Sports comment: Time to test high schoolers for steroids, By: Joe Gross

06-28-06

Drug testing has created controversy whenever and wherever it has been suggested let along instituted. Just a couple of weeks ago it happened again.

The New Jersey legislature passed an act that calls for testing athletes for drugs and performance enhancing substances. What makes that law controversial is that it's aimed at student-athletes participating at the high school level.

The idea is that we all hear about the steroid use and testing for the banned substances at the collegiate, the Olympic and the professional levels, but there is wisdom in taking steps to avoid using steroids when they are teenagers, when many ambitious athletes with high and mighty dreams get the first inkling of needing the artificial assistance of the performance enhancing substances to reach their goals.

Ten states have now have laws aimed at steroid use by teenage athletes. Six of those state legislatures passed measures to discourage or do away with steroid use by scholastic athletes this year.

There are varying reports of the amount of steroid use among high school athletes with the percentages ranging from 2.5 by the University of Michigan to 6.2 by the Centers for Disease Control to 7.0 - 5 percent of males and 2 percent of females - by Harvard University.

While the percentages may not sound bad they are in actuality in the thousands. Consider that the Maryland Public Secondary Schools Athletic Association says it serves more than 100,000 student-athletes: That means the minimum estimation of 2.5 percent would affect more than 2,500 athletes.

In Anne Arundel County alone, where there are approximately 9,000 student-athletes, there could be anywhere from 200 to 600 young people using steroids.

Asked last year about the possibility of such a bill being introduced in Maryland, Speaker of the House Mike Busch said that if some legislators hear about such laws being enacted in other states it would be likely that some here would take steps toward passing such a law here.

When an Anne Arundel County Board of Education spokesman was asked about steroid testing he never hesitated before mentioning the possibly exorbitant costs as a reason it would not be likely on a local basis.

Speaking in an unofficial capacity, he did say that any athlete caught using steroids would be dealt with as any athlete deemed to be ineligible: He would be prohibited from playing that season and his team would have to forfeit games in which the ineligible player participated.

Some county football coaches said they do talk to their players before the seasons get under way about the dangers of using such substances. That, however, is done at every level of sports and there are still many athletes who simply don't listen.

It is that indifference that necessitates some states to go so far as to make the use of steroids by high school athletes against the law.

Different states are using different tactics in their attempts to keep high school athletes from using performance enhancing substances, but none are adopting the testing practices being used for college athletes by the NCAA.

Minnesota, for instance, has aimed its legislation at penalizing the suppliers more than the users. The California and Texas laws require education of coaches and a drug-free pledge by the athletes with the possibility of testing in the future.

Virginia is the one with the toughest penalties for students who test positive: The athletes will be ineligible for scholastic sports for two full school years and teachers and coaches can lose their teaching certification if they fail to report a student for using such substances.

New Mexico is emphasizing random testing as Gov. Bill Richardson pledged $330,000 for that purpose. The funding is the major stumbling block for such anti-steroid programs for high schools.

Each individual test could cost as much as $100 and, according to a 2003 survey of athletics directors around the nation, more than 50 percent of the schools that do not have testing cite the prohibitive costs as the main reason for not having such programs.

Many schools are concerned with the privacy concerns that testing creates, even though the Supreme Court upheld such testing in a 2002 decision. Other school administrators are concerned with a backlash from the American Civil Liberties Union, which maintains that testing "… infringes on the rights of families and sends the wrong message to students."

Other states with laws on the books or under consideration include Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, New York, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island and Tennessee.

Testing high school student-athletes for steroids might seem as if authorities are going too far. But if there is any chance of stopping trouble before it begins, we have to take advantage of that opportunity.

It may be expensive and it may be controversial. But it also may send a message that will prevent young athletes from believing they can get away with using performance-enhancing substances later in their careers. If that's the result, it would be a worthwhile thing to do.