To Test or Not To Test?

[incognito]

We're set to kick off another great season of Texas high school football.  Summer workouts are wrapping up, two-a-days are right around the corner, and random steroid testing begins.  The UIL Anabolic Steroid Testing program is a state-wide random testing program that affects student athletes in grades 9-12 regardless of sport, gender or participation level.  The funding for the $1 million testing program was reduced by $250,000 this year in order to trim the budget.  Although some have championed the program, declaring it to be a deterrent, others are convinced it is a total failure, a complete waste of money and should be done away with entirely.  Since Feb. 2008, nearly 50,000 student athletes have been tested with only 20 confirmed cases of steroid use.  The steroid problem has certainly left its mark on the current era of sports, but is the use of performance-enhancing drugs widespread at the high school level?  At present the UIL only tests about 30% of Texas high schools.  Is that an accurate measure of steroid use in high school sports?  Should they test every student athlete?  Is that feasible, or would the price tag be too great for taxpayers, and what cost can we place on the health and future of our kids?  According to research, 60% of coaches think random steroid testing should be conducted in high schools, and 33% of athletic directors have suspected their athletes of using steroids.  So I propose the question to you, SETXSports, what do you think?  Is steroid use an issue in Southeast Texas high school sports? 

[bronco1]

Are steroids widely used in SE Texas?

You can’t single us out of the equation, as a nation steroid use is high in every level of sports. We all know it, and have accepted it. It is a moral issue to all of us because it is illegal. If a doctor prescribed it, to help an injury recover faster, who wouldn't be ok with it, especially since we all know the benefits? This issue isn't going away; it is deeply ingrained in the fabric of high performance and high demand world of sports. When careers and millions of dollars hang in the balance, side effects and testing are just that, obstacles not deterrents.

Do I like or think its fair?

No.

[WOSgrad]

I say continue the testing.  I am one of those that believes that the confirmed cases are so low because of the deterrent effect of the testing. The $1 million in scheme of things is not that big of a price tag when we are talking about the health of our young men and women.  In fact, that is an amount that should not even touch the taxpayers.  As discussed in an earlier thread, by the next re-alignment, Texas will have almost 200 more teams in the playoffs games, which amounts to about 100 more playoff games which the UIL gets 15% of the gross...and that is just football.  All other sports pay a portion of the gross in post-season games to the UIL.  

Off of this alone, they have more than enough to pay for a testing program in Texas.

[D3zii]

I say Test To...Athletes are takeing away from the fairness of the game and Takeing the easy rode while other teams are working hard everyday,,,

[tvc184]

[quote name="WOSgrad" post="819236" timestamp="1279644376"]
I say continue the testing.  [size=12pt][b]I am one of those that believes that the confirmed cases are so low because of the deterrent effect of the testing. [/b][/size]The $1 million in scheme of things is not that big of a price tag when we are talking about the health of our young men and women.  In fact, that is an amount that should not even touch the taxpayers.  As discussed in an earlier thread, by the next re-alignment, Texas will have almost 200 more teams in the playoffs games, which amounts to about 100 more playoff games which the UIL gets 15% of the gross...and that is just football.  All other sports pay a portion of the gross in post-season games to the UIL.  

Off of this alone, they have more than enough to pay for a testing program in Texas.
[/quote]

You are correct.

[Guest blackflag]

[quote name="tvc184" post="819262" timestamp="1279651050"]
[quote author=WOSgrad link=topic=71110.msg819236#msg819236 date=1279644376]
I say continue the testing.  [size=12pt][b]I am one of those that believes that the confirmed cases are so low because of the deterrent effect of the testing. [/b][/size]The $1 million in scheme of things is not that big of a price tag when we are talking about the health of our young men and women.  In fact, that is an amount that should not even touch the taxpayers.  As discussed in an earlier thread, by the next re-alignment, Texas will have almost 200 more teams in the playoffs games, which amounts to about 100 more playoff games which the UIL gets 15% of the gross...and that is just football.  All other sports pay a portion of the gross in post-season games to the UIL.  

Off of this alone, they have more than enough to pay for a testing program in Texas.
[/quote]

You are correct.
[/quote]

Keep testing

[baddog]

What happened to the 20 kids that were caught?

Since I think it is human nature to panic and make a situation seem more dire than it really is, I think only this few were caught because we don't place enough confidence in our kids to trust them to make the right decisions. Actually, they will surprise you more times than not.

[KDOSullivan]

Let's test. If a kid doesn't use steroids due to the test, then the testing has done its job.

[warpaint101]

DRUG TEST EVERYONE FROM PRINCIPLE ON DOWN ,,, THEN SEE WHAT THE OUTCOME IS....... :o

[77]

[quote name="KDOSullivan" post="819306" timestamp="1279664184"]
Let's test. If a kid doesn't use steroids due to the test, then the testing has done its job.
[/quote]I agree, random steroid or drug test gives a kid a way to avoid the peer pressure.

[mat]

[quote name="77" post="819351" timestamp="1279676824"]
[quote author=KDOSullivan link=topic=71110.msg819306#msg819306 date=1279664184]
Let's test. If a kid doesn't use steroids due to the test, then the testing has done its job.
[/quote]I agree, random steroid or drug test gives a kid a way to avoid the peer pressure.
[/quote]

...and no reason to wait until we have a very serious problem before we do something about it; like we do about so many other things.

[baddog]

50,000 kids tested and 20 positives (some could be false positives) is .0004. Does this number tell me that there is a problem? No! I think paranoia creeps in and destroys our brains sometimes. I think as a society, we overreact to any situation that affects our ''kids'', especially when we can pay someone else to do our parenting for us. School is already nothing more than an 8 hour day care. We could certainly find better things to throw millions of dollars towards than steroid testing. We are graduating some kids that can't even spell their own name, but at least they aren't on steroids. Doesn't that make sense?

Please don't give me the ''If it saves just one kid, then it is worth it '' speech, because obviously, it isn't. Why else would they decrease the program funding? It's mainly because there isn't a problem, but it will continue simply to satisfy the paranoids.

[KDOSullivan]

[quote name="baddog" post="819569" timestamp="1279747489"]
50,000 kids tested and 20 positives (some could be false positives) is .0004. Does this number tell me that there is a problem? No! I think paranoia creeps in and destroys our brains sometimes. I think as a society, we overreact to any situation that affects our ''kids'', especially when we can pay someone else to do our parenting for us. School is already nothing more than an 8 hour day care. We could certainly find better things to throw millions of dollars towards than steroid testing. We are graduating some kids that can't even spell their own name, but at least they aren't on steroids. Doesn't that make sense?

Please don't give me the ''If it saves just one kid, then it is worth it '' speech, because obviously, it isn't. Why else would they decrease the program funding? It's mainly because there isn't a problem, but it will continue simply to satisfy the paranoids.
[/quote]

The kids who can't spell their own names is another story. I am going to retire one day and post an essay that'll tick-off the governor.
I was in the Houston area when steroid first got "big." You knew they were on them. Acne, went from 150 to 210 overnight. They couldn't concentrate in class. They beat their girlfriends off campus. It was just nuts. And what could the schools do at that time? Pretty much nothing. Testing kids at least is an attempt to stop a kid from possibly having their liver give out when they are in their 40s.

[Cardinal Supporter]

I vote for testing. Even if not many kids are guilty of using. All the local industries test their employees and it has kept a lot of people drug free. So maybe many of the kids are steriod free because of the fear of being caught. A kid can be influenced easily into using steriods if he thinks he has a chance to get a big scholorship. But the chance of being caught because of testing and loosing any chance of a scholorship could keep him/her off of steriods.

[liltex]

Testing a % keeps it honest not to mention could it affect a team as a whole by a positive test causing forfeture of games and no kid wants that.

[BaseBow]

[quote name="Warpaint101" post="819340" timestamp="1279674390"]
DRUG TEST EVERYONE FROM PRINCIPLE ON DOWN ,,, THEN SEE WHAT THE OUTCOME IS....... :o
[/quote]Test Kids Parents and coaches :D

[liltex]

People in the work force get tested so why not test teachers/coaches/admin and especially bus drivers.

[tvc184]

[quote name="liltex" post="819652" timestamp="1279802876"]
People in the work force get tested so why not test teachers/coaches/admin and especially bus drivers.
[/quote]

That is true but in my mind, what an adult does to his own body is his business from an employment standpoint. As long as it does not interfere with his job or endanger the public I don't really care. Now with teachers/admin, etc., I can understand the performance aspect of it. The employee needs to show up and ready to do the job.

From a law enforcement perspective, I understand the fact that it can be a crime but is it the business of a school district to be enforcing or investigating criminal law? Their business should be to make sure that their employees show up on time and ready to do their job. If a substance interferes with that then it is an issue and even with a legal substance like alcohol.

Children/students are a different issue entirely. What we do or require from or for children to protect them in no way has any relation to what an adult employee does. It is not tit for tat.

[KDOSullivan]

[quote name="tvc184" post="819654" timestamp="1279803643"]
[quote author=liltex link=topic=71110.msg819652#msg819652 date=1279802876]
People in the work force get tested so why not test teachers/coaches/admin and especially bus drivers.
[/quote]

That is true but in my mind, what an adult does to his own body is his business from an employment standpoint. As long as it does not interfere with his job or endanger the public I don't really care. Now with teachers/admin, etc., I can understand the performance aspect of it. The employee needs to show up and ready to do the job.

From a law enforcement perspective, I understand the fact that it can be a crime but is it the business of a school district to be enforcing or investigating criminal law? Their business should be to make sure that their employees show up on time and ready to do their job. If a substance interferes with that then it is an issue and even with a legal substance like alcohol.

Children/students are a different issue entirely. What we do or require from or for children to protect them in no way has any relation to what an adult employee does. It is not tit for tat.
[/quote]

The drivers of school vehicles are already tested. The DPS did it to us during the middle of TAKS Tests this last year. We had to come up with people to administer the exams, and in truth, it sort of made us short proctors until they completed the drug tests.
I was tested during a period in which I was taking prescribed pain medication for an injury, and informed the tester, and they wrote it on the paper, but then, I was not driving a bus during that time.
I know we already are asked what medications we taking and some of us older ones take medications by the handfuls......

[incognito]

The pressure put on these kids to win from parents, coaches and the community is enormous.  Combine that with their inherent drive to compete and the persuasion of their peers, and you have a recipe for disaster.  Many of these kids dream of playing at the next level, and are trying to attract the attention of college recruiters and a chance at a scholarship.  They know the offers are limited and the competition is endless, and so they justify the use of steroids as a resource to aid them towards that goal.  In other words, the end justifies the means.  As parents, coaches, and mentors we have a duty to help our kids make good decisions.  We have a responsibility to impress upon them the fact that there are no shortcuts on the road to success, that easy street doesn't exist, that the only way to arrive at their goal is through hard work, self-discipline and a never-say-die attitude.  We need a game plan to tackle this challenge that confronts all of us who care about the future of our kids.  We must stay engaged, and be it through education, counseling, or testing, we have an obligation to present a unified front in combating steroid use among our student athletes.  That's my two cents.

[TITAN POWER]

test them all

[KDOSullivan]

BTW: What are you going to test the coaches for? Blackberry cobbler? BBQ Sauce? ( Just picking coach, I would fail that test too.)

[sig220]

Testing all the students would be a logistical nightmare for a large school.  The school generally gets notification very shortly before the sample is taken.  For a large school all students in athletics means hundreds of students.  The school personnel are used to "proctor" and UIL supervises.  It means substitutes for teachers, coaches, etc and an intrusion on the school day. 

I am not sure of the "random nature" of the tests.  WB has been tested 3 years in a row, and strangely enough Christine Michael was randomly selected his junior and senior years.

[KDOSullivan]

[quote name="sig220" post="819956" timestamp="1279887974"]
Testing all the students would be a logistical nightmare for a large school.  The school generally gets notification very shortly before the sample is taken.  For a large school all students in athletics means hundreds of students.  The school personnel are used to "proctor" and UIL supervises.  It means substitutes for teachers, coaches, etc and an intrusion on the school day. 

I am not sure of the "random nature" of the tests.  WB has been tested 3 years in a row, and strangely enough Christine Michael was randomly selected his junior and senior years.
[/quote]

I know LCM tested my kids when they went through. And one was not involved in sports, but because they did band and choir, they were tested. I remember them talking about being pulled from English and history to "go in a cup."
I like the idea of testing, it is the timing that bothers me.

[incognito]

I have heard from reasonably good sources that the student athletes who were considered a safe bet of testing negative seem to get "randomly" selected on a fairly regular basis.  I'm not alleging that this is typical of the way the tests are conducted, and this post is not an attempt to impeach the character of UIL or school officials.  I'm just a little muddy as to exactly what the protocol is in the testing program.  I would appreciate it if someone could clarify for me exactly how the students are selected for testing.  In other words, is the individual choosing the particular group of students an "impartial or neutral" third party, or is it someone who has a stake in the outcome?