Performance enhancement drugs like anabolic steroids have long existed in the sports world (Brower, 2008). However, rising concern about the increased use of performance enhancement drugs has caught the eye of many legal organizations. The testing of athletes for traces of performance enhancement drugs such as anabolic steroids, cannabinoids and growth factors, goes against the fourth amendment. According to the Fourth Amendment of the American constitution, people have absolute rights to security from all dynamics of life; whether from the houses, properties, and must be cushioned against unwarranted searches and seizures of their assets. Indeed, the fourth amendment thus prohibits the violation of personal rights, and the seizure of their material things. It further provides that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, followed by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the persons or things to be searched and seized.
The implementation of the fourth amendment has thus gone through many challenges, for example, technology is a major challenge to the credibility of the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment advocates for the privacy of individuals and emerging technologies of privacy breach have become a hindrance to the amendment. Law enforcement agencies are the main breaches of personal space and property, and they have brought major drawbacks of the fourth amendment (Gold, 2007).
Moreover, the fourth amendment raises questions about the legality of testing of athletes in all forms of occupation. Several cases involving athletes tested for the use of performance enhancement drugs have drawn a rough picture into the state of the drug and doping problem among athletes. For instance, the case between Veronica school district vs. Acton, the Supreme Court in the United States overruled the legality of testing for performance enhancement drugs on high school athletes. The case involved Oregon schools and Acton. They questioned the credibility of the fourth amendment to protect high school athletes from testing for the presence of performance drugs in their system. The court, however, ruled out that the testing of high school athletes was in line, arguing that high school students should not be encouraged to take drugs.
The same situation befell the famous Lance Armstrong, who was faced with blood doping charges. In Lance Armstrong’s case, several colleagues gave out twenty-six testimonials of his involvement in performance enhancement drugs. The testimonials claimed that they had witnessed Lance Armstrong doing blood doping. The testimonials on witness violated the fourth amendment rights for Lance Armstrong. However, the defense did not materialize, as no one, legal body agreed to the implications of Lance Armstrong’s rights being violated. Due to the Lance Armstrong case, drug testing programs were formed to test athletes for the use of performance enhancement drugs. An example of drug testing program is NCAA, which is endowed with the task of ensuring the wellness of student-athletes and ensuring drug abuse is prevented. The program tests students for the use of performance enhancement drugs and disciplining the accordingly. The program also is mandated with creating drug awareness among students. Some of the drug testing programs can be internalized among schools also a nationwide drug testing program. Other drug testing programs require the student to provide their teachers or coaches with a credible medical record certificate showing the students drug report. However, some of these drug testing programs do not materialize.
The bottom line is, athletic organizations should learn to abide by the virtues of the fourth amendment and cease violating the rights of athletes. The subjection to tests is a personal but not a statutory requirement (Gold, 2007).
References
Gold, M. S. (2007). Performance-enhancing medications and drugs of abuse. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Medical Press
Brower, K. J. (2008). Anabolic Steroids. The American Journal of Addictions, 1, 2, 100-114
