Steroid Testing Actually Begins

[DrEdward]

After talking about it for some time now, the UIL has actually initiated its program of randomly selecting schools and athletes to test for steroid use.


Trinity gets the distinction of being one of the first to be selected and tested. Evidently, Trinity was notified this past Tuesday of the tests and the testing began at 8 a.m. Thursday for about 90 randomly chosen students. I don't know the make-up of the those tested as to boys or girls or by their sport.

Also selected for testing were about 55 students at Fossil Ridge and another 50+ at Palo Duro who were tested Wednesday.

So off we go!

[TrojanHorse03]

Here's the link http://texasprepxtra.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=786297 .

[T's UP 93]

My son attends Euless Jr. High and told me that he knows of 6-8 girls soccer players that were tested. They were 9th graders.:eek::eek:

[TXFOOSBALL]

Will results be public?

[DrEdward]

Will results be public?

I am sure that the results of any individual will be private. However, if athletes suddenly disappear from line-ups, the speculation will certainly begin, justifiably or not. Over time, however, the number of positive test results will almost certainly become well known.

[SMC020]

Judson has already started also.

[HebronHawk]

I am sure that the results of any individual will be private. However, if athletes suddenly disappear from line-ups, the speculation will certainly begin, justifiably or not. Over time, however, the number of positive test results will almost certainly become well known.

I guess we won't know if it was grades or steroids unless the school hasn't been tested yet.

The LISD distributed their student pamphlet last week on the random drug testing.

[Mustangman21]

they've been doing it in gcisd for 3 years now

[SLC93]

As many of us have discussed previously, this is all a colossal waste of time and resources. Do not be puzzled when no kids test positive. We have multiple states from across the nation, including another football big in Florida, that have been testing for several years now with exactly zero positive tests. I am not naive enough to think that means no kids are using. I am perceptive enough to know that the percentage of kids using versus the cost is beyond ridiculous. So many other areas of our educational system could benefit on such a larger scale with these funds.

[DrEdward]

they've been doing it in gcisd for 3 years now

Since to a degree, the Colleyville expose was one of the key factors responsible for kicking off the legislation which has resulted in this program by the UIL, how many kids have been tested positive for steroids in the past three years? If there have been any, it sure has been kept quiet, ao I assume the answer is zero.

[trojanbacker]

I will continue to hold to the wildly unpopular belief that if the testing saves one kid's life, then it's worth it. There are some things you can't put a price on.

[DrEdward]

I will continue to hold to the wildly unpopular belief that if the testing saves one kid's life, then it's worth it. There are some things you can't put a price on.

But we do put prices on such things everyday, even though I do understand the sentiment. I think what SLC93 would agree with is that testing for just steroids is a large waste of money given the expected low number of positive findings. If the purpose is to prevent kids from using substances which will do them harm by either preventing their use in the first place or by stopping such use through detection and subsequent intervention, we would be far better served using this money to test for a far wider range of illegal substances than simply steroids.

[SLC93]

But we do put prices on such things everyday, even though I do understand the sentiment. I think what SLC93 would agree with is that testing for just steroids is a large waste of money given the expected low number of positive findings. If the purpose is to prevent kids from using substances which will do them harm by either preventing their use in the first place or by stopping such use through detection and subsequent intervention, we would be far better served using this money to test for a far wider range of illegal substances than simply steroids.

I would agree with that assesment. There are more pressing, wide spread issues our children are dealing that this money could be used to to address. If we were all being completely honest we would agree that it's the NCAA level that should be re-evaluated. It's college where these athletes are putting on 50-125 pounds and increasing their "measurables" ten fold. I think there is enough record of testing throughout the country to have a valid control group for a determination that the problem is not the rampant, wildfire that many politicians made it out to be, at the hs level. While I do embrace the philosophy of helping one child, the bottomline is that, if given the choice, I'd rather help ten.

[pied]

But we do put prices on such things everyday, even though I do understand the sentiment. I think what SLC93 would agree with is that testing for just steroids is a large waste of money given the expected low number of positive findings. If the purpose is to prevent kids from using substances which will do them harm by either preventing their use in the first place or by stopping such use through detection and subsequent intervention, we would be far better served using this money to test for a far wider range of illegal substances than simply steroids.

yep

[RocketDad]

But we do put prices on such things everyday, even though I do understand the sentiment. I think what SLC93 would agree with is that testing for just steroids is a large waste of money given the expected low number of positive findings. If the purpose is to prevent kids from using substances which will do them harm by either preventing their use in the first place or by stopping such use through detection and subsequent intervention, we would be far better served using this money to test for a far wider range of illegal substances than simply steroids.

I think the highlighted statement above sums up our previous discussions on the steroid testing. Football is really a big deal in Texas and I feel the thought of one team "cheating" may have played a larger part in the decision making than the welfare of the kids. Maybe I have become too cynical?

[SPTigerfan]

But we do put prices on such things everyday, even though I do understand the sentiment. I think what SLC93 would agree with is that testing for just steroids is a large waste of money given the expected low number of positive findings. If the purpose is to prevent kids from using substances which will do them harm by either preventing their use in the first place or by stopping such use through detection and subsequent intervention, we would be far better served using this money to test for a far wider range of illegal substances than simply steroids.


In the R.R.I.S.D. I know many parents that would absolutely not allow their children to be tested for anything else but steroids and I take issue with that...I have no problem with testing and neither do any of my children!

SP TIGER FAN FOREVER!!!!!!

[chhspantherfan]

Colleyville Heritage tested yesterday. Do not know how many were tested, but i do know my son was tested.

He was a little shell shocked by the whole experience, but it will serve as a great deterrent.

[ktCarl]

My son attends Euless Jr. High and told me that he knows of 6-8 girls soccer players that were tested. They were 9th graders.:eek::eek:

Why were they testing a girls soccer team?????????

They should stick with the sports where steroids would make some impact.... track & field, football and baseball but not a girls soccer team. I guess the next test will be to see if Katy's golf team is using steroids.

[ftballin11]

Why were they testing a girls soccer team?????????

They should stick with the sports where steroids would make some impact.... track & field, football and baseball but not a girls soccer team. I guess the next test will be to see if Katy's golf team is using steroids.


Because they have to be equal:rolleyes:. This also skews the numbers.

[HebronHawk]

Will they test for alcohol and other drugs at the same time?

I know that the Lewisville ISD updated their policies such that the testing is not just about steroids.

[OakTreeUp-n-Out]

My son attends Euless Jr. High and told me that he knows of 6-8 girls soccer players that were tested. They were 9th graders.:eek::eek:

FINALLY. It's about time someone addressed the rampant juicing throughout the 9th grade girls soccer community. So thankful that education funds are being used so wisely.

[chhspantherfan]

Will they test for alcohol and other drugs at the same time?

I know that the Lewisville ISD updated their policies such that the testing is not just about steroids.

Don't know about state level. But, like LISD, GCISD tests for all illegal substances.

[Fleeman93]

I have posted my thoughts on the testing situation but I have never got a response. Again, why not allow the opposing team challenge any number of players they want to challenge. If the player passes the test then the challenging team pays for the test and if the player fails the test then the player is not allowed to play (can add whatever punishment you want at this point). Of course you could tweak the system but the bottom line is the players that should be getting tested would be.

[chhspantherfan]

I have posted my thoughts on the testing situation but I have never got a response. Again, why not allow the opposing team challenge any number of players they want to challenge. If the player passes the test then the challenging team pays for the test and if the player fails the test then the player is not allowed to play (can add whatever punishment you want at this point). Of course you could tweak the system but the bottom line is the players that should be getting tested would be.

Great idea, but like a lot of great ideas, the legislators, judges, and attorneys would not allow it. Makes way too much sense!

[t-long20]

I will continue to hold to the wildly unpopular belief that if the testing saves one kid's life, then it's worth it. There are some things you can't put a price on.

Please bring up the stats about how many have died from steroids in high school?

[t-long20]

[/SIZE][/B]

I think the highlighted statement above sums up our previous discussions on the steroid testing. Football is really a big deal in Texas and I feel the thought of one team "cheating" may have played a larger part in the decision making than the welfare of the kids. Maybe I have become too cynical?

No your just not thinking. This UIL testing will be officially over in 2 or 3 years. They will finally realize the millions of dollars is just not worth it.

[t-long20]

The UIL can care less about the welfare of a school, they care more about the welfare of the money-making football team. Why not test for the REAL drugs that are hurting schools like: alcohol,marijuana, and other recreation drugs. If you've been apart of any team sport throughout your life you would know that a student-athlete is less likely to take any of those. Im tired of athletes always being singled out while the average joe blow student is allowed to take all the drugs he wants to. Did you know golfers will be tested also? Since when was steroids a big issue with golf? I realize most of you are uninformed as far as this issue goes.

*steps off soapbox*

[dragonpants]

Can products bought at GNC, Vitamin Shoppe etc, cause false positives? Are there supplements that are legal banned? Are they testing students or just student athletes?

[chhspantherfan]

Can products bought at GNC, Vitamin Shoppe etc, cause false positives? Are there supplements that are legal banned? Are they testing students or just student athletes?

i would suggest that you start here


http://www.uil.utexas.edu/ATHLETICS/health/steroid_information.html

[fballmaniac]

If testing saves the life of one kid then I am in favor of it. I do not believe a lot of kids are using steriods in Texas, but there are some that do use steriods. Look back over the past five years at how big kids are that are playing texas football.

I think we would be better off testing for drugs such as pot. I do believe that there are a ton of kids in all high school sports that are using illegal drugs and by stating that they could random test for steriods and other illegal drugs, this could cause alot of kids to reduce or stop their use of illegal drugs such as pot.

[pied]

I think we would be better off testing for drugs such as pot. I do believe that there are a ton of kids in all high school sports that are using illegal drugs and by stating that they could random test for steriods and other illegal drugs, this could cause alot of kids to reduce or stop their use of illegal drugs such as pot.


I agree, but that's not what we're doing.

[DrEdward]

.....

I think we would be better off testing for drugs such as pot. I do believe that there are a ton of kids in all high school sports that are using illegal drugs and by stating that they could random test for steriods and other illegal drugs, this could cause alot of kids to reduce or stop their use of illegal drugs such as pot.

We can agree on the second part of your statement as to testing for other illegal substances and the potential deterrence effect. However, that is NOT the system that the UIL put in place under mandate from the Texas legislature.

[TulsaHale74]

Your tax dollars at work.

The initial results of the Texas government mandated UIL steroid tests are coming out.

So far, 10,407 athletes at 195 schools have been tested and 2 were found positive.

Chronicle
(http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5866235.html)

Star-Telegram
(http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/735867.html)

One can argue that testing is an effective deterrent.
One can argue that testing is a waste of time and money.
One can argue that all students need to be tested for all illegal substances.
One can argue that tax dollars shout be spent on pot holes not pot heads.

One can argue.

[rwilleby]

Ha! It's really hard to find something when you look in all the wrong places...

[chhspantherfan]

Your tax dollars at work.

The initial results of the Texas government mandated UIL steroid tests are coming out.

So far, 10,407 athletes at 195 schools have been tested and 2 were found positive.

Chronicle
(http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5866235.html)

Star-Telegram
(http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/735867.html)

One can argue that testing is an effective deterrent.
One can argue that testing is a waste of time and money.
One can argue that all students need to be tested for all illegal substances.
One can argue that tax dollars shout be spent on pot holes not pot heads.

One can argue.


I drew some of the same conclusions, however what really got me going was the slant the writer tried to take with reference to football players not being tested. I personally know a football player that got tested. He lives under my roof ! What was the writer trying to say? Some slam on football? The McClatchey writers don't impress me, unfortunately it is the only rag from FtW:mad:

[rwilleby]

If you test one you should test them all... That way there will be no getting around the problem... IMO.

[KT2000]

Again, why not allow the opposing team challenge any number of players they want to challenge. If the player passes the test then the challenging team pays for the test and if the player fails the test then the player is not allowed to play (can add whatever punishment you want at this point). Of course you could tweak the system but the bottom line is the players that should be getting tested would be.


I don't see this as workable, and it is a dangerous line of thinking in my opinion. The finances negate this kind of proposal for one. Schools can't afford to gamble on a challenge system, nor should they even with adequate funds. Second, this would effectively eliminate medical and personal confidentiality essential to any testing process. I can see that creating serious tension between schools, communities, and students. Talk about opening a can o' worms. As for the last statement, that is an enormous assumption. Drug abusers aren't limited to a fixed demographic, so no one has the power (nor should ever have the power) to claim one group is any more testable than another.

[dragonpants]

I drew some of the same conclusions, however what really got me going was the slant the writer tried to take with reference to football players not being tested. I personally know a football player that got tested. He lives under my roof ! What was the writer trying to say? Some slam on football? The McClatchey writers don't impress me, unfortunately it is the only rag from FtW:mad:

I do not think the slant was too bad but there is an implication that once they test more football players the numbers will go up. But by and large a huge waste of money. I am of the opinion that steroid use is not a big deal at the high school level for a number of reasons not the least of which is the fact that 15-18 year old have so much testosterone running around all they need to do is get in the weight room and they will results rapidly.
I am more concerned about the kids hyped up stimulants or other street drugs.

[Miss Kitty]

Why were they testing a girls soccer team?????????

They should stick with the sports where steroids would make some impact.... track & field, football and baseball but not a girls soccer team. I guess the next test will be to see if Katy's golf team is using steroids.

This post confuses me. Do you not think that a girl could benifit from roids? Especially in a sport that requires speed and I would think leg strength. I would have understood if they said the girls chess team, but your soccer statement confuses me. :confused:

[LionVarsityCheer]

If you test one you should test them all... That way there will be no getting around the problem... IMO.

I completely agree! Random testing does NOTHING except maybe catch one person. Leander "random" drug tests and I was tested at least 6 times, and of course, my results showed no signs of drug use. But the problem is that most of the kids picked to take the test seemed to be comprised of some of the best kids in the school...quite "random".

[chhspantherfan]

I do not think the slant was too bad but there is an implication that once they test more football players the numbers will go up. But by and large a huge waste of money. I am of the opinion that steroid use is not a big deal at the high school level for a number of reasons not the least of which is the fact that 15-18 year old have so much testosterone running around all they need to do is get in the weight room and they will results rapidly.
I am more concerned about the kids hyped up stimulants or other street drugs.

agreed.

:(

[KT2000]

I do not think the slant was too bad but there is an implication that once they test more football players the numbers will go up.

Steroids are a huge detriment to football players, and in the steroid cases I've heard or read about in all sports, the abusers are usually those the general public would not expect (IE, bench warmers looking for a fast track to playing time.)

Steroids create weight imbalance and excess stress to the joints. All they do is dramatically increase the likelihood you sustain a major injury.

Steroids are far more likely to make an impact in a sport like baseball because body on body contact/collision is rare, and it doesn't require the same physical endurance due to the frequent game downtime.

[Fleeman93]

I don't see this as workable, and it is a dangerous line of thinking in my opinion. The finances negate this kind of proposal for one. Schools can't afford to gamble on a challenge system, nor should they even with adequate funds. Second, this would effectively eliminate medical and personal confidentiality essential to any testing process. I can see that creating serious tension between schools, communities, and students. Talk about opening a can o' worms. As for the last statement, that is an enormous assumption. Drug abusers aren't limited to a fixed demographic, so no one has the power (nor should ever have the power) to claim one group is any more testable than another.


I respect your opinion but I think you are completely wrong on this one. Right now, as some have stated, the state will spend millions of dollars on a system that won't catch the "bad guys." You say it is a "dangerous line of thinking" but you really don't support that other than to say that finances would negate it. Well right now the state is spending all the money to do the tests so there are finances being dumped into a system that isn't and won't work as is. If the funds are being wasted by testing band members and girls soccer teams then why not give the power to the AD at a school to determine who he wants tested. My point is that they are randomly testing people that there is no reason to test and my proposal would better target the people that COULD be using steroids. You say that this system would eliminate medical and personal confidentiality. How? The AD submits who he wants tested, if the person is clean then no one ever knows and if the person is dirty then punishment is issued much like the current system. The only people that would ever know there was a challenge would be the challenging AD, the AD from the challenged school, the coach, and the player. If I were the state I wouldn't be so concerned about "opening a can of worms" as I would eliminating their perceived problem. My assumption that the right players would get tested is a much better assumption than what is being assumed with the current system. I assume that an AD using common sense is a much better option than a random selection assuming that a band member or girls soccer player is a steroid user.


Sorry for the long post.

[KT2000]

I assume that an AD using common sense is a much better option than a random selection assuming that a band member or girls soccer player is a steroid user.

Again, it would be completely unworkable. The current random testing is done at a miniscule level overall, and the districts are in charge of the implimentation. Individual schools couldn't possibly undertake what you are suggesting, especially given you advocate ADs being able to challenge as many players as they want from an opposing team.

I am in complete opposition to ADs, UIL Admins, etc. cherry picking who gets tested. I am of a firm opinion that you either test all or test none.

[TWHSDad]

Posted in today's Conroe Courier, evidently a graduated TWHS football player tested positive:
http://www.hcnonline.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19820930&BRD=1574&PAG=461&dept_id=532228&rfi=6
:cry

[teXan]

After talking about it for some time now, the UIL has actually initiated its program of randomly selecting schools and athletes to test for steroid use

I don't know the details but I heard on the radio that 10,000 student-athletes were tested and 2 tested positive.

It's good to see our tax dollars hard at work and put to good use.

[KT2000]

If the UIL favors keeping the current level of random testing as a scare tactic/preventative measure, I would say they are wrong on that front as well. I believe a much larger impact could be made if resources were instead directed towards education on the matter in our schools' class rooms and also further encouraged on the home front. You will not eliminate everyone from using, but I daresay the impact of a widespread and long term educational commitment on the matter would be far more effective than any kind of limited testing program. Take it from the suits and give it to our educators.

[Fleeman93]

Again, it would be completely unworkable. The current random testing is done at a miniscule level overall, and the districts are in charge of the implimentation. Individual schools couldn't possibly undertake what you are suggesting, especially given you advocate ADs being able to challenge as many players as they want from an opposing team.

I am in complete opposition to ADs, UIL Admins, etc. cherry picking who gets tested. I am of a firm opinion that you either test all or test none.


Does the current system address this? Obviously at no point will they EVER test all players or teams due to cost so that idea isn't workable. Obviously they are going to force testing on the schools so some system will have to be used. Do you really think an AD would challenge an entire football team? The idea that the school would be charged for a challenge if the player is clean would keep "across the board" testing from happening.


Why would my system be unworkable? The only difference between the system in place now and my system would be the selection process of who is getting tested.

[KT2000]

Does the current system address this?

Why would my system be unworkable? The only difference between the system in place now and my system would be the selection process of who is getting tested.

No, and I don't agree with the current system.

That's a big friggin' change. :)

[Fleeman93]

Posted in today's Conroe Courier, evidently a graduated TWHS football player tested positive:
http://www.hcnonline.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19820930&BRD=1574&PAG=461&dept_id=532228&rfi=6
:cry



My first thought from the article is, why are we testing a kid that will be graduating and no action can be taken against? My second question is about following up the first test with a confirmation test. Do you really think the person being tested would continue to use if he/she got tested and knew they were going to get retested? If a player fails the first test but passes the second test are they in the clear?

[Fleeman93]

No, and I don't agree with the current system.

That's a big friggin' change. :)


So which do you like better, randomly testing band members or an AD selecting the 240 pound linebacker that was 190 pounds just 6 months ago? People are going to be selected some way and randomly is just a plain stupid way of doing it.

[WoodzDad]

in the steroid cases I've heard or read about in all sports, the abusers are usually those the general public would not expect (IE, bench warmers looking for a fast track to playing time.)

You hit the nail on the head!

[KT2000]

Why would my system be unworkable? The only difference between the system in place now and my system would be the selection process of who is getting tested.

Who would be inclined to participate in a challenge system at all? That's another question I'd have with that kind of proposal. In your original post, I read this would be conducted by individual schools, and who would risk losing money over shot-in-the-dark steroid testing?

There is money invested now of course, but this is money that gets used no matter what at the district level. The system you advocate is choice-based, so the money could theoretically be saved if a school chooses not to challenge. I'd envision most schools declining to participate at all in that kind of system, so that's a major reason I call it unworkable.

Any testing system that involves cherry picking test subjects is doomed to ineptitude/failure in my opinion. You will get no greater scope of potential drug abuse than the current "random" sampling provides. Steroid abusers are not limited to major sports or specific groups with said sports, and that is why I don't share your view that "those who should be tested will be tested" under a challenge-based format.

As far as my comment on medical and personal confidentiality is concerned, in a challenge-based format everyone would know who is being targeted based on the testing.

As for the challenge process, football teams can play as many as 16 games overall. The season lasts 19 weeks including the immediate pre-season build-up. Baseball seasons go over 40-50 games. Softball seasons go close to 40. Basketball ends in the mid-30s. How many tournaments/events do wrestlers participate in? Are you advocating these athletes be exposed to challenges in the lead-up to all of these events? That's another major reason I have serious questions regarding the viability of what you are suggesting.

[ktCarl]

[/SIZE][/B]

I think the highlighted statement above sums up our previous discussions on the steroid testing. Football is really a big deal in Texas and I feel the thought of one team "cheating" may have played a larger part in the decision making than the welfare of the kids. Maybe I have become too cynical?

How would you (and anyone else in this thread) discourage the use of steroids in high school athletes?

[KT2000]

So which do you like better, randomly testing band members or an AD selecting the 240 pound linebacker that was 190 pounds just 6 months ago? People are going to be selected some way and randomly is just a plain stupid way of doing it.

All or none. But in reality, I agree that some form of selection will likely be involved. I disagree with it completely, but widespread testing is not a viable option right now.

You are referring to an extreme case above, and coaches should be the ones to handle that because they see the players every day during the school year. They have all of their physical information from the first days the players set foot on campus. Steroids aren't going to help anyone get better at football (or other strenuous conditioning sports such as soccer or basketball) because of what they do to the joints.

You can never be certain who is or isn't using because the effects are different depending on the user. It is possible to cycle steroids and change very little as far as weight is concerned. It is also possible for a high school kid to go on a strict dietary and workout regiment, and put on 20-30 pounds in a summer pretty easily.

[WoodzDad]

How would you (and anyone else in this thread) discourage the use of steroids in high school athletes?

Good parenting and random illegal drug testing. Can't work most places without random drug testing why tolerate it in our youth? Do you think the ACLU would like that?

[DrEdward]

Again, if we are going to test for illegal drug use, then the financials clearly dictate that a random sample is the most efficient way to approach the issue. However as to these politicians claiming that it is the deterent value of the testing that they put in place which is repsonsible for such low positive results (that many of us on here predicted anyway), then wouldn't the logical extention of that be to test for a wide range of illegal substances? Clearly we would get a much larger deterent effect, since those other drugs are far more prevalent that is steroid use.

[dragonpants]

I respect your opinion but I think you are completely wrong on this one. Right now, as some have stated, the state will spend millions of dollars on a system that won't catch the "bad guys." You say it is a "dangerous line of thinking" but you really don't support that other than to say that finances would negate it. Well right now the state is spending all the money to do the tests so there are finances being dumped into a system that isn't and won't work as is. If the funds are being wasted by testing band members and girls soccer teams then why not give the power to the AD at a school to determine who he wants tested. My point is that they are randomly testing people that there is no reason to test and my proposal would better target the people that COULD be using steroids. You say that this system would eliminate medical and personal confidentiality. How? The AD submits who he wants tested, if the person is clean then no one ever knows and if the person is dirty then punishment is issued much like the current system. The only people that would ever know there was a challenge would be the challenging AD, the AD from the challenged school, the coach, and the player. If I were the state I wouldn't be so concerned about "opening a can of worms" as I would eliminating their perceived problem. My assumption that the right players would get tested is a much better assumption than what is being assumed with the current system. I assume that an AD using common sense is a much better option than a random selection assuming that a band member or girls soccer player is a steroid user.


Sorry for the long post.

While aspects of your plan make sense, we are talking about bureaucrats so common sense and reality do not make sense. They need to do random drug testing and make it random. They have to test the girls because of all the "equality" issues raised over the last 20 years. Some male will be found positive and challenge because he is being singled out as a boy. Some attorney will be able to sell the family on it anyway.
The State needs to come to a school unannounced and take random samples from random student athletes and they need to test for all illegal drugs period. If not the state then the athletic district they play in.
If left to athletic directors, in my not so humble opinion you open up a can of worms. If the school AD is responsible for testing his own school we have to trust the integrity of that AD and even if they are squeaky clean they are going to get dragged through the mud for testing or not testing the wrong kids. If left to opposing AD's you start a witch hunt. What is the rationale?
"That kid is really big, or really fast so he must be on something"

Just my take on it.

[Fleeman93]

Who would be inclined to participate in a challenge system at all? That's another question I'd have with that kind of proposal. In your original post, I read this would be conducted by individual schools, and who would risk losing money over shot-in-the-dark steroid testing?

Pretty simple. Teams that feel like they are getting beat by other teams that are cheating would be inclined to participate. FOR EXAMPLE ONLY - If a team thinks SLC is using steriods to gain an advantage and help beat them then I am sure that school would have no problem participating in the program.

I certainly don't have all the answers as far as how the money would work but anything would be better than how they are wasting it now. One idea is that the money that is being spent now would be dispersed as credit toward testing. Any unused money would be returned to the pot. I bet the problem of steroid use would fix itself if for example a football team is costing a school money on failed tests and the coach of that team couldn't control the problem.

There is money invested now of course, but this is money that gets used no matter what at the district level. The system you advocate is choice-based, so the money could theoretically be saved if a school chooses not to challenge. I'd envision most schools declining to participate at all in that kind of system, so that's a major reason I call it unworkable.

The problem of saving money would be controlled by forcing the school to use it. The school could use the money on tests of band members or use it on testing football players, but either way they have to use the money. If a school is getting their ***** handed to them year after year in certain sports due to what they feel is partly because of steroid use and they had an option to do something about it then I think they would.

Any testing system that involves cherry picking test subjects is doomed to ineptitude/failure in my opinion. You will get no greater scope of potential drug abuse than the current "random" sampling provides. Steroid abusers are not limited to major sports or specific groups with said sports, and that is why I don't share your view that "those who should be tested will be tested" under a challenge-based format.

Why is "cherry picking" doomed to ineptitude/failure? Is the current syste of picking blindly better? The state is going to force a system on us so you tell me which is a better way to select people for being tested. I didn't think this had anything to do with any drug abuse other than steroid testing??? I'm not sure but I don't think the state can or is trying to control steroid use in the general population of the school. I'm sure there is a problem there as well but the state certainly can't do anything about it unless they did 100% testing of the school and that just isn't going to happen. I agree with you on the point that in my system only the higher chance candidates would be tested and some "benchwarmers" would fall through the cracks so maybe a random test should still be used in conjuction with my system.



As far as my comment on medical and personal confidentiality is concerned, in a challenge-based format everyone would know who is being targeted based on the testing.

How would everyone know? No one other than the people I mentioned would know who is being targeted unless a player fails a test which is what happens now.

As for the challenge process, football teams can play as many as 16 games overall. The season lasts 19 weeks including the immediate pre-season build-up. Baseball seasons go over 40-50 games. Softball seasons go close to 40. Basketball ends in the mid-30s. How many tournaments/events do wrestlers participate in? Are you advocating these athletes be exposed to challenges in the lead-up to all of these events? That's another major reason I have serious questions regarding the viability of what you are suggesting.

Yes, challenge as many times as you want in whatever sport. If you are correct then you aren't paying for it. If you get challenge happy and are wrong then your school will pay for it. Here is an example:


A school is given 50k in credits for testing. A test costs 1k so the school has 50 test per year (whatever the numbers work out to). If a school issues 50 challenges and in all 50 cases the player tested dirty then the school still has all 50 challenges. The school that was being challenged can not use their challenge credits to pay for "fines" so it has to come out of their pockets. At the end of the school year if a school still has credits then those are given back to the UIL (whoever it may be).


What would happen here is the school that is losing challenges due to dirty players would be losing money and I can promise you that the district would be forced to resolve the issue.


..

[Fleeman93]

All or none. But in reality, I agree that some form of selection will likely be involved. I disagree with it completely, but widespread testing is not a viable option right now.

I like the idea of none better than all but that isn't going to happen and we both know it.

You are referring to an extreme case above, and coaches should be the ones to handle that because they see the players every day during the school year. They have all of their physical information from the first days the players set foot on campus. Steroids aren't going to help anyone get better at football (or other strenuous conditioning sports such as soccer or basketball) because of what they do to the joints.

The coaches should be taking care of their own kids as is but we both would be naive to think that there are no coaches in the state of Texas that has no knowledge of steroid use in their program (not sure that came out right but some coaches do know they have players using steroids). You are wrong about steroids not helping athletes get better at sports. Steroids may hurt the athlete down the road but it will make them better. There are plenty of examples all over the sports world to support this.

You can never be certain who is or isn't using because the effects are different depending on the user. It is possible to cycle steroids and change very little as far as weight is concerned. It is also possible for a high school kid to go on a strict dietary and workout regiment, and put on 20-30 pounds in a summer pretty easily.

Can't disagree with that.


..

[Fleeman93]

While aspects of your plan make sense, we are talking about bureaucrats so common sense and reality do not make sense. They need to do random drug testing and make it random. They have to test the girls because of all the "equality" issues raised over the last 20 years. Some male will be found positive and challenge because he is being singled out as a boy. Some attorney will be able to sell the family on it anyway.
The State needs to come to a school unannounced and take random samples from random student athletes and they need to test for all illegal drugs period. If not the state then the athletic district they play in.
If left to athletic directors, in my not so humble opinion you open up a can of worms. If the school AD is responsible for testing his own school we have to trust the integrity of that AD and even if they are squeaky clean they are going to get dragged through the mud for testing or not testing the wrong kids. If left to opposing AD's you start a witch hunt. What is the rationale?
"That kid is really big, or really fast so he must be on something"

Just my take on it.


I just threw something out there that would work. Of course our "leaders" would screw it up but then again what would expect. No way you can leave it to the school's own AD. By putting it the hands of the opposing school's AD you know that he is going to work with his coaches to figure out who is the most likely candidate for using. If the player is found to be clean then great on both sides. If the player is found to be dirty then great on both sides. There would be no "witch hunts" because opposing AD's couldn't afford them. If an AD and his coach really thinks an opposing player is using then challenge them, otherwise shutup and sit down.

[KT2000]

When you say they can challenge as many times as they want over a season, who is going to administer testing on that scale and frequency? The school nurse obviously won't have a roid lab handy.

I bet the problem of steroid use would fix itself if for example a football team is costing a school money on failed tests and the coach of that team couldn't control the problem.

Players who are caught with steroids and/or fail a test should be banished from athletics entirely. And if a coach(s) has knowledge of usage and fails to act, I would hope he or she is fired on the spot.

This should be a zero tolerance issue in my opinion. Progressive discipline need not apply.

The deterrant starts with parents and then coaches. Kids need to see the bigger picture. There are no shortcuts and there is no substitute for good, old-fashioned hard work.

[Fleeman93]

When you say they can challenge as many times as they want over a season, who is going to administer testing on that scale and frequency? The school nurse obviously won't have a roid lab handy.

Does the school nurse do it now? Obviously it would be a private firm like the one that is doing it now.

I bet the problem of steroid use would fix itself if for example a football team is costing a school money on failed tests and the coach of that team couldn't control the problem.

Players who are caught with steroids and/or fail a test should be banished from athletics entirely. And if a coach(s) has knowledge of usage and fails to act, I would hope he or she is fired on the spot.


This should be a zero tolerance issue in my opinion. Progressive discipline need not apply.

The deterrant starts with parents and then coaches. Kids need to see the bigger picture. There are no shortcuts and there is no substitute for good, old-fashioned hard work.
..

[KT2000]

Your plan would step up the testing considerably if you are talking about testing athletes weekly and year-round (save for summer), so that is why I ask the question. Can the districts afford to pay the private firms on that scale? I highly doubt it.

[Fleeman93]

Your plan would step up the testing considerably if you are talking about testing athletes weekly and year-round (save for summer), so that is why I ask the question. Can the districts afford to pay the private firms on that scale? I highly doubt it.


I am saying to use the current money that is being used by the state. If the state spends a million dollars a year on testing and each test costs a thousand dollars then you have a thousand tests to divide up across the state between whoever is being tested now (just numbers for reference).

[KT2000]

I am saying to use the current money that is being used by the state. If the state spends a million dollars a year on testing and each test costs a thousand dollars then you have a thousand tests to divide up across the state between whoever is being tested now (just numbers for reference).

For debate's sake...let's say an all-district linebacker gets challenged/tested 16 times, which could theoretically happen under your idea. That's $16,000 spent testing one student, who is most likely clean. A school could effectively equip a computer lab with that kind of money.

I brought up cherry picking earlier, and I believe you asked how that is different from the current random sample. The difference is that it turns the process into a witch hunt.

[Fleeman93]

For debate's sake...let's say an all-district linebacker gets challenged/tested 16 times, which could theoretically happen under your idea. That's $16,000 spent testing one student, who is most likely clean. A school could effectively equip a computer lab with that kind of money.

I brought up cherry picking earlier, and I believe you asked how that is different from the current random sample. The difference is that it turns the process into a witch hunt.


I see your point but is that linebacker more or less likely to be doing steroids than a band member that is being tested under the current system. Under my system much less money would be wasted then what is being wasted now with much better results.

[twhfan#1]

the actual cost --- $ 3 million to test 10,000 kids = $ 300 per student --- but more to the point --- 2 positive tests -- so that is $ 1.5 million per positive test --- furthermore --the one student from Woodlands with a positive test on May 13 graduated 2 weeks after test --- nothing can be done about him / her --- so we paid $ 3million to discover 1 student athlete using roids

now you wonder why our taxes are so high & scholls still dont get all they need

[ftballin11]

I agree with flee on this one. Roids are an epidimic now in high schools. We are waisting money by testing 125 Ib boys and girls. I understand the dont discrminate but cmon. Test the kids that u have reason to suspect and the best way is to challenge like Flee said. The chances are the same kid isnt going to be tested. Make the testing public. So we know the results of kids who are tested and hopefully it will scare the kids who are taking it.

[KT2000]

I agree with flee on this one. Roids are an epidimic now in high schools. We are waisting money by testing 125 Ib boys and girls. I understand the dont discrminate but cmon. Test the kids that u have reason to suspect and the best way is to challenge like Flee said. The chances are the same kid isnt going to be tested. Make the testing public. So we know the results of kids who are tested and hopefully it will scare the kids who are taking it.

I wouldn't go nearly as far as to call it an epidemic.

[ftballin11]

I wouldn't go nearly as far as to call it an epidemic.

You'd be suprised.

[AllenTAMU]

I wouldn't go nearly as far as to call it an epidemic.

its far more widespread than people like to acknowledge.

[KT2000]

its far more widespread than people like to acknowledge.

That may be true at certain places, but overall the research done on this subject doesn't back up claims of rampant usage.

[ftballin11]

That may be true at certain places, but overall the research done on this subject doesn't back up claims of rampant usage.


How many test's have been takin.

Numbers are scewed due to the random part. There testing girls and golfer. I'd be interested to see the stats on genderm, size, and sport. What sport did the two that were caught play

[AllenTAMU]

to what research are you referring to KT? i'd be very impressed if the research didnt have lurking variables that werent accounted for such as the kids doing steroids arent about to own up to it even on an anonymous survey

[ftballin11]

to what research are you referring to KT? i'd be very impressed if the research didnt have lurking variables that werent accounted for such as the kids doing steroids arent about to own up to it even on an anonymous survey

Yea if you are caught is it publically announced or do they just anonymously suspended.

[KT2000]

to what research are you referring to KT? i'd be very impressed if the research didnt have lurking variables that werent accounted for such as the kids doing steroids arent about to own up to it even on an anonymous survey

Monitoring the Future is an annual nationwide study conducted by the University of Michigan. Granted, these are certainly not foolproof, but it is the closest gage you will get without being able to test everyone.

This study has been around since 1975. Steroids were added to the study in 1989.

Here are the 2007 findings:

http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/overview2007.pdf

Monitoring the Future web site:

http://monitoringthefuture.org/

The random testing done in this state so far supports MTF's data.

[AllenTAMU]

Monitoring the Future is an annual nationwide study conducted by the University of Michigan. Granted, these are certainly not foolproof, but it is the closest gage you will get without being able to test everyone.

This study has been around since 1975. Steroids were added to the study in 1989.

Here are the 2007 findings:

http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/overview2007.pdf

Monitoring the Future web site:

http://monitoringthefuture.org/

The random testing done in this state so far supports MTF's data.

I dont mean to tick you off but that survey aint worth jack. I've been a part of those surveys (maybe not that exact survey but one that sounds much like it) and students don't answer them honestly. A)Mistrust with the anonymity and B) Even with anonymity students will not answer honestly. To accurately get results on this all athletes would need to be tested multiple times a year and then assuming there was a test that would be able to give accurate results of doping then we'd have some numbers to actually work with.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong because I didnt read through the whole thing only the survey methods but this is a test done on all students at a school not athletes. The steroid usage numbers would be diluted significantly when you add in non athletes/band members etc

[ktCarl]

Again, if we are going to test for illegal drug use, then the financials clearly dictate that a random sample is the most efficient way to approach the issue. However as to these politicians claiming that it is the deterent value of the testing that they put in place which is repsonsible for such low positive results (that many of us on here predicted anyway), then wouldn't the logical extention of that be to test for a wide range of illegal substances? Clearly we would get a much larger deterent effect, since those other drugs are far more prevalent that is steroid use.

I'm not comprehending. I thought that there was going to be testing for and only for steroids in athletes in order to discourage the usage of that substance.



Who picks the kids to be tested? I think they should only test those athletes where steroid abuse has primarily transpired as in football, track and field, wrestling etc. What's the point in testing the girls golf team?

[KT2000]

I dont mean to tick you off but that survey aint worth jack. I've been a part of those surveys (maybe not that exact survey but one that sounds much like it) and students don't answer them honestly. A)Mistrust with the anonymity and B) Even with anonymity students will not answer honestly. To accurately get results on this all athletes would need to be tested multiple times a year and then assuming there was a test that would be able to give accurate results of doping then we'd have some numbers to actually work with.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong because I didnt read through the whole thing only the survey methods but this is a test done on all students at a school not athletes. The steroid usage numbers would be diluted significantly when you add in non athletes/band members etc

I said it wasn't foolproof. For a survey, the data is remarkably consistent from year to year. You'd think it would jump all over the place. What is your opinion on the random testing results done in this state so far? They've tested from a pool of mostly athletes.

[DrEdward]

I'm not comprehending. I thought that there was going to be testing for and only for steroids in athletes in order to discourage the usage of that substance.



Who picks the kids to be tested? I think they should only test those athletes where steroid abuse has primarily transpired as in football, track and field, wrestling etc. What's the point in testing the girls golf team?

That is all that the UIL is currently testing for - streroids. It is simply my opinion that if we are going to be spending all this money on drug testing and if the political types are going to be claiming that such testing is having a large and significant deterrent effect, then we should be testing for a wide range of the use of illegal drugs. If the testing discourages the usage of steroids, then logically, it should also discourage the use of other illegal substances.

The kids to be tested are picked on a random basis from those participating in UIL extracurricular sports from a random selection of UIL schools. The population of names from each school is provided by that school to the drug testing program which utilizes a random selection process in picking the names of those to be tested.

If you believe that testing should be done on a wide range of substances, not simply steroids, then testing across all programs makes perfect sense. Otherwise, including such sports is to avoid a possible pre-selection bias in the sampling and to avoid potential lawsuits as well.

[ftballin11]

I said it wasn't foolproof. For a survey, the data is remarkably consistent from year to year. You'd think it would jump all over the place. What is your opinion on the random testing results done in this state so far? They've tested from a pool of mostly athletes.

They need to spend their money wisely. This random crap is what makes it a waist. It not discriminating. Its logic.They need to test the kids that are in question. Everyone knows who it is at the school, but its a dont ask dont tell situation. The peopl who would do the best job of selecting who gets tested is the oppsing coaches.

[AllenTAMU]

I said it wasn't foolproof. For a survey, the data is remarkably consistent from year to year. You'd think it would jump all over the place. What is your opinion on the random testing results done in this state so far? They've tested from a pool of mostly athletes.

I'm not very informed on the manner in which they are testing nor when they are testing so I can't really say. However, it sounds like the random testing could easily be modified to a much more effective semi random test by using two rosters and testing athletes who gained 20+lbs in a year or some other similar measure to actually test students who have a decent statistical probability of using.

[HebronHawk]

That is all that the UIL is currently testing for - streroids. It is simply my opinion that if we are going to be spending all this money on drug testing and if the political types are going to be claiming that such testing is having a large and significant deterrent effect, then we should be testing for a wide range of the use of illegal drugs. If the testing discourages the usage of steroids, then logically, it should also discourage the use of other illegal substances.

The kids to be tested are picked on a random basis from those participating in UIL extracurricular sports from a random selection of UIL schools. The population of names from each school is provided by that school to the drug testing program which utilizes a random selection process in picking the names of those to be tested.

If you believe that testing should be done on a wide range of substances, not simply steroids, then testing across all programs makes perfect sense. Otherwise, including such sports is to avoid a possible pre-selection bias in the sampling and to avoid potential lawsuits as well.

The Lewisville ISD, on their own, implemented a wide ranging test for drugs on a random basis throughout all of their high schools for all kids in extracurricular activities including those with parking passes. They thought the timing was good because they started it at the same time that the UIL started the drug testing for roids and many parents think the LISD drug testing is part of that program.

[DiamondJ2]

I found it amusing in the newspaper article that one of the proponents for steroid testing said it was the coaches repsonsibility to stop the use of steroids. So I guess it's the school nurse and health teachers responsibility to stop the high rate of teen-age pregnancy in Texas which is more of a concern than steriod testing. Of course, the state steps in and helps the teen-age mothers with $$$$$, etc. As KT said in an earlier post, the real responsibility begins with the parents. As for just testing football, track, wrestling, that would be discrimination and not politically correct.

[t-long20]

Im glad to know student-athletes will be tested in ever sport while the local pot smokers and alcohol drinkers can continue doing what they do best.


The ends doesn't justify the means. Don't be mad when you go to your local football stadium and have to pay atleast $12 to watch a game. They have to pay for the millions of test somehow and who better to pay for it than the taxpayers. The government loves to waste money.

[t-long20]

Who picks the kids to be tested? I think they should only test those athletes where steroid abuse has primarily transpired as in football, track and field, wrestling etc. What's the point in testing the girls golf team?

They can't do that. They have to test anyone participating in the UIL. Yes that includes 14 year old golfers and water polo members.

[ktCarl]

They can't do that. They have to test anyone participating in the UIL. Yes that includes 14 year old golfers and water polo members.

Well, then I would agree with DrEdward that the drug testing should be expanded to testing the entire student population for other illegal substances including steroids. Even some of the athletes indulge themselves in mary jane amongst other recreational drugs and some students that aren't involved with scholastic sports take steroids.

[katrine142000]

I think they need to choose who they test more carefully so there is no money wasted. Because I was one of the ones tested and I dont even play a sport! Im manager of the softball team but because I'm in the class my name was turned into the pool of names to be randomly chosen.

[ftballin11]

I found it amusing in the newspaper article that one of the proponents for steroid testing said it was the coaches repsonsibility to stop the use of steroids. So I guess it's the school nurse and health teachers responsibility to stop the high rate of teen-age pregnancy in Texas which is more of a concern than steriod testing. Of course, the state steps in and helps the teen-age mothers with $$$$$, etc. As KT said in an earlier post, the real responsibility begins with the parents. As for just testing football, track, wrestling, that would be discrimination and not politically correct.

This comment is the problem with the world today.

[SMC020]

I completely agree! Random testing does NOTHING except maybe catch one person. Leander "random" drug tests and I was tested at least 6 times, and of course, my results showed no signs of drug use. But the problem is that most of the kids picked to take the test seemed to be comprised of some of the best kids in the school...quite "random".

Hey I see that you have a Mississippi State avatar. My son has a scholarship offer to play football there and we will be visiting the school on July 15th to meet the coaches and see the campus. Do you have any insight into the school or know anything about the area?

[Spartan1]

I know, I haven't posted anything in like 2 years, but I read this forum almost daily.
How 'bout this for an idea:
Test the teams at the regional quarter final level. If any athlete on a team tests positive, that team is out of the playoffs, and the opponent that previously lost to them is in.

In football, that would be 32 teams. Let's say each team has a roster of 100. That's 3200 athletes in football. Add up the other sports, and I'm sure you could fall within the proposed 40,000 - 50,000 athletes currently slated to be "random" tested.

I think being the sole reason your team is no longer in the playoffs is a little more deterrent than a 30 day suspension.

[ktCarl]

I know, I haven't posted anything in like 2 years, but I read this forum almost daily.
How 'bout this for an idea:
Test the teams at the regional quarter final level. If any athlete on a team tests positive, that team is out of the playoffs, and the opponent that previously lost to them is in.

In football, that would be 32 teams. Let's say each team has a roster of 100. That's 3200 athletes in football. Add up the other sports, and I'm sure you could fall within the proposed 40,000 - 50,000 athletes currently slated to be "random" tested.

I think being the sole reason your team is no longer in the playoffs is a little more deterrent than a 30 day suspension.


I don't think I like the idea of an entire team missing the playoffs due to one players' mistake.

[Fleeman93]

I don't think I like the idea of an entire team missing the playoffs due to one players' mistake.


Sounds all too familiar doesn't it.

:(

[ftballin11]

Sounds all too familiar doesn't it.

:(


Thats what i was thinking.But i do think thy need a strict punishment to really scare the kids.

[Spartan1]

That's just it. No one mistakenly takes steroids. I'm sure there would be team mates who know if someone is doping or not.
Even if no one knows, the doping athlete needs to realize the consequences if they get caught. Parents and coaches need to make it perfectly clear there will be an entire team/school/community plenty upset with the offender's decision.

[KT2000]

A 30-day suspension is an absolute joke in my opinion. Anyone caught using performance enhancing drugs should be booted from their team for at least the current season. I would also say no chance of readmission for the following season, if still eligible, unless they can demonstrate a clean testing/physical record over the next off-season (on their own dime).

[Fleeman93]

That's just it. No one mistakenly takes steroids. I'm sure there would be team mates who know if someone is doping or not.
Even if no one knows, the doping athlete needs to realize the consequences if they get caught. Parents and coaches need to make it perfectly clear there will be an entire team/school/community plenty upset with the offender's decision.


If a player tests positive you give a 6 game suspension (all of the playoffs) and in order to come back and play the player must fork over the cash to be tested on regular schedule.

[LoneRocket]

I don't think I like the idea of an entire team missing the playoffs due to one players' mistake.

What if a player who is juiced is a big contributor to the team, he/she gets caught suspended and team with an advantage keeps the benefit. It is a team sport everyone should pay.

[LoneRocket]

If a player tests positive you give a 6 game suspension (all of the playoffs) and in order to come back and play the player must fork over the cash to be tested on regular schedule.

It would be cheaper and easier to test everyone on the top five teams of each district and if one turns up dirty the team forfeits the games the player played.

[KT2000]

That's just it. No one mistakenly takes steroids. I'm sure there would be team mates who know if someone is doping or not.
Even if no one knows, the doping athlete needs to realize the consequences if they get caught. Parents and coaches need to make it perfectly clear there will be an entire team/school/community plenty upset with the offender's decision.

Teammates know; however, the locker room code almost always supercedes. There's safety for cheaters within the age-old code. We've seen this is very much in existence at the highest levels with the MLB scandal.

[Spartan1]

Teammates know; however, the locker room code almost always supercedes. There's safety for cheaters within the age-old code. We've seen this is very much in existence at the highest levels with the MLB scandal.

I would agree. The locker room code would most likely supercede. But being booted out of the playoffs is a pretty harsh penalty. A person's conscience may get the best of them!!

[ktCarl]

What if a player who is juiced is a big contributor to the team, he/she gets caught suspended and team with an advantage keeps the benefit. It is a team sport everyone should pay.

Maybe that is the difference in why a stiff penalty is administered. I was alluding to when Katy was disqualified in '98 because one player cheated on his progress report so he could suit up. He was a 2nd or 3rd stringer that didn't get much playing time. Now if Coach Johnston KNEW one of his first string, D1 caliber, huge contributor cheated on his progress report and let him play to have a better chance in winning, then penalize the team. I THINK the Galveston Ball situation was similar that the coaches knew the kid was ineligible and played him.

[Spartan1]

Maybe that is the difference in why a stiff penalty is administered. I was alluding to when Katy was disqualified in '98 because one player cheated on his progress report so he could suit up. He was a 2nd or 3rd stringer that didn't get much playing time. Now if Coach Johnston KNEW one of his first string, D1 caliber, huge contributor cheated on his progress report and let him play to have a better chance in winning, then penalize the team. I THINK the Galveston Ball situation was similar that the coaches knew the kid was ineligible and played him.

Do you think anyone at Katy is going to cheat on their progress report again?

[Spartan1]

Maybe that is the difference in why a stiff penalty is administered. I was alluding to when Katy was disqualified in '98 because one player cheated on his progress report so he could suit up. He was a 2nd or 3rd stringer that didn't get much playing time. Now if Coach Johnston KNEW one of his first string, D1 caliber, huge contributor cheated on his progress report and let him play to have a better chance in winning, then penalize the team. I THINK the Galveston Ball situation was similar that the coaches knew the kid was ineligible and played him.

If the coach knows, then disciplinary action should be taken against the coach, not the team. Up to and including losing his job.
If the situation is locker room secrecy, then the players have the option to do the right thing. If not and you get caught, the team pays.
Simple, effective deterrent.

[slcdragonfan]

One way or another, it has to be more than just the player; the team/school also has to pay a price. Otherwise, you might have Coaches pushing their kids towards performance enhancement with no consequences for them (the Coach). Wrong message.

[ktCarl]

Do you think anyone at Katy is going to cheat on their progress report again?

In '98 they used hand written progress reports that a kid could 'doctor' or change it to make the coach believe it's a passing grade. I think they now use computers where the teachers send the grades to the coaches. I'm not sure but it is harder for a kid to cheat now than it was in '98.
I'm sure kids are tempted to cheat at Katy.

[Spartan1]

One way or another, it has to be more than just the player; the team/school also has to pay a price. Otherwise, you might have Coaches pushing their kids towards performance enhancement with no consequences for them (the Coach). Wrong message.

All of the above. A 30 day suspension is just not penalty enough.
1) 'roids can kill you. 2) it's a federal offense. 3) it's cheating.
It's the coach's job to set the ground rules for his/her program. The current 'roid test method is a waste of time and money. If the state wishes to continue, they should look at alternate methods and tougher penalties. :mad: