Senate Bill that might make it on Drug Testing

[ACM Dad]

http://www.brazossports.com/stories/032807/football_20070328022.php


My only big concern is that there are a lot of legal supplements that you can buy at GNC that might cause a kid to fail. I'd hope they would give out a huge list of possible things that could fail a kid.

Getting big brother involved in anything scares me a touch. But, steroids in young people scare me more. So, I'd have to support the idea of random testing with safeguards.

[DrEdward]

"Although previous testing bills have failed under objections over costs to local school districts, the Senate proposal would have the state pay the estimated $4 million per year."

These costs are still going to be paid by us as taxpayers. The fact that the money is going to be paid by the "State" would seem to ignore where the state gets the funds from in the first place. There are still school districts being ordered to subsidize other districts, yet the state can suddenly find an additional $4 million to spend on a new mandate? Why wasn't that money spent on education in the first place? Oh well. It is not that I necessarily oppose random drug testing of students involved in extracurricular activities, but if we are going to do this testing program, at least have the common sense to test for the vastly more commonly used drugs and not just the far less frequently used steroids.

[PackAttack2005]

Lufkin is way ahead on this deal. They have drug tested, not randomly, student athletes for 10 years and started random steroid testing last year. This bill won't change anything for the LP program.

[KT2000]

Oh well. It is not that I necessarily oppose random drug testing of students involved in extracurricular activities, but if we are going to do this testing program, at least have the common sense to test for the vastly more commonly used drugs and not just the far less frequently used steroids.

I agree with that statement. There are things kids can pull off the Internet these days that are just as effective and powerful as steroids.

The idea of "randomly" testing athletes hasn't gone over well with me. If it's going to be done, I want to see it done across the board but recognize the cost involved with that is greater than many schools can afford.

[ken-in-rockwall]

Currently in Rockwall (only know about 7/8th level athletics at this point), if the kids are in the "DFYIT - Drug Free Youth in Texas" they are tested.

At all schools every other week there are drug dogs that go through the school (lockers-outside and athletic), class rooms and hang out in the hallways as kids are walking to class to check out the kids.

Personally, I hope that each athlete gets tested not random testing.. Let's see--parents paying for protecting their kids now or paying to clean them up and helping them later in life.:rolleyes:

[FeeltheHaka]

I agree with that statement. There are things kids can pull off the Internet these days that are just as effective and powerful as steroids.

The idea of "randomly" testing athletes hasn't gone over well with me. If it's going to be done, I want to see it done across the board but recognize the cost involved with that is greater than many schools can afford.

What can anyone pull off the internet that is as powerful as steroids, besides steroids themselves?

[drgnbkr]

What can anyone pull off the internet that is as powerful as steroids, besides steroids themselves?

If he told you, he'd have to kill ya!:p

[KT2000]

What can anyone pull off the internet that is as powerful as steroids, besides steroids themselves?

There are more and more steroid "alternatives" becoming available. Almost too many to list. I sent you a PM with a few links.

[unbiasedobserver]

I like the idea. I am with ACM Dad, the government involvement is bad, but the steroids are worse. If testing eliminates the temptation to start, then certainly the benefits outweigh the negatives. If as we all state on this board that the student atheletes are the leaders of the High Schools, then why not hold them to a higher standard than the general population. Testing students invovled in extracurricular activities makes sense if they are the ones others look to imitate.

[LoneRocket]

http://www.brazossports.com/stories/032807/football_20070328022.php


My only big concern is that there are a lot of legal supplements that you can buy at GNC that might cause a kid to fail. I'd hope they would give out a huge list of possible things that could fail a kid.

Getting big brother involved in anything scares me a touch. But, steroids in young people scare me more. So, I'd have to support the idea of random testing with safeguards.

I wonder if the state is going to handle the testing or if they are going to out source it to a testing lab, which might had given a donation to a politician.

[LoneRocket]

http://www.brazossports.com/stories/032807/football_20070328022.php


My only big concern is that there are a lot of legal supplements that you can buy at GNC that might cause a kid to fail. I'd hope they would give out a huge list of possible things that could fail a kid.

Getting big brother involved in anything scares me a touch. But, steroids in young people scare me more. So, I'd have to support the idea of random testing with safeguards.

Just test everybody on the top 5 teams in a district before the playoffs start and if one player of positive the team forfeits.

[FeeltheHaka]

As I've gotten older, I've kind of changed my views on how much Government should be involved on things. I'm not trying to go off on a tangent, as I feel this relates to the topic. I think when it comes to certain things such as this; we need to look at if the benefit outweighs privacy, and getting Government involved. In this case, In my opinion; the benefit outweighs the risk. If we don't like it, then we can always go back to the way it is now.

[KattTx]

As I've gotten older, I've kind of changed my views on how much Government should be involved on things. I'm not trying to go off on a tangent, as I feel this relates to the topic. I think when it comes to certain things such as this; we need to look at if the benefit outweighs privacy, and getting Government involved. In this case, In my opinion; the benefit outweighs the risk. If we don't like it, then we can always go back to the way it is now.

I agree that the government does not have cause to step into this arena. DOT, OSHA, etc.. I can understand government involvement as there are risks to public safety, commerce, etc.. This is not a government issue, at least not at the state level.

I do however think that testing should be in our athletic programs. The UIL could institute the requirement. If a school doesn't want to - then they don't have to participate in UIL activities. It would become a voluntary issue.

Imo it should be a set test at the beginning of each season (regardless of sport) and then random throughout the remainder of the season and off-season. Also, I think the tests should be follicle tests and not urine. Punishment should not affect the entire team unless a percentage plane is broken. A single kid trying to gain an advantage doesn't assume the coaching staff is even aware of the use. The individual should be dealt with. That could entail something like a period of suspension, SAC, and a testing schedule for a certain time. And, of course, all of this would be if we lived in a state with unlimited funds to appropriate for an effective testing program. ;)

[drgnbkr]

I agree that the government does not have cause to step into this arena. DOT, OSHA, etc.. I can understand government involvement as there are risks to public safety, commerce, etc.. This is not a government issue, at least not at the state level.

I do however think that testing should be in our athletic programs. The UIL could institute the requirement. If a school doesn't want to - then they don't have to participate in UIL activities. It would become a voluntary issue.

Imo it should be a set test at the beginning of each season (regardless of sport) and then random throughout the remainder of the season and off-season. Also, I think the tests should be follicle tests and not urine. Punishment should not affect the entire team unless a percentage plane is broken. A single kid trying to gain an advantage doesn't assume the coaching staff is even aware of the use. The individual should be dealt with. That could entail something like a period of suspension, SAC, and a testing schedule for a certain time. And, of course, all of this would be if we lived in a state with unlimited funds to appropriate for an effective testing program. ;)

Sounds like a good suggestion.

[DrEdward]

I agree that the government does not have cause to step into this arena. DOT, OSHA, etc.. I can understand government involvement as there are risks to public safety, commerce, etc.. This is not a government issue, at least not at the state level.

I do however think that testing should be in our athletic programs. The UIL could institute the requirement. If a school doesn't want to - then they don't have to participate in UIL activities. It would become a voluntary issue.

Imo it should be a set test at the beginning of each season (regardless of sport) and then random throughout the remainder of the season and off-season. Also, I think the tests should be follicle tests and not urine. Punishment should not affect the entire team unless a percentage plane is broken. A single kid trying to gain an advantage doesn't assume the coaching staff is even aware of the use. The individual should be dealt with. That could entail something like a period of suspension, SAC, and a testing schedule for a certain time. And, of course, all of this would be if we lived in a state with unlimited funds to appropriate for an effective testing program. ;)

I also get a bit nervous on the issue of the government at any level getting involved in what is a medical procedure. This is the case, even when it is outsourced to a private company to do the testing, as it surely will be - probably more than a single company. Now I am no expert on drug testing, but in the case of steroids, if that really is the concern, I am under the understanding that their detection involves drawing blood, not simply a hair or urine test. That is the reason that the costs of testing for the presence of steroids increases so rapidly from testing for other illegal substances. (But is we are going to do this, then by all means, test for the other illegal substnaces at the same time, assuming that the purpose is to protect and defer the student from using illegal substances. Damn, that sounds like search without probable cause to me.) That cost level is one of the principal reasons that it is simply economically infeasible for the state to test every student involved in any sort of extracurricular activity. So we are left with a random sampling basis as the alternative.

[KattTx]

I also get a bit nervous on the issue of the government at any level getting involved in what is a medical procedure. This is the case, even when it is outsourced to a private company to do the testing, as it surely will be - probably more than a single company. Now I am no expert on drug testing, but in the case of steroids, if that really is the concern, I am under the understanding that their detection involves drawing blood, not simply a hair or urine test. That is the reason that the costs of testing for the presence of steroids increases so rapidly from testing for other illegal substances. (But is we are going to do this, then by all means, test for the other illegal substnaces at the same time, assuming that the purpose is to protect and defer the student from using illegal substances. Damn, that sounds like search without probable cause to me.) That cost level is one of the principal reasons that it is simply economically infeasible for the state to test every student involved in any sort of extracurricular activity. So we are left with a random sampling basis as the alternative.

I don't feel like it's searching without cause - because the kid is submitting to the search in order to participate. Don't want to be tested - don't participate.

As far as the testing methods...heck in looking at just two or three sites - it's a little overwhelming. :eek: If you are only dealing with steroids, there is blood and urine testing (found no reference to follicle use in this area).

But according to WADA (world anti-doping agency) performance enhancing efforts aren't relegated only to anabolic steroids. They extend into blood transfusions to enhance oxygen efficiency, drugs that mask the presence of banned substances, and on the horizon - gene doping. Yeah, I can see where the cost and scope of testing would be seriously prohibitive. Also - WADA doesn't depend solely on forensic testing. They also use searches of athletes homes and posessions. I guess this is an issue that could easily become seriously complex and murky. And still dependent on funding that just isn't there....:cool: