Guest LSU FOOTBALL Posted October 25, 2007 Report Posted October 25, 2007 I am very conservative and I don't agree at all with your former statement. I don't think testing athletes for steroids is a liberal cradle to the grave big government program. You do or don't agree with "we need the government to protect us from ourselves"
Guest LSU FOOTBALL Posted October 25, 2007 Report Posted October 25, 2007 Let me ask this, if the state spends millions of dollars on testing 30,000 athletes/uil participants and the results are less than 1% positive test, was it worth it?
tvc184 Posted October 25, 2007 Report Posted October 25, 2007 Let me ask this, if the state spends millions of dollars on testing 30,000 athletes/uil participants and the results are less than 1% positive test, was it worth it? That is about 30 cents per citizen for an entire year, so yes, it is worth it. I have a quarter and a nickel in my pocket they can have right now for my share and I will pledge to give that amount each year after this year. If they double it to 60,000 athletes, I will toss in my 60 cents.
tvc184 Posted October 25, 2007 Report Posted October 25, 2007 You do or don't agree with "we need the government to protect us from ourselves" "Ourselves", for the most part, no. I don't call children with their maturity "ourselves". I am assuming that if you don't think children do need protecting from themselves, then there is no need for a drinking age, a smoking age, an age to consent to medical care, etc. After all, they are only hurting themselves. If the state wanted to test you or me to protect you us from "ourselves", I would be very much against it and I don't fear any drug screen. I don't consider us to the be the same as a 15 or 16 year old child.
Guest LSU FOOTBALL Posted October 26, 2007 Report Posted October 26, 2007 let me ask this. What if the state made it mandatory that coaches undergo a steroid awareness course, and then once it was completed, give the district the burden of testing a random few each semester? That would be the state giving local control over an issue.I respect your point of view. We may have different opinions, but is good banter.Like PTI ;DIMO testing will be a waste of resourses. The gain will not outweight the cost.
77 Posted October 26, 2007 Report Posted October 26, 2007 If testing is a matter of weather or not it is worth it, drug testing or steroid testing is worth it if it saves one kid from an overdose or from a life of addiction, which you say we sould be concerned about, yea I think its worth it.imo Not to mention the ones that wont try it for fear of being caught.
tvc184 Posted October 26, 2007 Report Posted October 26, 2007 What if the state made it mandatory that coaches undergo a steroid awareness course, and then once it was completed, give the district the burden of testing a random few each semester? That would be the state giving local control over an issue. I think that would be a great option and probably more effective.
Guest maverick24 Posted October 26, 2007 Report Posted October 26, 2007 Maverick would like to see them test for Street Drugs and Prescription Drugs and maybe throw a test in there to see how much Beer a player has drank the night before a game. I bet you would catch more of them than on Roids! Not saying I aprove of Roids either but stop one problem at a time!
24 over par Posted October 26, 2007 Report Posted October 26, 2007 test for all of it but you might violate someones rights
tvc184 Posted October 26, 2007 Report Posted October 26, 2007 test for all of it but you might violate someones rightsIf testing athletes for drugs was violating someone's rights, it would been challenged and won long before now.
24 over par Posted October 26, 2007 Report Posted October 26, 2007 that was just a joke i am all for testing
BadMedicine Posted October 26, 2007 Report Posted October 26, 2007 I believe that the UIL will pay for the first year of steroid testing. After that the local school districts will pay. So this will become another unfunded mandate from Austin.
Jasperfan Posted October 26, 2007 Report Posted October 26, 2007 It is a great thought and sounds real good on a campaign trail but I don't think it is worth it or will it deter many students from using and abusing steroids. I wish that we could test a higher percentage of athletes, but it won't happen. If I understand this correctly, in an average sized school, only one person may be tested on a team. If I were using steroids to get an edge, I don't think that I would stop because I thought I would get tested, but if half of the team were tested, it would have an impact on my decisions. Right now,it's not worth the money for the result, but lets don't give up on it because it is a step in the right direction.
Recommended Posts