DRUG TESTS FOR ATHLETES SUPPORTED

Some might see it as unconstitutional, but many local parents say they
support testing high school athletes for drugs even if it means less
participation in sports.

"Kids now have a clear message: If you don't want to follow the policy,
don't play a sport," said Jack Freeman, president of the athletic boosters
at Brookland-Cayce High School in Lexington District 2.

Freeman, who has a son participating in athletics at the school, led the
successful campaign for mandatory drug testing of student-athletes in
Lexington 2.

The West Columbia-Cayce district is the only one in the Midlands with such a
policy. The district joins five other high schools in the state that have
drug-testing policies for athletes.

Board members in District 5 of Lexington and Richland Counties could decide
at a Dec. 11 meeting whether to permit voluntary drug testing of athletes at
Dutch Fork High School.

The plan has the support of the school's parent groups.

"I am very much in favor of it," said Libby Barrineau, president of Dutch
Fork's Parent-Teacher-Student Organization. "If we've got a child using
drugs and playing football, then we've got a potentially deadly situation on
our hands."

Jimmy Satterfield, the athletics director at Lexington High School in
Lexington District 1, announced that he would propose testing athletes for
drugs, but the issue never made it to the school's parent groups or district
board.

"I think it's something we need, but we haven't sat down to talk about it,"
Satterfield said.

While some parents are lauding student drug testing, officials at the
American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina say it violates a student's
right to privacy and isn't a deterrent to drug use.

LaVerne Neal, executive director of the S.C. ACLU, said the organization
opposes testing entire groups of students when there's no suspicion of drug
use.

Neal also said such tests infringe on a student's right to privacy.

"Drug testing would reveal other medical conditions," Neal said. "It would
show whether a student is pregnant, what types of prescription medication a
student might be taking. This doesn't sound like a very good civics lesson
to me, whether it's voluntary or mandatory."

But Jack Claypoole, chief of staff for Lexington/Richland Alcohol and Drug
Abuse Council, said he supports such programs as a way of identifying
students who need counseling and treatment to get off drugs.

"We certainly believe it's a valuable tool for parents and schools to use.
But what's more important is ensuring that support services are offered
should any of these youths test positive," Claypoole said.

Fred Smith, a father of two daughters who participate in sports at Airport
High School in Lexington 2, said the district's plan is aimed at helping
kids get off drugs or never use them.

"Kids today have so much more peer pressure and opportunities to get into
trouble," he said. "We need to do what we can to help them make the right
choices."

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of testing student athletes for drugs
in 1995 in the case of Acton vs. Vernonia, Ore.

The court refused to hear a constitutional challenge in 1998 about drug
testing students in an Indiana school district.

Since then, schools across the country have implemented policies for testing
high school athletes for drugs.

Roger Hazel, assistant director of the S.C. High School League, said he
thinks a few Upstate high schools might have drug-testing policies, but the
activity is not commonplace.

The league has been reluctant to suggest testing be mandatory statewide
because it can be costly, Hazel said.

"We're just for anything that would help promote drug-free athletes," Hazel
said.

Melanie Hughes and Karen York contributed to this story.