Mandatory Drug Testing

[coachsatcher]

I was curious if any other schools out there are still giving drug test? We have been researching the pros and cons of continuing our current testing procedures and are debating it's effectiveness. UIL put into place drug testing to prevent performance enhancing drugs to penetrate High School athletics. With steroids or any other PEDs no longer being an issue, the bulk of our testing is aimed at recreational, yet still illegal, drug use. Have we missed the basis of our commitment to interscholastic athletics by broadening our policies, while eliminating the whole purpose it was implemented in the first place? I want and expect a clean program, but I want to hold myself to the same standards of integrity i hold my athletes. Is hiding behind the UIL steroid policy, to target athletes to ensure they're drug free acceptable? I'm curious for some opinions.

 

[oldfat&bald]

Just an old fat guys opinion, but you're dealing with young people. High School sports are about life lessons. One of those lessons has to be about dope, if they're into it. Would you rather a kid miss a season of football now, or spend five years in the pen later?

I can understand if you have concerns about due process or constitutional rights, but playing high school sports isn't a God given right. Use the opportunities provided to you to teach those important lessons.

 

[coachsatcher]

I believe in life lessons, but at what cost? The goal is for the test to serve as a deterrent. Yet we're spending more on testing than on any single budget, athletics or academic. We haven't had a positive test in four years. Is it working or wasting limited funds? Again, I consider myself a morally-driven coach. Just want to optimize our efforts.

 

[BE]

My friend, if you haven't had a positive test in four years, I'd say that's a pretty good argument that it is working as a deterrent. Wouldn't you say so.
When we announced to our students that drug testing would start the 2007 school year, we immediately lost our all-state center/defensive lineman. He was a great kid from a crappy background. He was a stud in the 2006 playoffs, which was somewhat of a pleasant surprise. He shut down Calvert's tough run offense and had a wonderful offensive performance in the state game.
He and another classmate quit school. I asked him why he was quitting and he made up some bs excuse, then changed it, then changed it again in the span of one school day.
A year or so later I asked him again and he admitted it was because he wanted to be able to smoke pot on the weekends.

Keep your drug testing, influencing a kid or two or three is more important than the cost of a random drug test.

And I don't understand your integrity concern...adults and kids are not in the same category. And if you have not made that distinction obvious, you have blundered.

 

[coachsatcher]

My friend, if you haven't had a positive test in four years, I'd say that's a pretty good argument that it is working as a deterrent. Wouldn't you say so.
When we announced to our students that drug testing would start the 2006 school year, we immediately lost our all-state center/defensive lineman. He was a great kid from a crappy background. He was a stud in the 2006 playoffs, which was somewhat of a pleasant surprise. He shut down Calvert's tough run offense and had a wonderful offensive performance in the state game.
He and another classmate quit school. I asked him why he was quitting and he made up some bs excuse, then changed it, then changed it again in the span of one school day.
A year or so later I asked him again and he admitted it was because he wanted to be able to smoke pot on the weekends.

Keep your drug testing, influencing a kid or two or three is more important than the cost of a random drug test.

And I don't understand your integrity concern...adults and kids are not in the same category. And if you have not made that distinction obvious, you have blundered.

I agree with 95% of what you've said. The bulk of my questions are the questions I'll be defending at the meeting, not my own personal questions. I'm perfectly fine with drug testing. I am a little miffed at the select few we test, but overall, I can live with the testing. These questions are comments we've fielded from multiple members of our community. Many stating their children have never done drugs, and that we don't have a problem, so why test as though we do? Many have shared how these funds can be better justified on academic upgrades. I typically use the "deterrent" card, but many believe it doesn't help or hurt 90% of our student body, and no amount of testing will change those who do. The community isn't blind, and definitely want what's best for the entire district. I can't complain how passionate they are at making this the best district possible. But again, I feel the same way you do, but in today's economy, we are forced to justify the allocation of funds and it's looking as though we need more concrete evidence than raw emotion.

 

[Johnny South]

There has to be a more affordable test out there. The current testing costs way too much.

 

[smokeyjoe53]

I test drugs all the time........... Blood pressure, arthritis & some for memory but I can't remember what they are.............

 

[BE]

I edited the first date from 2006 to the correct 2007. Sorry.

I know the tests are said to be random selection, but over the years I realized that any name we coaches mentioned with concern always seemed to be the next ones tested. Coincidence?

It is good for our kids to see us, their coaches, take a stand against a known negative. Going to the Board for the purpose of discontinuing drug testing might make one popular with little Johnny, but it could be a two-edged sword. I never heard of a coach address a school board to recommend against drug testing.

I have always made it perfectly clear to my students and athletes that I do NOT want to be their best friend. I care for them too much to accept the way they are as teenagers. I want to help them be better than they are, to be better than I was at that age, to learn a better way.
I suppose that is not very PC.
And if you start doing a lot of listening to folks in the community, wont be very long before you'll be back out there with them.

Just my opinion...some kids are a lot like Mapache from The Wild Bunch, knows it's dangerous but does it anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvDAqlmOQ_w

 

[coachsatcher]

We're missing my stance somewhere. I have to justify the testing policy staying; not justify eliminating it. The question is whether or not it's a necessity in our district. I currently have it implemented in my athletic policy and need to justify its cost versus the benefits. I have heard tons of statistics and opinions on why it should be removed. I'm looking for the same to help me with the benefits.

 

[BE]

I see your point clearly. I'm merely offering my point in return. None of my beeswax, but you asked. Just reflecting what's in my convoluted sphere.

I believe you are fortunate to have a school caring enough to intervene with a tool that can help kids think twice before experimenting with things harmful to their future. If it boils down to money, well that speaks volumes. Yes, eventually someone you need will fail the drug test. Discovery can save a lot of struggle over the course of a lifetime.
To me that test is like you or I standing next to the kid when that temptation hits him in the face. And if we were there at that moment our response could save a life from a journey filled with trouble and hopelessness. That is more important....

Good luck.

 

[Shad Kline]

We're missing my stance somewhere. I have to justify the testing policy staying; not justify eliminating it. The question is whether or not it's a necessity in our district. I currently have it implemented in my athletic policy and need to justify its cost versus the benefits. I have heard tons of statistics and opinions on why it should be removed. I'm looking for the same to help me with the benefits.

I think you already know your answer.

If only 1 child is deterred from using drugs, whether it be performance enhancing or recreational illegal drugs, then it will be justified in keeping the policy.

Note: just because a urine sample is collected, does not mean that it has to be tested. I have seen a policy that had a random selection of 24, out of those 24 that provided samples, 2 random samples were sent in. Just the chance of getting caught will be a deterrent. And they don't have to know that all 24 are not being sent in.

 

[ol' gus]

Could you give us a ballpark figure of what team testing costs these days? Pre-employment drug screening for an individual costs around 90$ I'm told.

 

[ol' gus]

My friend, if you haven't had a positive test in four years, I'd say that's a pretty good argument that it is working as a deterrent. Wouldn't you say so.
When we announced to our students that drug testing would start the 2006 school year, we immediately lost our all-state center/defensive lineman. He was a great kid from a crappy background. He was a stud in the 2006 playoffs, which was somewhat of a pleasant surprise. He shut down Calvert's tough run offense and had a wonderful offensive performance in the state game.
He and another classmate quit school. I asked him why he was quitting and he made up some bs excuse, then changed it, then changed it again in the span of one school day.
A year or so later I asked him again and he admitted it was because he wanted to be able to smoke pot on the weekends.

Keep your drug testing, influencing a kid or two or three is more important than the cost of a random drug test.

And I don't understand your integrity concern...adults and kids are not in the same category. And if you have not made that distinction obvious, you have blundered.

I agree with 95% of what you've said. The bulk of my questions are the questions I'll be defending at the meeting, not my own personal questions. I'm perfectly fine with drug testing. I am a little miffed at the select few we test, but overall, I can live with the testing. These questions are comments we've fielded from multiple members of our community. Many stating their children have never done drugs, and that we don't have a problem, so why test as though we do? Many have shared how these funds can be better justified on academic upgrades. I typically use the "deterrent" card, but many believe it doesn't help or hurt 90% of our student body, and no amount of testing will change those who do. The community isn't blind, and definitely want what's best for the entire district. I can't complain how passionate they are at making this the best district possible. But again, I feel the same way you do, but in today's economy, we are forced to justify the allocation of funds and it's looking as though we need more concrete evidence than raw emotion.

Great discussion so far.
If it's data you need then show the years of drug free results you have had from the testing regime. If you feel adventurous I suppose you could go a few years without testing then snap back in with a test then compare all the results. If it's data over emotion you seek then you must conduct an experiment. All stakeholders must be informed of the possible consequences.
Is it recreational drugs that are at issue or steroids? I kinda thought the UIL was more interested in roids.

 

[ol' gus]

So what'd we decide??


Oh, and click on a pop-up every so often. Just sayin'.