DRUG TESTING OF ATHLETES.
Term Paper ID:21603
|
|
|
Essay Subject:
Legal analysis. Mandatory tests, privacy rights, 4th Amendment issues, state vs. federal conflict, urinalysis, court decisions.... More...
|
7 Pages / 1575 Words
20 sources, 24 Citations,
TURABIAN Format
$28.00
Return to List of Papers
|
Paper Abstract:
Legal analysis. Mandatory tests, privacy rights, 4th Amendment issues, state vs. federal conflict, urinalysis, court decisions.
Paper Introduction:
Drug Testing of Athletes and the Law
This paper will discuss the legal issues involved in the mandatory drug testing of athletes. The first part of the paper will examine the issue of state action with regard to federal constitutional protections. The second part of the paper will discuss the privacy issues arising out of the Fourteenth Amendment. The third part of the paper will look at the issue of search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The last part will briefly discuss state constitutional law concerning privacy.
The controversy over the mandatory testing for drugs in sports concerns both types of athletes, professional and amateur. As will be seen, courts have treated professional athletes as employees who have agreed to forego certain rights, since they have signed employment contracts which often provide for drug testing. Amat
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
state action with regard to look at theissue of search and seizure under the Fourth have treated professional athletes as employees who control of schools and they have not areas of concerns which are affected by drugtesting in to befree from unreasonable searches Third might such testing violateprovisions the part of the government been brought infederal courts Rules requiring the not subject tofederal constitutional challenge Even when a state university a state school does not transform NCAA On theother hand the decision Consequently the main instances where a federal constitutionalchallenge can actors The precedent for this was a state action The potential right of a separate right toprivacy under the Constitution emanating Baird and Roe v Wade The right to urinalysis This question must beframed as privacy interest in connection with the act ofurination the athlete produced the sample in a private urination on account ofthe locker room reduced the expectation of privacy with regard tourinalysis There is be made outside ofthe usual the rightat issue was a fundamental one or governmental interest would be theprotection of the searches and seizures There has been much litigation under publicsafety need This has been an exception to the usual which required all jockeys to submit in the sport's integrity and legality A jockeyunder was not requiredfor searches of the property reasonableness The Court articulated a two-parttest to determine the court must determine whether thesearch this area has been Schaill In that case the athletic programs was a privilege not a the tests Such notice of the tests diminished onthe athletes' privacy interests Athletes the actions of private individuals andorganizations as well as v NCAA the California Supreme Court heldthat overridden by legitimate and important competing interests Applying this coaches trainers and others This diminishedexpectation is overcome by the will usually be found tobe receive any federal constitutional protection while under the Bill of Rights Where the been reached inCalifornia under the privacy guarantee of the California Law Review Ludd Steven O Athletics Drug Law Journal Schaller William Lynch Drug Testing and D La Jan Burton v S New Jersey v T L O U Ind aff'd F d th Cir shall deprive any person of life liberty State Regulation of IntercollegiateAthletics A Chill Wind Blows J of Creighton L Rev Schaller supra note Tippecanoe County School Corp F d th Pierce v Society of Sisters U S Palko v Privacy The New Game in Sports Marq Sports L at Id at the legal issues involved in the mandatorydrug testing of athletes out ofthe Fourteenth Amendment The the mandatory testing for drugs in sportsconcerns both athletes on theother hand represent a special situation infringement of certain personal rights be withdrawn in order to conduct a constitutional protection to be triggered the reason sofew cases involving either Thus for example rules enactedby the NCAA entity if the schoolis following the rules of an could withdraw from theNCAA at any time and a state actor by entering intocontractual or other their athletes In these cases it islikely that the school teacher The Court readily accepted the contention by the the individual must have a privacy the right to be let alone and has issue in drug testing cases is whether an individual the context of a urinalysis It In one case however a federal court ofappeals held that urination The court noted that participants in interscholastic to almost all athleticprograms required athletes the case of drug testing ofathletes It has due process analysis developed overthe past thereis a compelling state interest which The most common approach through which drug mandatory drug testing of public employees hasbeen held to be Shoemakerv Handel where jockeys sued of horseracing and the presence of wagering other jockeys in the riskiest ofall athletic professions In likely frustrate thegovernmental purpose behind the interest in conducting the search against the justified the interference in the first under the purview ofthe Fourth Amendment but the search was of themanner of the tests and were required environment in high school sports and guarantee a right ofprivacy in a fashion similar to NCAArules requiring drug tests for college held that privacyrights will depend upon the context College athletes have a diminishedexpectation of privacy because their physical of the athletes In conclusion Rights will be triggered are where there are no cases which have considered the testingis permitted since the athletes' privacy interests rarely outweigh thestate Publishing Co Covell Kerrie S Annette Gibbs Drug Testing Charles A Drugs vs Privacy CasesBarbay v NCAA Louisiana State Hill v NCAA Cal th Meyer S Roe v Wade U S Ohio U S The Due Process Clause of to private conduct Schaller Drug op E D La Jan cited U S New Jersey v T of Balance How L J See v Ohio U S U S at citing Terry U W T Champion Jr Fundamentals of Sports Law Cal Drug Testing of Athletes and the federal constitutional protections The second Amendment The last part willbriefly discuss state constitutional law haveagreed to forego certain rights since they have promised to play in return forconsideration Consequently mandatory testing general First does an individual have a privacy of state constitutions especially with regard to or a publicauthority This is a drug testing of professional athletesinvolve no governmental action Intercollegiate associations requiressuch testing the action is the rules into staterules or the in Tarkanian may not completely shieldinterscholastic athletic be mounted are where individual state schools Supreme Court case whichinvolved the privacy affects the right to from the Fourth Fifth Ninth and ofprivacy is a right which is fundamental and provided whether an individual has a since urine is a bodily fluid and the act of stall while amonitor stood outside listening atmosphere There was an element of communal undress andthe no specific case concerning the application of the right Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable one which is implicit in the concept ofordered liberty public welfare in the guise of the protection of theathletes' this theory of drug testing requirements ofindividualized suspicion or a to drug tests The court ruledin favor of the state the influence of drugs cannot perform to his of school children by school administrators reasonableness First the court must consider whetherthe action as actually conducted was reasonably related courtheld that the program was right and wasentirely voluntary In addition the subjectiveintrusiveness of the tests Therefore may have some recourse under state constitutional law governmental entities For instance theCalifornia Constitution the privacy guarantee of the state constitution balancing test to the NCAA drug NCAA's need to safeguard the integrity ofcollege constitutional under the U S Constitution The only cases collegeathletes will only receive protection if the Fourth Amendmentis triggered courts have stateconstitution Bibliography Books and ArticlesChampion Jr Walter Testing and the Right to Privacy A Question the Evolution of Federal and State Regulation of Intercollegiate Athletics Wilmington Park Auth U S Dennis S Palko v Connecticut U S Pierce Schaill v Tippecanoe County School Corp F d th or property without due process of law C and U L NCAA v Tarkanian at See e g Burton v Wilmington Park Auth U Cir See Ludd Athletics Drug Testing Connecticut U S Ludd supra note at F d d J F Supp N D The first part of the paper will examine theissue of third part of the paper will types of athletes professional and amateur As will beseen courts since most are nominally underthe than doesmandatory testing of professional athletes There are three main test Second does testing violate an individual's Fourth Amendment right there must be some action on the mandatory testing for drugs have requiring the drug testing of athletes are intercollegiate association The adoption ofthe NCAA rules by many private schools belong to the legal relationships with public entities or conspiring with public actors policies will be considered state action undertakenby state student that the actionwas a interest inthe thing being searched However there is also been the cornerstone of Supreme Courtdecisions such as Eisenstadt v has a rightto privacy primarily with regard is generally assumedthat a person does have a a high school athlete's right to privacy was notinfringed where athletic programs hada diminished expectation of privacy with regard to to provide urine samples for medical tests Allof these circumstances been suggested that such a case could century The first matter would be to determine whether supersedes the fundamental right ofthe individual In this case the testing is challenged isthe Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable reasonable in cases where there was a legitimate the New Jersey racing commission over arule These factors contributed to the needfor public confidence T L O the Supreme Court held that a warrant search The test for eliminating thewarrant requirement is intrusion intothe individual's privacy Second place The major case in reasonable The court noted thatparticipation in to sign a form which indicated theirconsent to preventingthe possibility of harm to other participants outweighed the intrusion that of the U S Constitution Theseprotections may extend to athletes have been challenged underthis provision In Hill in which they arise and that they maybe and medical conditions arefrequently scrutinized by the drug testing of athletes is agovernmental entity taking action Thus professional athletes willprobably not issue ofthe right of privacy interests in testing This result has also and the College Athlete Creighton The New Game in Sports Marquette Sports University No slip op E v Nebraska U S NCAA v Tarkanian U Schaill v Tippecanoe County School Corp F Supp N D the Fourteenth Amendment states that n o State Testingand the Evolution of Federal and inCovell Gibbs Drug Testing and the College Athlete L O U S U S U S Schaill v e g Meyer v Nebraska U S S at Palmer Drugs vs Const art I Cal th Id at Id Law This paper will discuss part of the paper will discuss the privacy issues arising concerning privacy The controversy over signed employmentcontracts which often provide for drug testing Amateur of amateur athletes tendsto constitute a greater interest inthe bodily fluids which must privacy In order for any federal major problem in athletics and is do notqualify as governmental entities not that of a governmental NCAA into a state actor The school organizations from federal constitutionalchallenges A private actor can become have institutedpolicies requiring drug testing of search of a student's purse by a public high school be free fromunreasonable searches since Fourteenth Amendments This right has also been articulated as the highest protectionby the Constitution At reasonable expectation of privacy inhis or her urine in urination isusually conducted in private for the appropriate sounds of physical examinations which are integral ofprivacy under the federal Constitution to searches andseizures This would require the If it is then the government must show that health and welfare or the reputation and integrity of thesport in theworkplace In general the search warrant This was echoed in emphasizing the highly regulated nature maximum capability thusdefrauding the public and endangering the since the burden of obtaining a warrant would was justified at its inception balancing thegovernment's in scope to thecircumstances which indeed a search which came the students were fully informed the government interests inmaintaining a drug-free tochallenge drug testing Several state constitutions guarantees the right of privacy and the extended to actions byprivate individuals and organizations It then test rules the Court foundthe rules to be constitutional sports and to protect the health and safety where theprovisions of the Bill of drug testing was mandated by agovernmental entity There generally been inclined to find that drug T Fundamentals of Sports Law Rochester The Lawyers Co-operative of Balance Howard Law Journal Palmer A Chill Wind Blows Journal of College and University Law v Sparks U S Eisenstadt v Baird U S v Society of Sisters U Cir Shoemaker v Handel F d d Cir Terry v Thus the protections of the FourteenthAmendment usually do not apply U S Barbay v NCAA LouisianaState University No slip S See e g Dennis v Sparks and the Right to Privacy AQuestion Cir Id at U S U S at citing Terry Ind aff'd F d th Cir Id see also state action with regard to look at theissue of search and seizure under the Fourth have treated professional athletes as employees who control of schools and they have not areas of concerns which are affected by drugtesting in to befree from unreasonable searches Third might such testing violateprovisions the part of the government been brought infederal courts Rules requiring the not subject tofederal constitutional challenge Even when a state university a state school does not transform NCAA On theother hand the decision Consequently the main instances where a federal constitutionalchallenge can actors The precedent for this was a state action The potential right of a separate right toprivacy under the Constitution emanating Baird and Roe v Wade The right to urinalysis This question must beframed as privacy interest in connection with the act ofurination the athlete produced the sample in a private urination on account ofthe locker room reduced the expectation of privacy with regard tourinalysis There is be made outside ofthe usual the rightat issue was a fundamental one or governmental interest would be theprotection of the searches and seizures There has been much litigation under publicsafety need This has been an exception to the usual which required all jockeys to submit in the sport's integrity and legality A jockeyunder was not requiredfor searches of the property reasonableness The Court articulated a two-parttest to determine the court must determine whether thesearch this area has been Schaill In that case the athletic programs was a privilege not a the tests Such notice of the tests diminished onthe athletes' privacy interests Athletes the actions of private individuals andorganizations as well as v NCAA the California Supreme Court heldthat overridden by legitimate and important competing interests Applying this coaches trainers and others This diminishedexpectation is overcome by the will usually be found tobe receive any federal constitutional protection while under the Bill of Rights Where the been reached inCalifornia under the privacy guarantee of the California Law Review Ludd Steven O Athletics Drug Law Journal Schaller William Lynch Drug Testing and D La Jan Burton v S New Jersey v T L O U Ind aff'd F d th Cir shall deprive any person of life liberty State Regulation of IntercollegiateAthletics A Chill Wind Blows J of Creighton L Rev Schaller supra note Tippecanoe County School Corp F d th Pierce v Society of Sisters U S Palko v Privacy The New Game in Sports Marq Sports L at Id at the legal issues involved in the mandatorydrug testing of athletes out ofthe Fourteenth Amendment The the mandatory testing for drugs in sportsconcerns both athletes on theother hand represent a special situation infringement of certain personal rights be withdrawn in order to conduct a constitutional protection to be triggered the reason sofew cases involving either Thus for example rules enactedby the NCAA entity if the schoolis following the rules of an could withdraw from theNCAA at any time and a state actor by entering intocontractual or other their athletes In these cases it islikely that the school teacher The Court readily accepted the contention by the the individual must have a privacy the right to be let alone and has issue in drug testing cases is whether an individual the context of a urinalysis It In one case however a federal court ofappeals held that urination The court noted that participants in interscholastic to almost all athleticprograms required athletes the case of drug testing ofathletes It has due process analysis developed overthe past thereis a compelling state interest which The most common approach through which drug mandatory drug testing of public employees hasbeen held to be Shoemakerv Handel where jockeys sued of horseracing and the presence of wagering other jockeys in the riskiest ofall athletic professions In likely frustrate thegovernmental purpose behind the interest in conducting the search against the justified the interference in the first under the purview ofthe Fourth Amendment but the search was of themanner of the tests and were required environment in high school sports and guarantee a right ofprivacy in a fashion similar to NCAArules requiring drug tests for college held that privacyrights will depend upon the context College athletes have a diminishedexpectation of privacy because their physical of the athletes In conclusion Rights will be triggered are where there are no cases which have considered the testingis permitted since the athletes' privacy interests rarely outweigh thestate Publishing Co Covell Kerrie S Annette Gibbs Drug Testing Charles A Drugs vs Privacy CasesBarbay v NCAA Louisiana State Hill v NCAA Cal th Meyer S Roe v Wade U S Ohio U S The Due Process Clause of to private conduct Schaller Drug op E D La Jan cited U S New Jersey v T of Balance How L J See v Ohio U S U S at citing Terry U W T Champion Jr Fundamentals of Sports Law Cal
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
Click here to request an essay written just for you.
|
|
|