19000 tested, 7 positives

[E-Vol-ution]

5 refusals and 43 no-shows.........regarding this second year of steroid testing. 5 played football, one football/track and one baseball/golf. 4 juniors, two seniors and a sophomore were the positives.
6 million dollars can be a blessing for many (clean kids), a burden for taxpayers (especially in this economy).....but overall a very good reflection of the integrity of Texas high school sports.
Your thoughts?

[slcdragonfan]

a lot of money. So is it preventative and thus well spent, or is it money down the rabbit hole? I don't know, but I would say we keep the program.

[twcpfan1]

link?

[rocketgrl94]

link?

http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/highschool/02/21/0221uil.html

[E-Vol-ution]

I agree....but have a dog in the hunt while also caring deeply about high school sports. I can also understand the view of a taxpayer with no interest in sports, kids and just their bottomline that thinks it's a waste of money in these economic times. I quote all figures from today's Fort Worth Star Telegram (and refuse to pay $1.00 for a Dallas Morning News Mon. thru Sat.)
a lot of money. So is it preventative and thus well spent, or is it money down the rabbit hole? I don't know, but I would say we keep the program.

[SLC]

Posted yesterday, here on the main board....

http://www.5atexasfootball.com/forum/vB/showthread.php?t=47192

[E-Vol-ution]

I apologize for reposting something already addressed. I thought I looked for the heading, but obviously must have missed it.
Posted yesterday, here on the main board....

http://www.5atexasfootball.com/forum/vB/showthread.php?t=47192

[Fleeman93]

"There are a lot more drivers speeding than there are drivers getting speeding tickets."

Wiseman

[E-Vol-ution]

Dang Flee...........I actually applaud you for this post!:notworthy"There are a lot more drivers speeding than there are drivers getting speeding tickets."

Wiseman

[Fleeman93]

Dang Flee...........I actually applaud you for this post!:notworthy

Just a quote from some guy named Wiseman. I'm not that smart.

[RidgePride]

If they were only testing football players, the number of positives would be much higher.

[KOfb92]

If they were only testing football players, the number of positives would be much higher.

That's very true, those numbers are VERY inaccurate to say the least.

[BigRing5311]

In today's economic environment it would be easy to say "When only 1 out of every 2,700 kids test positive for steroid use, is it really worth $6MM taxpayers dollars". But I think we are seeing 2 things happen; 1) deterrent factor 2) level playing field. I'm in the same boat with Evolution, with a dog in the hunt it gives a parent some comfort that their son or daughter isn't competing against a athleroid and the awareness factor. It seems like every week we read about another 50 something y.o. athlete who suddenly died from heart failure. In the 70's you could get Dbol dang near as easy as aspirin.

Lets see...2009 (-) 33 years = 1976. Not saying that everyone of the 50 something ex-pro we're reading about in the obit column did roids but I think it's more than coincidence.

[E-Vol-ution]

You get the credit....it applies with good timing.Just a quote from some guy named Wiseman. I'm not that smart.

[SLC]

I apologize for reposting something already addressed. I thought I looked for the heading, but obviously must have missed it.


No worries brother...It was just an fyi post, no need to appologize.

[DrEdward]

If these tests have the major/signifigante deterrence factor that some of the legislature and some of you seem to believe, then why on earth are we limiting these scans to steroids? There is absolutely no reason to expect to find major usage of steroids, as it is quite evident that usage of such is significantly less than 1.5%. Cocaine, pot, alcohol and other drugs are known to be in much more widespread use among high school aged kids. So if the deterrence value of testing is so high, then by testing for thsoe drugs, we could actually see some far greater benefits from the expenditures.

Keep the testing if you like, but cut back on the size of the samples and save a bunch of bucks in the process. Also based on the results thus far, a stratified random sample would appear to be much more appropriate than the current sampling algorithims. Relatively more testing of football and far less testing of the girls' programs. Don't eliminate the testing for the sub groups altogether, but apply some common sense and some Bayesian probablities in light of two years of results. (Of course, this looks and sounds like profiling. Because it makes sense to do so.)

But do not expect to see dramatically different results from the steroid testing, given the prior knowledge of the base of usage. Just make it more relevant by testing for other addicative substances which do not do these boys and girls any good whatsoever.

[kbarj]

If these tests have the major/signifigante deterrence factor that some of the legislature and some of you seem to believe, then why on earth are we limiting these scans to steroids? There is absolutely no reason to expect to find major usage of steroids, as it is quite evident that usage of such is significantly less than 1.5%. Cocaine, pot, alcohol and other drugs are known to be in much more widespread use among high school aged kids. So if the deterrence value of testing is so high, then by testing for thsoe drugs, we could actually see some far greater benefits from the expenditures....


Careful here, you're starting to make some real sense. Very well stated.

[wizenbud]

If these tests have the major/signifigante deterrence factor that some of the legislature and some of you seem to believe, then why on earth are we limiting these scans to steroids? There is absolutely no reason to expect to find major usage of steroids, as it is quite evident that usage of such is significantly less than 1.5%. Cocaine, pot, alcohol and other drugs are known to be in much more widespread use among high school aged kids. So if the deterrence value of testing is so high, then by testing for thsoe drugs, we could actually see some far greater benefits from the expenditures.

Keep the testing if you like, but cut back on the size of the samples and save a bunch of bucks in the process. Also based on the results thus far, a stratified random sample would appear to be much more appropriate than the current sampling algorithims. Relatively more testing of football and far less testing of the girls' programs. Don't eliminate the testing for the sub groups altogether, but apply some common sense and some Bayesian probablities in light of two years of results. (Of course, this looks and sounds like profiling. Because it makes sense to do so.)

But do not expect to see dramatically different results from the steroid testing, given the prior knowledge of the base of usage. Just make it more relevant by testing for other addicative substances which do not do these boys and girls any good whatsoever.

First...... This is a school, not a probation department.
Second...... This is America, not a police state.
Third..... High Schools are not parents.
Fourth..... Paying taxes doesn't give you the right to invade others privacy.
Fifth..... Are sodas, chocolate, and girls going to be tested for too ?? All are also "ADDICATIVE SUBSTANCES".

Where do we draw the line ? When is too much information, too much ?
When did playing a game become the gateway for people to invade your life ?
When did kids become the "enemy" ?

Let's say we did test for anything and everything. So, what then ? We start sending the kids that experimented with "pot" or "spirits" to jail ? We kick them out of one of the places that could help them turn away from drugs ?
It's all well and good that you want to help kids make the right decisions. But, kids don't always think about what will happen when they do drugs or have unprotected sex or a list of just about anything doing with life and its choices. That's why we call them kids. For the last 30 years this country, really this state, has been in dreamland when it comes to the war on drugs. Ruining one kids life in the attempt to save another kids life is immoral. The idea that we have the right to invade a kids life, mocks of socialism. Let the parents handle their kids. Seems to me we didn't have all these problems with kids until some "over-zealous" people got the governmet involved in parenting. The words "Don't spank your kids" ring a bell ? I don't need UIL or the State of Texas testing my kid for anything. I had 'em, I'll raise them, thank you.

[ktCarl]

If these tests have the major/signifigante deterrence factor that some of the legislature and some of you seem to believe, then why on earth are we limiting these scans to steroids? There is absolutely no reason to expect to find major usage of steroids, as it is quite evident that usage of such is significantly less than 1.5%. Cocaine, pot, alcohol and other drugs are known to be in much more widespread use among high school aged kids. So if the deterrence value of testing is so high, then by testing for thsoe drugs, we could actually see some far greater benefits from the expenditures.

Keep the testing if you like, but cut back on the size of the samples and save a bunch of bucks in the process. Also based on the results thus far, a stratified random sample would appear to be much more appropriate than the current sampling algorithims. Relatively more testing of football and far less testing of the girls' programs. Don't eliminate the testing for the sub groups altogether, but apply some common sense and some Bayesian probablities in light of two years of results. (Of course, this looks and sounds like profiling. Because it makes sense to do so.)

But do not expect to see dramatically different results from the steroid testing, given the prior knowledge of the base of usage. Just make it more relevant by testing for other addicative substances which do not do these boys and girls any good whatsoever.

I kinda agree with you Doc. First of all you would have to 'profile' to get a better result in detection and deterrence of steroids if you tested mainly boy's sports like football baseball, track and wrestling.
Second, I agree with a more encompassing test that would detect illicit recreational drug usage by all students buttttttttttttt, the prime directive of this measure was to try and curtail the usage of steroids in high school athletes. It's not perfect but it's a start. The BEST way to curtail this steroid abuse is to educate parents of kids in sports so as to be a more proactive agent in the deterrence process. Wake up Mom and Dad!!!

[E-Vol-ution]

This post is recommended. Especially the conclusion.First...... This is a school, not a probation department.
Second...... This is America, not a police state.
Third..... High Schools are not parents.
Fourth..... Paying taxes doesn't give you the right to invade others privacy.
Fifth..... Are sodas, chocolate, and girls going to be tested for too ?? All are also "ADDICATIVE SUBSTANCES".

Where do we draw the line ? When is too much information, too much ?
When did playing a game become the gateway for people to invade your life ?
When did kids become the "enemy" ?

Let's say we did test for anything and everything. So, what then ? We start sending the kids that experimented with "pot" or "spirits" to jail ? We kick them out of one of the places that could help them turn away from drugs ?
It's all well and good that you want to help kids make the right decisions. But, kids don't always think about what will happen when they do drugs or have unprotected sex or a list of just about anything doing with life and its choices. That's why we call them kids. For the last 30 years this country, really this state, has been in dreamland when it comes to the war on drugs. Ruining one kids life in the attempt to save another kids life is immoral. The idea that we have the right to invade a kids life, mocks of socialism. Let the parents handle their kids. Seems to me we didn't have all these problems with kids until some "over-zealous" people got the governmet involved in parenting. The words "Don't spank your kids" ring a bell ? I don't need UIL or the State of Texas testing my kid for anything. I had 'em, I'll raise them, thank you.

[E-Vol-ution]

Valid and well stated viewpoint, but reeks of "big brotherism.If these tests have the major/signifigante deterrence factor that some of the legislature and some of you seem to believe, then why on earth are we limiting these scans to steroids? There is absolutely no reason to expect to find major usage of steroids, as it is quite evident that usage of such is significantly less than 1.5%. Cocaine, pot, alcohol and other drugs are known to be in much more widespread use among high school aged kids. So if the deterrence value of testing is so high, then by testing for thsoe drugs, we could actually see some far greater benefits from the expenditures.

Keep the testing if you like, but cut back on the size of the samples and save a bunch of bucks in the process. Also based on the results thus far, a stratified random sample would appear to be much more appropriate than the current sampling algorithims. Relatively more testing of football and far less testing of the girls' programs. Don't eliminate the testing for the sub groups altogether, but apply some common sense and some Bayesian probablities in light of two years of results. (Of course, this looks and sounds like profiling. Because it makes sense to do so.)

But do not expect to see dramatically different results from the steroid testing, given the prior knowledge of the base of usage. Just make it more relevant by testing for other addicative substances which do not do these boys and girls any good whatsoever.

[wizenbud]

I kinda agree with you Doc. First of all you would have to 'profile' to get a better result in detection and deterrence of steroids if you tested mainly boy's sports like football baseball, track and wrestling.
Second, I agree with a more encompassing test that would detect illicit recreational drug usage by all students buttttttttttttt, the prime directive of this measure was to try and curtail the usage of steroids in high school athletes. It's not perfect but it's a start. The BEST way to curtail this steroid abuse is to educate parents of kids in sports so as to be a more proactive agent in the deterrence process. Wake up Mom and Dad!!!

I would say that Texas parents have more to be proud of than not.

The number of players tested was a large number. The returns were not. Less than 1% tested either tested postive or adulterated. Even if you just counted football players. 1% is the number. Let's put this in perspective. The number of POLICEMEN arrested last year for sexual assault, 1.8%, was a higher percentage than the UIL steroid test. 1.8% of nearly 300,000 officers.

Drug arrest and testing haven't stopped or even curtailed drug use in this country. Only an informed discussion, without propaganda laced BS, has proven effective against teen drug abuse. Let's quit throwing money down the rabbit hole of testing and invest into a comprehensive drug education class that would be mandatory for all high school freshman to take. A truely educational class, not a DARE class of lies and propaganda that kids see through faster than Karen Carpenter can turn down a sandwich. A class that shows the risk and acknowledge some of the benefits that ALL drugs bring to our society. From Alcohol to the latest Phrama drug on the market. Only then will the drug ills be dealt with in this country. Just an opinion.

[Fleeman93]

Take big brother out of the system all together and implement a challenge system. Would be more effective, more cost effective, and makes a whole hell of a lot more sense.

[wizenbud]

Take big brother out of the system all together and implement a challenge system. Would be more effective, more cost effective, and makes a whole hell of a lot more sense.

And we have a winner !!! :notworthy

[kbarj]

Please note that DrEdwards said, IF you believe this testing works...then a more comprehensive drug testing with targeted groups would make sense. And in that case, it would. Other drugs are far more of a problem in our schools than steroids. However, the only ones that could reasonably be tested would be those participating in UIL or school sponsored activities...i.e. the kids who need this testing the least.

However, based on what I hear from the athletes, I don't think the testing has made any significant difference. The kids I talk to have indicated they aren't doing anything different...except for a few who have been scared into not drinking protein shakes anymore.

[wizenbud]

Please note that DrEdwards said, IF you believe this testing works...then a more comprehensive drug testing with targeted groups would make sense. And in that case, it would. Other drugs are far more of a problem in our schools than steroids. However, the only ones that could reasonably be tested would be those participating in UIL or school sponsored activities...i.e. the kids who need this testing the least.
However, based on what I hear from the athletes, I don't think the testing has made any significant difference. The kids I talk to have indicated they aren't doing anything different...except for a few who have been scared into not drinking protein shakes anymore.

Not true. Just because you are in school sponsored activities doesn't mean you do not experiment with drugs. This is just a stupid comment.

Second, it doesn't matter if the good DrEdwards prefaced his comment with the "IF you belive" BS. To think that testing kids for drugs will curtail drug use in teens, is folly. Testing for adults has been around for over 25 years. Has it stopped drug use ? No. Matter of fact, drug use is up in the last 25 years. Now, if testing of adults didn't solve the problem, how is testing kids going too ? The only thing I see in our future would be Youth-Jails, filled to the brim, with teens caught in the middle of some stupid idealogical battlefield. Just as our prisons stand today. Let's get real. This steroid testing is the first step to an all inclusive test of all high school aged kids. Unless we stand-up and speak out. The truth and facts are that testing doesn't stop anything. Only a good support system and honest discussion will finally win the war on drugs. Let's not confuse some talking point with real life. Things sound real good when you talk about it as "what if", but there are always unforseen consequences when you try and implement them. I am just saying, let's not be to quick to have the government too involved in the raising of our kids. Just look at how well the government has planned our economic future. ;)

[UCmaroons]

If these tests have the major/signifigante deterrence factor that some of the legislature and some of you seem to believe, then why on earth are we limiting these scans to steroids? There is absolutely no reason to expect to find major usage of steroids, as it is quite evident that usage of such is significantly less than 1.5%. Cocaine, pot, alcohol and other drugs are known to be in much more widespread use among high school aged kids. So if the deterrence value of testing is so high, then by testing for thsoe drugs, we could actually see some far greater benefits from the expenditures.

Keep the testing if you like, but cut back on the size of the samples and save a bunch of bucks in the process. Also based on the results thus far, a stratified random sample would appear to be much more appropriate than the current sampling algorithims. Relatively more testing of football and far less testing of the girls' programs. Don't eliminate the testing for the sub groups altogether, but apply some common sense and some Bayesian probablities in light of two years of results. (Of course, this looks and sounds like profiling. Because it makes sense to do so.)

But do not expect to see dramatically different results from the steroid testing, given the prior knowledge of the base of usage. Just make it more relevant by testing for other addicative substances which do not do these boys and girls any good whatsoever.


Some districts do test for everything

[ktCarl]

I would say that Texas parents have more to be proud of than not.

The number of players tested was a large number. The returns were not. Less than 1% tested either tested postive or adulterated. Even if you just counted football players. 1% is the number. Let's put this in perspective. The number of POLICEMEN arrested last year for sexual assault, 1.8%, was a higher percentage than the UIL steroid test. 1.8% of nearly 300,000 officers.

Drug arrest and testing haven't stopped or even curtailed drug use in this country. Only an informed discussion, without propaganda laced BS, has proven effective against teen drug abuse. Let's quit throwing money down the rabbit hole of testing and invest into a comprehensive drug education class that would be mandatory for all high school freshman to take. A truely educational class, not a DARE class of lies and propaganda that kids see through faster than Karen Carpenter can turn down a sandwich. A class that shows the risk and acknowledge some of the benefits that ALL drugs bring to our society. From Alcohol to the latest Phrama drug on the market. Only then will the drug ills be dealt with in this country. Just an opinion.

I believe if you just tested football players the percentage would go up. Just test 1st and 2nd string players and probably it goes up higher.

I like your idea that I made bold.

[kbarj]

Not true. Just because you are in school sponsored activities doesn't mean you do not experiment with drugs. This is just a stupid comment...

It sure is...that's why I'm glad that's not what I said.

I didn't say that kids at school who are involved with extracurricular activities don't get experiement with drugs or make stupid decisions. I see that happen every day. I also see, however, that kids who are not involved in extracurricular activities do tend do those things more often. Recent educational studies back that up. In fact, schools are pushing to put in "Connections" programs right now in an effort to address this very issue. What I said was that involved students were the ones that need it least. And I will stand by that. Read what was written.

Am I in favor of drug testing? No. But if it's going to be done, at least it should be done in a manner that has some chance at being effective. The current plan doesn't address the biggest problems and isn't making a difference.

[DrEdward]

Not true. Just because you are in school sponsored activities doesn't mean you do not experiment with drugs. This is just a stupid comment.

Second, it doesn't matter if the good DrEdwards prefaced his comment with the "IF you belive" BS. To think that testing kids for drugs will curtail drug use in teens, is folly. Testing for adults has been around for over 25 years. Has it stopped drug use ? No. Matter of fact, drug use is up in the last 25 years. Now, if testing of adults didn't solve the problem, how is testing kids going too ? The only thing I see in our future would be Youth-Jails, filled to the brim, with teens caught in the middle of some stupid idealogical battlefield. Just as our prisons stand today. Let's get real. This steroid testing is the first step to an all inclusive test of all high school aged kids. Unless we stand-up and speak out. The truth and facts are that testing doesn't stop anything. Only a good support system and honest discussion will finally win the war on drugs. Let's not confuse some talking point with real life. Things sound real good when you talk about it as "what if", but there are always unforseen consequences when you try and implement them. I am just saying, let's not be to quick to have the government too involved in the raising of our kids. Just look at how well the government has planned our economic future. ;)


The conditional statement makes a huge difference to the meaning. The statement was written in response to the statements read in the newspapers by some of the state politicans claiming that it was their testing program which has resulted in so few positive results being found. While there probably is some deterrence effect of the random testing, I would doubt that it is all that large. A conditional statement is not BS. If you believe the effect is large, as some on here seem to do, then testing for a variety of illegal usages makes some sense.

The Texas legislature came up with this program of mandatory testing for a single drug two years ago. Like many, I thought it was to be a relatively silly expenditure of our money, based on the rationale that was provided at the time. If the purpose is to somehow protect the kids, there are indeed other ways to do so. However, if we are going to be spending the money testing in any event, then testing for more substances makes some sense. At the very least, it would allow parents to know that their kids are not using or if they are. No other legal action would necessarily be involved, just as none is now to incarcerate anyone. Sorry that this involves another of those conditional statements that you don't like.

In any event, it would seem that the current testing program should be restructured if we are going to continue with it. Smaller in sample size, a different sampling methodology and an expansion of what is being tested for. If the alternative is to keep doing what we're currently doing, then save the money and just drop the program. Yes, another conditional statement you have to deal with, because there are choices which have to be made.