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