At a college track meet the biggest race is about to take place, the 100-meter dash. The sound of the gun starts the race and within 11 seconds its all over, the winner's time was thirteen tenths of a second better than the 2nd place finisher. The difference between the two is that the first place sprinter was on steroids to help him improve his performance while the rest of the runners were clean and drug-free. How is that fair to the rest of the athletes who competed in the race without that extra edge? It is not. Drug testing of athletes would ensure fair competition among all competitors, so certain people do not have an advantage. Having tests would also help make sure the athletes were in compliance with the NCAA and/or state high school drug abuse rules. Another reason why drug testing is not a bad idea is because it is used in higher levels of athletics, such as the Olympics.
should be allowed to administer drug tests to their athletes.
A popular stimulant used by athletes is called the anabolic steroid. There are numerous variations of the stimulant. This stimulant provides energy, adrenaline, and immense muscle growth; all benefits in an athletic competition. There are three sporting events known for the anabolic steroid abuse, baseball, football, and track & field (NIDA). To make sure everyone has equal advantage it is extremely important to test the participants for illegal drugs in their blood stream. The debate on whether or not drug testing should be allowed basically comes down to fairness among the players. Unless all of the competitors are going to take improvement drugs it is not fair to let some people do it. "About half of the approximately 800 NCAA member schools test athletes for...