FOCUS ON TESTING ATHLETES FOR DRUGS IS MISGUIDED

Drug testing this county's athletes is a misguided approach to a
non-existent problem. Yes, I'm sure that if every single player on
every single high school team were to be tested, at least a few would
come back hot. So would some of your co-workers. What does that prove?

I realize that the Board of Education wants to appear pro-active, and
no one disputes that drug and alcohol use among students is a problem
worthy of tackling. But a policy that presumes guilt by participation
is hardly the answer. Any number of studies will reveal what most
people already know - that students involved in any type of
extracurricular activities, from sports to band to student government
to the club of your choice tend to be among the most responsible
citizens on campus.

This proposal starts off on the wrong foot with its focus on athletes.
If the argument is that sports is voluntary and can, therefore, impose
conditions on its participants, can the same not be said for every
other after-school pursuit? Why does the tailback generate more
suspicion than the tuba player or the art club treasurer or the duo on
the forensics team? He doesn't, which makes this idea a perfect
example of what former UCLA basketball coach John Wooden used to call
"activity disguised as action."

I believe any amount of evidence will show that the students most
likely to participate in substance use are those who have nothing to
do after school, the ones who are on their own between the last bell
of the day and the time when parent(s) get home from work. Likelihood
of bad behavior, however, is not reason for school officials to go
sniffing for it, and who decided that it's the education system's
responsibility to take on this task?

At some point, it becomes reasonable to ask if concern over academic
performance is not impacted by the expectation that teachers and
principals tend to social matters that used to be the responsibility
of parents. No question, some students go home to less-than-stable
environments. For about seven hours a day or so, schools provide a
refuge from that and extracurriculars are an extension of that safety
net. Sports, band, clubs and anything attract kids who want to do more
than simply "hang out" all afternoon.

Earlier, childhood obesity was all the rage, and schools were debating
menu choices and the presence of soda machines. Now it's the
possibility that a 16-year-old athlete might be tempted to drink a
beer or smoke a joint. Here's a news flash - that possibility has
existed since the policy-makers were students. While most of those
students did what parents and teachers alike would consider "the right
thing," we all know that not all of them will.

This newspaper's editorial stance is that passing a drug test is no
more than an additional requirement to athletic participation, akin to
maintaining grades or behaving in class. Wrong. Grades and behavior
result in after-the-fact punishment; random testing assumes guilt. A
suggestion of testing based on some sort of credible evidence of a
problem might be worth consideration, but this proposal includes no
presumption beyond some self-appointed right to selectively administer
drug tests.

I can hear the arguments from some quarters: "If you have done nothing
wrong, what's the problem?" Sorry, no sale. Why should I, why should
anyone, be required to prove that they have not done anything wrong,
especially when there is not even a hint of evidence that points to
wrongdoing?

I don't want to get legalistic here, but surely someone has seen the
potential challenges that face such a policy, should it be adopted.
Beyond that, I would hope that school board members, administrators,
teachers, parents and onlookers would look at the more salient point:
What would such a measure really accomplish? Is there an epidemic of
alcohol or drug use among softball or basketball teams across the
county? Is the idea to make examples of higher-profile youngsters in
order to scare the rest of the student body straight?

The board's logic is well-intentioned, to be sure, but it is also
misplaced. Targeting the group of students least likely to be involved
in harmful activities is not exactly smart policy. Chances are that a
drinker or drug user is on someone's roster; I would hope that an
observant coach would notice that something is wrong and work from
there.

Talk to the player, to the player's parents, sit the kid down for a
while if necessary. Just don't tell me that looking for answers in a
test tube constitutes serious action. Alex Lekas has been a
Fayetteville resident for more than 20 years.