Sports Doping: Those Who Play by the Rules Risk Losing Privacy, Dignity

Picture the following scenario. An athlete is awakened at 6 a.m. by a loud knock at the door. A stranger introduces him(her)self as the official agency drug tester and has come to collect a random urine sample.

But not merely to collect—he (she) must observe the collection process.

Note the spelled-out dictum:

"To minimize opportunities for tampering, a direct line of sight between the observer and the specimen bottle must be maintained during collection of a urine sample."

Oops. Did I just hear a giant sucking sound—as if a hundred turtles just withdrew into their shells? 

But such is the nature of the random test. By design, there is no warning. That means less chance for a plan of deception to succeed. The idea is to catch the offenders with the goods (banned substances) actually coursing through their system.

So, with little regard for the privacy and dignity of the huge majority who do play by the rules, the drug tester gets his sample and is gone.

At least that's how its supposed to happen on a good day. Getting a quick sample under such conditions can be challenging. Understandably, the donor may experience difficulty in initiating the flow, so to speak, and it may take several attempts (and several glassfuls of water) before the observer obtains the desired specimen.

The scenario described above is not far-fetched. It is a common occurrence and is often an awkward and embarrassing experience for the clean athlete. At the elite professional level, athletes are basically on-call 24/7/365 for drug testing.

At the NCAA level, the athlete is at least notified just prior to testing (usually only during the competitive season), but the collection procedure is no less humiliating. (Read of one athlete's negative experience right here ).

It's just another example of a rule-abiding segment of society being made to pay for the sins of those who cheat. And while most athletes don't complain publicly and do accept the drug screen as a necessary evil, there must be a less invasive method of testing available...isn't there?

There are two primary alternatives—hair analysis and blood sample. But because the urinalysis is cheaper, less complex and relatively accurate, it remains the method of choice. Apparently, the negative, intrusive element—especially to the perpetually innocent victim—carries little weight.

So next time you pump your fist for your favorite athlete, put a little extra pop into it, knowing that with all the blood, sweat and tears that went into his/her performance, another certain body fluid was also given up for the cause.

Oh...and thank a drug cheat while you're at it.

Follow @rojosports