In my opinion, this is fairly simple. Street drugs don't positively impact athletics performance, and although we certainly should care about the well-being of our student-athletes, it is more important to maintain competitive integrity and test for performance-enhancing drugs.

Cocaine, heroin, marijuana and other street drugs are illegal for everybody, not just student-athletes. If we want to test everyone, everywhere, that's fine with me. But if we're not testing the choir or band for drug use, why are we testing student-athletes for things that don't enhance performance?

Testing student-athletes for street drugs is acceptable when results are used first educationally and second as a punitive measure. I view participation in intercollegiuate athletics on as a privilege and not a right. The most basic expectation of a student-athlete is to respect their body and refrain from illicit drug use. If repeated incidents of substance abuse occur, participation and/or status of a student-athlete should be a sanction.

I agree with Josh. If you are going to test the baseball team for non-performance enhancing drugs then you have to test the band and any other school sanctioned club. All these clubs are privleges as well. Could you imagine fraternities being tested for drugs?

Being a Division 1 athlete, I agree with Gerald Gurney. If you do get tested and the results are positive you get place on probation for one year. Also, if one member of your team comes up positive, than the whole team is drug tested. Some of the street drugs do give you more energy and most drugs can enhance your performance. Some colleges give out sheets of information on the illegal drugs that are banned, or the maximum amount that is allowed in your system.

Second, who cares about if some band or choir member is taking performance-enhancing drugs? They are not competing in an athletic event. Sports are sanctioned by the NCAA, where as Band or choir is sanctioned by the school. It is up for the school to do drug testing on students, but it is up to the NCAA/Athletics to do drug testing on student-athletes.

I think the question is whether or not student-athletes should be tested for street drugs, as opposed to performance-enhancing drugs. Is it up to the NCAA to test for street drugs or only the ones that positively impact athletics performance?

OJ Mayo, drugs, etc...Who lacks more institutional control, the NCAA or the colleges? They're sure as heck both filthy.

We'll talk about Mayo in tomorrow's morning coffee, but I don't know what that has to do with the NCAA being filthy. Even if the allegations are proven true, that doesn't signal that USC or the NCAA had any idea.

Regarding Shawn D.'s comments, I don't think the question is so much "Who cares?" as "Who's responsible?".

If an organization conducts high-level athletic competition, it seems obligated to test for performace-enhancing drugs because the competition itself may tempt athletes to gain an edge through chemical means.

But few people would claim that taking heroin yields a competitive advantage. Instead, these tests for street drugs seem directed at ensuring the health and welfare of the participants.

Let me put it this way: If testing for street drugs without probable cause is good for college athletes, then why stop there? If the question were "Should the federal government test every American citizen for street drugs?", how would people feel about that?

At some point, don't you have to draw a line and let people live with the consequences of the choices that they make -- even if those choices are bad?