Should HS Athletes be exempt from PE class?

Apparently not--even on game days--according to this study published in the National Strength and Conditioning Association's Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2010/03000/After_School_Fitness_Performance_is_Not_Altered.24.aspx

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research:
March 2010 - Volume 24 - Issue 3 - pp 765-770
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c7c2b2
Original Research

After-School Fitness Performance is Not Altered After Physical Education Lessons in Adolescent Athletes
Faigenbaum, Avery D; McFarland, James E; Buchanan, Erin; Ratamess, Nicholas A; Kang, Jie; Hoffman, Jay R

Abstract
Faigenbaum, AD, McFarland, JE, Buchanan, E, Ratamess, NA, Kang, J, and Hoffman, JR. After-school fitness performance is not altered after physical education lessons in adolescent athletes. J Strength Cond Res 24(3): 765-770, 2010-Physical education (PE) provides a unique opportunity for school-age youth to establish health habits, although some young athletes are exempt from PE and others do not participate because of a concern regarding the lingering effects of fatigue on after-school fitness performance. The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of different PE lessons on after-school fitness performance in young athletes. Twenty athletes (14-18 years) participated in 3 different PE lessons that consisted of aerobic exercise (AE), resistance training (RT), or basketball skill training (BS). Fitness performance was assessed after-school following each lesson and after a control day without PE. There were no significant differences in flexibility (34.1 ± 6.5, 34.7 ± 1.3, 33.5 ± 7.2, and 33.6 ± 7.3 cm), vertical jump (46.3 ± 14.7, 46.2 ± 13.6, 46.4 ± 13.4, and 45.6 ± 14.2 cm), long jump (175.0 ± 36.4, 174.2 ± 36.3, 172.7 ± 35.8, and 171.9 ± 34.7 cm), medicine ball toss (348.9 ± 121.8, 342.0 ± 120.6, 353.9 ± 123.6, and 348.4 ± 129.1 cm), proagility shuttle run (5.8 ± 0.5, 5.7 ±0.53, 5.8 ± 0.52, and 5.8 ± 0.5 seconds), 20-m sprint (3.7 ± 0.4, 3.7 ± 0.4, 3.7 ± 0.3, and 3.7 ± 0.3 seconds), and 200-m sprint (36.3 ± 4.7, 35.1 ± 4.0, 35.9 ± 5.9, and 35.4 ± 5.4 seconds) after AE, RT, BS, or the control day, respectively. These findings suggest that an exercise lesson or skill-based PE class will not have an adverse effect on after-school fitness performance in adolescent athletes.

Not sure why this is even an issue anymore. Yes, I understand the ball coach with elements of Murphy's Law rattling around his head on game day. "OMG, my staring pitcher might blow out an UCL playing dodge-ball" (they still play that, right?) or "My star RB might pull a hammy doing a crab walk", but if that is really a threat to happen shouldn't you perhaps be examining the merits of your athletic conditioning program or the conditioning level of your athlete?

Just from a "looks test" and "setting a good example" for the other students standard, they probably should be participating. If they are going to get hurt, they can get hurt from the minute they get out of bed. That's the risk we all take daily. If something bad is going to happen, it's going to happen. It just doesn't seem to make much sense to be building policy decisions around such thinking.

If well-conditioned, athletic kids are at risk of injury in PE, what does that say about the relative safety of less well-conditioned, less athletically gifted students?

As a coach, I would want my kid in PE class--performing well, to the best of his/her ability--I would want him/her to take the same approach in English or Science classes. However, should he/she corner the student council president in dodge-ball, I probably wouldn't mind if he/she throw the change-up or BP fastball, rather than the heater. That's all I ask.