ILLINOIS BECOMES 4TH STATE TO IMPLEMENT PED TESTING PROGRAM
The Illinois High School Association's Board of Directors voted earlier this week to implement a performance enhancing drug testing program beginning this fall for state championship competitions. The Board's vote came after reviewing the results of a survey sent to all 765 member schools on December 11, 2007. Curiously, only 414 schools (54%) responded to the survey that was due on Sunday, with 294 schools (72%) voting in favor of implementing a testing program.
IHSA Press Release:
http://www.ihsa.org/announce/2007-08/2008-01-14.htm
Illinois becomes the fourth state to implement such testing, following New Jersey, Florida, and Texas. Illinois is unique in that its implementation is not the result of state government action, but rather a voluntary choice by IHSA member schools, albeit with an affirmative response from less than 40% of the membership. The IHSA still has to select a collection agent and lab, determine the exact scope of the testing, select a medical review officer, and determine the relative penalties for the athletes and schools after a positive test. Interestingly, the aforementioned survey reveals that while the schools (the voting was done by either the principal or athletic director) were heavily in favor of making the athlete ineligible for testing positive (97% in favor), the schools were against forfeiting a post-season team award for the same offense (60% against).
IHSA Executive Director Marty Hickman said the IHSA likely will fund its own program at an initial annual cost of $100,000 to $150,000. Based on an estimated cost of $175 a test, the IHSA would test fewer than 1,000 athletes a year.
It will test them only after they enter state competition and perhaps only in sports in which use of performance-enhancing substances produces significant competitive advantages. Hickman said the IHSA also plans to strengthen its education program regarding avoiding use of performance-enhancing substances.
Of course, the devil is always in the details, but given these parameters you wonder if this will amount to more window dressing than deterrent. Don't get me wrong, the overall goal of deterring drug use among high school athletes is a positive end goal. I'm just not sure this program gives us much reason to assume that the landscape will change very much.
It would seem as if your school doesn't compete in state competitions and it does not conduct testing on its own, you could continue use and not be at risk of detection. So we may only be talking about deterring a limited percentage of players.
I'm aware that something is better than nothing, but by the same token effective is better than ineffective as well. It remains to be seen whether or not this program, as well as those of the other three states, realizes its goal of deterring and reducing drug use in the future effectively.
According to Frank Uryasz, president of the National Center for Drug Free Sport, data is lacking regarding how many high school athletes take steroids, but he believes anecdotal evidence indicates a need for testing.
The courts have in the past ruled that the legality of searches of this nature are determined “by balancing the intrusion on the individual’s interests against its promotion of legitimate government interests” (US Supreme Court). The balancing act is based on the privacy rights of the students and the general intrusive nature of the tests themselves vs. the need and importance of the instituting the tests.
Generally, the students privacy rights have fared as well as an employees rights in the workplace, which is that you check your constitutional rights at the door. Further the perception is that athletic participation is a privilege, not a right.
I'm OK with that, in fact we often caution athletes that they can and will be held to higher standards than the general student population in this area as well as issues like grades, behavior, interaction with their teachers and fellow students.
What I do worry about, especially after hearing some of the commentary from the Mitchell hearings and after, is we are heading down a slippery slope where we follow the International model of suspicion less testing, where there is no probable cause.
If the school system (state) wants to continue to act in its capacity as surrogate parents, then it needs to assume the same posture that a reasonable parent or guardian would.
Where the IHSA and the testing proponents may gain some traction is that it appears as if some of the focus of the effort will be directed against supplements that are readily available over the counter. So we may be willing to criminalize or stain athletes reputations and perhaps improperly inflate the scope of the crisis by including legal supplements into the testing trap. I understand they all fall under the catch-all of Performance Enhancing Substances but the message heard by others is DRUGS and STEROIDS.
Initial reports are the IHSA will use the NCAA banned substance list as a model, so that would include things like DHEA and possibly supplements that include various banned stimulants. Some of which are legal and sold over the counter.
Interesting stuff.
------------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE JANUARY 20, 2008 DAILY HERALD
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=117284
Bigger, stronger, faster -- over the counter
The focus of IHSA drug-testing is not steroids but those legal supplements
Anabolic steroids get the bulk of attention.
Yet, the main focus of a new state drug testing program for high school athletes won't be illegal steroids, but the shakes, powders and pills available at drug stores, nutrition retailers and gyms across the suburbs -- and for purchase by any teen with cash.
"It's difficult for high school kids to get their hands on anabolic steroids," said Marty Hickman, executive director of the Illinois High School Association. "The over-the-counter substances are really the main concern."
Dietary supplements -- which include vitamins, minerals, herbs, amino acids, enzymes and organ tissues -- are legal, largely unregulated, and highly alluring to teens looking to boost athletic performance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very interesting comments by Mr. Hickman. "It's difficult for high school kids to get their hands on anabolic steroids". This begs the question, where do these high levels of use by high school kids come from? Hopefully not from the anecdotal evidence cited by Mr. Uryasz above. Hopefully not from flawed surveys conducted where kids self-report usage based on incomplete or erroneous knowledge of what they are being asked.
Also interesting comment regarding "The over-the-counter substances are really the main concern". Really, since when? What kind of bait and switch tactic is that? I've been following this issue fairly closely recently and that is not the impression I was given. It was steroids and HGH that was the apparent boogey-man and it was these substances that the powers that be developed a mandate to fight against. Over the counter supplements can be regulated by the Fed anytime they so choose. Be careful, under the guise of good intentions, this may not pass the smell test as we move further down the road. Someone may have some further explaining to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment