THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, June 28, 1995 TAG: 9506280601
SECTION: SPORTS PAGE: C1 EDITION: FINAL
COLUMN: Opinion
SOURCE: BY RICH RADFORD, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Medium: 81 lines
There was a time when one could feel confident using the Constitution as a shield against invasions of privacy.
That confidence suffered another blow Monday when the Supreme Court ruled that public schools could perform random drug tests on middle school and high school athletes.
It may not happen anytime soon in Hampton Roads. The tests could be cost prohibitive. Testing a 50-player football team would cost approximately $1,500 when some of the area's athletic budgets already need band-aids to continue on a yearly basis.
And if a school is going to test football players, why stop there? Why not basketball players, soccer players, golfers and gymnasts?
More importantly, why not the entire student body?
After this latest decision, who's to stop Big Brother from lining everyone up at the bathroom doors, cups in hand?
The Supreme Court has been moving in this direction for some time. In the last seven years, it has upheld similar lower-court decisions to allow drug testing of railroad engineers and U.S. Customs agents.
The athletes, simply because society has a warped perspective of their value, became the most logical guinea pig, the argument being one of safety for everyone participating in sports.
The landmark case involved seventh-grade football player James Acton in Veronia, Ore., who in 1991 refused to undergo a random drug test instituted by the local school board. The school system was looking for a way to counter a dramatic rise in disciplinary problems in the late 1980s.
Athletes, whether willfully or not, often are placed on pedestals. Even at the high school level, they can be role models. They sometimes get breaks other students do not - perhaps a little extra attention from teachers and guidance counselors.
Maybe the threat of drug testing is the price paid for such special treatment.
If so, the price is too high.
It's obvious with each similar ruling that the Fourth Amendment is going to take a huge hit in this country's war against drugs. The citizen's protection against unreasonable searches, and the requirement of a warrant issued upon a probable cause, will be eroded.
``This case has broader implications than making second-class citizens out of high school athletes,'' according to Jerry Sheehan, the American Civil Liberties Union legislative director. ``It's another example of how we continue to sacrifice our constitutional rights to the war on drugs.''
Will the threat of drug testing weed out the abusers? Will they think twice about going out for the team?
It might filter some offenders out of athletic programs, but not all. Somebody always believes he can beat a drug test, and the examples are always presentat the college and professional levels - former University of Miami football player Warren Sapp, baseball players Darryl Strawberry, Steve Howe and Dwight Gooden.
If a positive test arises, who is the loser?
The coach-player contract, in whichplayers swear off alcohol and drugs to join a team, is becoming less prevalent. In today's second-chance society, the offending party likely will be counseled and re-educated on the evils of drug abuse.
The big problem with blanket drug testing is that a large number of innocents lose an important slice of individual privacy and dignity in society's attempt to corner what may very well be a small number of offenders.
The Supreme Court, in its 6-3 decision, made it clear it would not condone testing suspected individuals, with Justice Antonin Scalia terming such testing a ``badge of shame.''
As it is, every athlete tested, even those tested en masse, gets a share of that badge. by CNB