SCHOOLS SHOULD DROP DRUG TESTS FOR ATHLETES

It's time to pull the plug on the drug-testing program for city high
school athletes. With an average of only six positive tests in the
past four years at a cost of more than $40,000 a year, few can argue
successfully for continuation of the tests.

Practically every year since the program began in 1990, the School
Board has wondered out loud whether the tests are worth the cost. More
importantly, they have worried whether the tests are an effective
deterrent for would-be drug users.

"You can make an argument that it is not the most effective use of
$40,000," board vice chairman Mac Frankfort said earlier this month.
"It's not a totally bad program, but for the effect that it is having,
it is way too expensive. I've always wondered how effective it really
is; it's hard to tell," he said.

Frankfort added that the high schools are "testing an awful lot of
kids that are not doing any drugs and that's annoying to them. It's
insulting."

Some School Board members believe the money could be better spent
elsewhere in an already tight budget. Charles Hooks is one of them,
who said recently, "I certainly want to give teachers a raise and that
means we've got to look in every nook and cranny in the budget to find
that money."

According to the Virginia Department of Education, only three other
school divisions in the state have drug-testing programs similar to
the one here. That so few other systems are using the tests should
give the School Board a clue about how useful other educators are
finding the tests.

At both Heritage and E.C. Glass, athletes - regardless of gender or
sport - could be tested up to three times each season. That means,
because of the random nature of the tests, those who compete
year-round could be tested as many as nine times. That's a bit much.

The anti-drug program has had other problems through the years that
have simply been overlooked by school officials. While state law
prohibits them from testing the entire student body, it does allow for
testing athletes. But why not test students pursuing other
extracurricular activities? Aren't members of the French Club or the
band just as likely to be using marijuana as members of the girls'
track team?

And there's the cost. As Amy Coutee of The News & Advance reported
recently, the drug tests cost $43,179 last year for 1,636 drug screens
of urine samples. That figure also covered the cost of two
drug-testing coordinators and drug education for those few student
athletes who tested positive. Each test costs $25 to process.

Ed Landis, E.C. Glass football coach, said drug testing has some
merit, but it's not perfect. He made a good point when he said, "If we
are really trying to do what is best for these student athletes, we
need to treat them as athletes year-round." He said he didn't want his
athletes keeping clean just during football season - he wants them
clean all year long.

The drug-testing program is also time-consuming to administer,
according to Jennifer Petticolas, the school system's supervisors for
instructional improvement, who oversees the testing.

But she believes the time spent is worth the effort. "If I really did
not believe in this program, I would say so because the time would not
be justified," she said.

Petticolas added that there is no way to measure the program's
effectiveness, probably another reason to abandon it. One such measure
would be to take a look at the number of positive tests and see if
that number is declining. But with only 24 positive tests in the past
four years and none this year, it's difficult to spot a trend.

Rose Flaugher, the athletic director at Glass, made a case for
continuing the program when she asked, "How do you put a price tag on
a life? If it provides a younger person with a means to say no, then
it's done what it's supposed to do."

But is drug use among high school athletes rampant? The statistics
would say no, it isn't.

Furthermore, the program overlooks testing for the illegal drug that
may be most prevalent among male athletes - steroids. The current
tests identify alcohol, cocaine, amphetamines, phencyclidine (PCP),
marijuana and opiates.

While major league baseball continues to wink at the use of steroids
among its players, The Associated Press reported last week that
steroid use among high school students more than doubled from 1991 to
2003, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
More than 6 percent of the 15,000 students in grades 9-12 who
responded to the CDC's 2003 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey
acknowledged taking steroid pills or shots at least once.

Charles Yesalis, a professor of health and human development at Penn
State and an expert on steroid use, told Congress earlier this month
that more than a million youngsters "have cycled on these drugs."
Cycling means they have used them over a six-to 12-week period or longer.

He expects baseball's steroids scandal to lead more young athletes to
try the performance-enhancing steroids.

Yesalis added that, similar to pro sports, most people acknowledge a
steroid problem in high schools, but think only other schools are
involved. And less than 4 percent of the nation's high schools test
their athletes for steroids.

Is use of other illegal drugs more common among students who don't
play sports? Debra Jefferson, substance abuse coordinator for Central
Virginia Community Services, says it is. "Substance use is running
rampant in the schools," she said. That's where the drug education
money should be spent - not on the handful of athletes who test
positive for drug use.