ATHLETE DRUG TESTING, COSTS SEEM EXCESSIVE

It cost the city schools $40,000 last year to find seven student athletes
who tested positive for drug use.

Of those, only four elected to go through a drug education program, and
only three of them completed the program and were reinstated to their teams.

That seems like an awful lot of money with very little results to show for it.

This year a total of 1,606 drug tests were given to student athletes at the
city's two high schools.

The drug testing results are the same year after year. Between one and
eight students tested positive. Marijuana is the drug of choice, according
to Jennifer Petticolas, supervisor for instructional improvement.

While the threat of drug tests may keep some athletes from trying drugs, it
doesn't make much sense to administer 1,606 drug tests to catch seven
culprits. Why not do random testing of a much smaller sample, say 100
students, and put the money toward something more valuable - a beginning
teacher's salary, for example?

Lynchburg, which has been conducting the drug testing for more than a
decade, is one of just a handful of school systems in the state that tests
their student athletes at all.

While school officials say the test deters Lynchburg athletes from drinking
and using drugs, it's not clear that athletes are at greater risk of drug
use than other segments of the school population.

In fact, many athletes are serious about taking care of their bodies, and
are too busy practicing and competing to hang out on street corners or in
their friends' basements doing drugs. It could certainly be argued that
non-student athletes are at greater risk of abusing drugs because they have
more free time.

If a survey of student behaviors last year is correct, nearly half of all
high school seniors use marijuana at some point. If athletes use marijuana
or other drugs at the same rate as other students, the drug tests certainly
don't show that.

A random test of student athletes would still have the same deterrent
effect. A sprinkling of students from each high school sport could be
chosen randomly by computer. If a student gets selected twice in a year,
his or her name could be replaced by the next name on the random list.

Under the current system, students who play multiple sports can get tested
more than once. It's not likely that a volleyball player who has a negative
drug test in the fall will have a dirty test for spring track, for example.

By narrowing the scope of the test and avoiding redundancy, the school
system could save a lot of the $40,000 it now spends on catching a handful
of student athletes using drugs.

Drugs and alcohol are a problem, but no amount of testing is going to keep
all students from experimenting with or using them. And spending $40,000 to
"rehabilitate" three students so they can resume playing sports just
doesn't make sense. Surely in tight budget times, a dose of common sense
that saves money would be welcome.

By the way, what happened to the other four students who tested positive?