Most experts consider drug testing the most reliable means of detecting and preventing the use of illicit drugs by athletes. But testing raises many concerns both for athletes and for those who administer the tests. Drug tests are often considered to be an invasion of privacy. Further, in international competitions, athletes run the risk of false positive test results because of the sensitivity of the tests that are performed. For example, if an athlete takes a legal drug, such as an over-the-counter cold medicine, he or she may test positive for prohibited stimulants. Such testing has thus been criticized.

Currently, testing is legal and the U.S. courts have found that it does not violate the 4th Amendment right to privacy. However, some continue to question the efficacy of the practice, as athletic councils strive both to keep up with the constant stream of new drugs and to improve the accuracy of the tests they currently administer.

Drug Testing in the News:
Cases and Statutes Related to Drug Use in Sports:
  • Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990
  • Hill v. National Collegiate Athletics Association 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 (Cal.1994) Not Available in Digital Format. Challenge to Stanford University drug testing program as violation of privacy rights.
  • Regents of the University of Colorado v. Derdeyn 863 P.2d 929 (Colo. 1993) Not Available in Digital Format. Challenge to state university's mandatory drug testing program.
  • Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton (1995) Court found that mandatory drug testing in high school athletics programs was not an unreasonable search or seizure, nor was it an invasion of privacy.
  • Chandler v. Miller (1998). Court relied on Vernonia to uphold drug testing requirements under state law for political candidates. Found testing is not a violation of the First, Fourth, or Fourteenth Amendments.
  • Todd v. Rush County Schools (7th Cir., 1998) Challenge to school district policy that students who wish to engage in extracurricular activities must submit to a program of random drug testing. On remand, policy found acceptable and appeal was denied.
  • Miller v. Wilkes (8th Cir., 1999). Relying on Vernonia v. Action, the court upheld the constitutionality of random drug testing of students as a prerequisite to participation in extracurricular activities other than athletics.
  • Willis v. Anderson Community School Districts (7th Cir., 1998). The court distinguished between appropriate random testing of athletes under Vernonia v. Action and the testing of students who have been suspended for fighting. The court emphasized voluntary nature of participation in extra curricular activities and need to protect against testing all students.
What Testing Entails and Where to Obtain Testing Services:

Back to Drugs in Sports