The "steroid bill" that has been championed by State Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, appears to be an example of government trying to do the job of parents. The Texas House of Representatives voted 140-4 to send the steroid bill to Governor Perry. Perry then signed the testing program into law last month. According to the current bill, testing would be performed randomly on athletes participating in UIL sports. Do we really want the state singling out our children and examining a very private aspect of a minors life? I would say no. What other purposes does this testing serve? If other substances besides steroids are found, what will be the protocol in that situation? High school athletes are amateur athletes. They do not play for money, only for the love of the game. They take all the responsibility and risk upon themselves. As studies have shown, there is a small percentage of athletes who do seek the aid of steroids. It is a mistake, but one that can hopefully be overcome. By involving the state in a very private aspect of an individual and their families relationship, we are asking the bureaucracy to treat our children with compassion and understanding during a very sensitive situation.
What happens when the test is wrong, all tests have a percentage of error. How will the state be able to replace the time lost from the sports season or the reputation that will be tarnished. Even Sen. Janek has admitted that the program has flaws. "The state should consider holding back on testing if concerns about over-the-counter supplements causing positive test results are not satisfied by the fall."
Perhaps educating athletes, coaches and parents of the dangers of steroids and other drugs would help prevent steroid use. If a coach or parent noticed sudden mood swings or quick massive growth, I hope they would at least stop to talk with the student to see how they are doing.
Spending millions of dollars a year to randomly test high school athletes is absurd. The bottom line is that we do not want the government testing our children and infringing on their right to privacy before they are even of legal age.
View articles about this bill at: http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/gen/ap/FBH_High_School_Steroids.html
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/highschool/news/story?id=2937357 .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Good start. Try to embed the links such that they appear similar to this: Steroid testing facing snag over supplements.
While I don't entirely disagree with your point of view here, I think you have a number of misconceptions throughout your analysis.
Do we really want the state singling out our children and examining a very private aspect of a minors life? I would say no.
Ideally, no. But I'm confused about what is the 'very private aspect' of the minor's life. Are you alleging that the student SHOULD be able to choose whether or not to take steroids? In fact, forget the age, enhancement steroids are schedule III drugs in thing country and unprescribed possession can result in jail time.
Additionally, you later make comments regarding what parents could look for: "...sudden mood swings or quick massive growth...". The reality is that steroids don't always produce those results. I've known many a person to have taken steroids (especially in high school) and the results are always different, and ALMOST always negative.
If other substances besides steroids are found, what will be the protocol in that situation?
I think that is a valid question, but what do YOU think should be the protocol? If the student is found with say, cocaine in his or her system, what then? Should their drug consumption be ignored? From what I understand, most school districts have strict policies on athletes and drug usage. Are you perhaps suggesting that testing for steroids could possible result in discovering some other narcotic that might place the athletes standing in jeopardy?
High school athletes are armature athletes. They do not play for money, only for the love of the game. They take all the responsibility and risk upon themselves.
Firstly, I think there are many reasons why high school athletes play sports. Some play for the love of the game, but what about those playing for scholarships? ...something VERY pertinent to small Texas.
Secondly, the athletes (still students mind you) play as representatives of their school. These are not club team athletes being described, but rather high school athletes playing within the athletic jurisdiction of the UIL.
Thirdly, should the level of competition somehow dictate how one is able to cheat? If anything, it seems to me that students should be pushed even HARDER not to take steroids, given they have no financial gain.
While I can appreciate your efforts to suggest ways in which this sort of program could be avoided, I think the reality is that it [steroid testing] will happen very soon (if not right now).
Since I can fully appreciate powerless feeling a young individual feels when being subjected to such tests (especially when innocent), I do have a possible solution. I would propose in the law the inclusion of students being allowed to have their own private tests done by family physicians, state doctors, etc. This could possibly be subsidized if not entirely funded by the state.
If the real idea is to protect children from hurting themselves, presenting this as an option would allow (and hopefully encourage) parents to take an active role - which is really the problem in the first place.
I do not mean to suggest that illegal drug use of any kind is acceptable or should be condoned; only that testing minors is not one of the constitutionally mandated roles of government that our state/country/city should be spending public funds on. Also I am strongly opposed to violating people's right to personal privacy, no matter what the JUSTIFICATION might be.
You asked, "Are you alleging that the student SHOULD be able to choose whether or not to take steroids?" We must all choose for ourselves our path in life and there are consequences for bad choices and rewards for the right ones. I do not allege that students SHOULD be able to choose, but that personal choice is the reality of life and the responsibility of the individual who suffers the consequences. No law will change that.
I do not allege that students SHOULD be able to choose, but that personal choice is the reality of life and the responsibility of the individual who suffers the consequences. No law will change that.
Something I entirely agree with. However, we're referring to minors in this case. In some cases, children as young as 13 and 14 years old.
There are clearly a number of things young people SHOULD do, but prudence dictates that they will not, and therefore must be looked after so to speak.
I guess all I would inquire is whether or not you truly believe a 13 year old has the mental and emotional capacity to make a proper decision about taking steroids.
...only that testing minors is not one of the constitutionally mandated roles of government that our state/country/city should be spending public funds on.
As for this, I guess you're right that it is not constitutionally mandated, however, what really is? The purpose of government (if any) is simply to protect it's people - in some cases even from themselves.
While I'd prefer to take the libertarian approach to this problem, nothing is more unfortunate than seeing children severely hurt themselves due to (1) ignorance, and (2) people that don't step in to prevent them from hurting themselves.
Interesting point about Kyle Janek being another guy who's just been in politics too long to remember that parents can make decisions for their kids without help from thet government.
Once they've been at the trough long enough, they're all the same.
Post a Comment