The NCAA's desire to impose mandatory drug testing on college athletes has met violent opposition from campuses nationwide. The students' first argument is that the existing methods of testing are not reliable. Roger P. Maickel, Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology at Purdue University, testified that urinary drug testing can give false results 15 to 20 percent of the time. He states that "a conflicting set of variables precludes urinary drug tests from being proof of illegal drug use, but rather can only serve as a caution sign." In addition, Maickel points out that legitimate drugs and some natural food components can cause positive test results. For example, Contac, Sudafed, certain diet pills, decongestants, and heart and asthma medications can register as amphetamines. Likewise, poppy seeds, which contain traces of morphine, and some herbal teas containing traces of cocaine can be mistaken for illegal drugs (Groves 155). The possibility of inaccurate test results put athletes in danger of being wrongly disqualified from competition. In addition, these test results, targets for media attention, can cause inaccurate and unfair stigmas if they are false. Consequently, athletes are against testing as long as the NCAA fails to insure accurate results. However, those opposed to testing argue that the main idea behind the program is not the health of the athletes but rather the protection of the integrity of the competition. In response to this goal, many athletes and coaches feel that testing in some sports is unnecessary for no drug can be classified as "performance-enhancing." For instance, in an article printed in the Stanford Daily, Stanford basketball coach Mike Montgomery said that "drugs can't help basketball players." Montgomery believes that the use of drugs cannot affect the performance of his team and therefore could not result in damaging the integrity of the competition. Consequently, drug abuse of basketball players should not be a |
