coach2709 participating in sports means you must abide by rules and I agree with that premise.
Not being an attorney I cannot speak about rights and priveleges as though I fully understand the legal ramifications of an implied waiving of your rights if you participate in sports or driving a car.
However, I believe you cannot waive your rights that are guaranteed to you under the Bill of Rights. Maybe an attorney can clarify that. That's the reason we have the appeal system.
Anyway my understanding is that all rules and regulations must comply and comport with the US Constitution. Otherwise there is no "Supreme" legal document that governs us. That's my understanding.
Whether you "choose" to participate or not you are still covered under the 5th Amendment. I believe it has been shown in the past with so many of these decisions thatt they are implemented based upon political sentiments of the US Supreme Court. As the court gets back to its original "intent" instead of the "living" document notion, I believe you will begin to see a shift to protecting individual rights and less of the "group" and "class" philosophy that has been so prevalent in the courts recent liberal history.
I just think there is a better way then selectively "testing". If you're going to single out athletes, then I'm with doughnutman and advocate "testing" everyone. To my way of thinking that is only fair. The problem with that is some coaches might get caught as I've heard of some with reputation that aren't free from drug use.
IMO we are living through another era of prohibition all over again, and people are getting hurt, and lives are being destroyed.
JMO