to pass a
threshold test: Will it help student-athletes?

That's the clear aim of the university's current anti-drug efforts,
which respond to signs of drug abuse among athletes with counseling,
followed by a series of sanctions. The UO needs to ask itself whether
what's needed is more testing, or a more active response to real
evidence of drug use. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D