DRUG TESTING HELPS ATHLETES

A critical editorial ("The girl is not a guinea pig," April 12) and
reporting on Oakridge High School's athletic drug-testing policy and Oregon
Health Sciences University's study of that policy omitted important
information.

We, with support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, are studying
the effect of random athlete drug testing, among other reasons, because
athletes use drugs and alcohol at high levels, placing them at risk for
sport participation and because no prior study has thoroughly examined
whether drug testing reduces drug use.

Substance abuse causes more deaths, illness and family disruption than any
other preventable health problem. Like many high schools, Oakridge has had
yearly tragedies due to alcohol and drug use. Unlike schools that drug test
and merely hope it works, schools in our study are educating everyone about
drug testing's effectiveness. This is something that even The Oregonian
states "would be nice to know."

Athletes choose to play interscholastic sports. These athletes are not
surprised and do not consider it intrusive when schools require medical
examinations, including a urinalysis, to assure their health and safety.
Yet some are somehow offended when a urinalysis is performed to assess drug
use, an activity that places the student at increased risk during training
and competition.

Students at Oakridge and the other study schools who test positive are not
punished. The student who tests positive for alcohol or drugs remains in
school and on the sports team. There are no criminal proceedings. When
drugs are detected, it is treated as a confidential medical problem.

I do not deny the legitimacy of the opinions of those who believe that drug
testing is improper. But I believe The Oregonian still has some explaining
to do.

Why is it OK to require pre-season examinations to determine if a student
is fit to play, but not OK for a school to require that a student to be
subject to a random drug test to reduce their risk of playing sports while
drug-intoxicated. The Oregonian and other businesses require pre-employment
testing for illegal drug use.

Why is it acceptable for businesses to protect their private interests but
unacceptable for schools to protect students from injury, and themselves
from liability, for allowing intoxicated students to participate in sports.
What counsel does The Oregonian have to offer a school district sued for
such negligence.

Ginelle Weber's parents demanded $200,000 in damages against Oakridge for
missing one season of 2A volleyball, although there is another 2A school
where she could play sports just a few miles away. Weber and her mother
also have stated that they are not opposed to school drug tests of all
students, they just objected to singling out athletes.

Athletes are often role models and opinion leaders in high school. Those
involved in this study not only say they do not use drugs, but they also
are willing to prove it. This sends a powerful message. By their actions,
these athletes help other students avoid drugs by setting an example.