Commentary: Unscientific study revealed steroid problem in Acadiana

7/2/07

Like any new idea, testing high school student-athletes for steroid use will have to undergo the litmus test of scrutiny.

Before the state legislature would consider assigning $100,000 in funding to its implementation like New Jersey and Florida did, or the $3 million approved by Texas politicians, many issues would have to be debated and resolved.

For starters, is there a significant enough problem to be requesting funding that could reach seven figures?

Would the tests really be random and who would be administering the tests?

For instance, Florida is going to test 1 percent of its athletes in football, baseball and weightlifting. If I was a coach or a principal more interested in winning than the health of the athletes, I would volunteer to test 10 percent of my players, choosing the ones I was convinced wouldn't touch steroids.

Are the schools really ready to accept the punishment that positive tests could bring?

How many different types of steroids would you test for?

Do you test athletes from selected sports or all sports?

The questions are many. One thing seems to be sure: In general, most coaches and administrators support the idea, but wonder how realistic it is.

"I don't see a lot of it,'' Acadiana High coach Ted Davidson said. "I don't see it as a major problem, but I would support anything for the health of the athletes. I just don't know how it would be funded.''

David LeBlanc, a St. Thomas More assistant coach and a nationally certified strength and conditioning specialist for 10 years, said the deterrent effect may be worth it.

"We talk to our kids about it all the time,'' LeBlanc said. "I don't know of anyone specifically using, but there's no doubt that some kids are on it. If I ever found out about it, I would definitely intervene.

"I definitely think that testing would be a great deterrent. It would help with the peer pressure. It would give kids an out. They could just say, 'I'm not taking it because I might be tested this week.' It gives them an excuse not to do it.''

While no one knows exactly how many high school athletes are currently using steroids, former St. Thomas More and UL wide receiver Darren Strother is convinced that it's higher than most think.

Prior to leaving UL in 1999, he did his thesis on steroid use among South Louisiana high school football players. While the study may not hold much scientific value, the findings certainly raised some eyebrows.

Strother asked all the football players at eight high schools around the area to fill out a confidential questionnaire.

Eight years ago, 28 percent said they used steroids at some point during their high school careers. Strother said that the percentage of admitted users remained steady regardless of city or country school, or any other demographic differences.

"I was shocked by the numbers,'' LeBlanc said. "They floored me. That was a while back, but I wouldn't think the numbers have changed that much.''

Strother said the most interesting findings from his study were that steroid users generally were more interested in personal goals than team goals and didn't view practice as beneficial as those who never used steroids.

Also, steroid users seemed to suffer from low self-esteem, consistently rating their performance below their coaches' rankings, and even from depression. The vast majority of the admitted users also said they didn't think taking steroids gave them an unfair advantage.

The most dangerous finding is that the majority of the admitted users appeared to be after the lifestyle of professional athletes that may have benefited from steroid use.

Upon hearing that some states are beginning to test, Strother said, "It's about time.''

Jody Ortego, marketing director at local drug-screening company SECON, said that "most people put their heads in the sand'' on the steroid issue, much like Major League Baseball did while home run records came crashing down.

"It's a stance to take,'' Ortego said. "The premise is good. I think testing is a wonderful idea. But if you're only testing 1 percent, you're wasting money.''