Soxnole, since you obviously haven't read what the policy REALLY is...A little more detail: See below
Drug policy adds lesson to punishment
By RON MORRIS
Columnist
IT IS INTERESTING what a little digging beneath the surface often reveals.
On the surface, South Carolina’s recently released four-step drug-testing policy for athletes seems lenient and designed primarily to keep those athletes eligible for competition. A closer look reveals that the policy is geared toward educating athletes about the abuse of drugs, and the policy is perhaps as stringent as any in the country.
Before we get into all the details of USC’s policy, understand that athletes at most NCAA institutions are the only students who are tested for use of recreational drugs such as alcohol, marijuana and cocaine. Of the 24,000 members of USC’s student body, only the 450 or so scholarship athletes are forbidden from partaking in recreational drugs.
Other students do so at the risk of getting caught in possession of such drugs.
Understand also that schools such as USC voluntarily conduct drug testing for their athletes. There are some NCAA schools, mostly private, that do not test. That changes during postseason tournaments when the NCAA conducts drug testing, presumably to ensure level playing fields by preventing the use of performance-enhancing drugs.
The reason athletes are tested for drugs, and band members, cheerleaders and other scholarship students are not, is because those who compete are “held to a higher standard.” At least that is the speculation of USC athletics director Eric Hyman, who helped create USC’s new policy.
That being the case, drug testing for athletes is inherently discriminatory, and therefore any policy is punitive. The problem with USC’s previous policy, according to Hyman, was that it was long on being punitive and short on being educational and beneficial to the athletes.
Previously, USC athletes were dismissed from their respective teams after two failed drug tests. Hyman, and the committee that studied USC’s policy, concluded that a two-strikes-and-you’re-out policy did not mesh with the athletics department goal of educating athletes and preparing them for life after college.
“I look at every student-athlete as somebody’s son or daughter,” Hyman says. “How would I want my own to be treated?”
Hyman’s concern with the policy is that every one of his athletes starts from a different and varied background. For an athlete who was reared in an environment where recreational drugs are a part of life, it did not seem fair to return him or her to that setting without adequate education and counseling about drug use and abuse.
So, USC came up with a new policy. After an initial failed drug test, the athlete now receives a face-to-face warning from Hyman and is instructed to attend educational seminars and counseling for drug awareness.
“I want to be able to explain the consequences of what they’re doing,” Hyman says of his warnings. “I want to try to guide them for their future.”
Also, a certified letter detailing the failed drug test is sent to the athlete’s parent(s), and the athlete is automatically subjected to drug testing every seven to 10 days for a one-year period. Following a second failed drug test, an athlete is suspended for 25 percent of his or her team’s regular-season games. A third failure results in the athlete being suspended for an entire school year, and a fourth failed test earns a dismissal from school.
It is important to know that under the new policy a team’s coach has the discretion to dismiss an athlete following any failed drug test.
Beyond that, USC believes its administration of drug tests is among the most stringent in the country because of its number of tests, its low tolerance level and its ability to head off tampering with urine specimens.
Rod Walters, USC’s assistant athletics director for sports medicine, conducted a study of 20 randomly selected colleges and found that USC’s 1,500 tests in the past calendar year was the second-highest total. One school conducted 149 tests during a school year.
The NCAA screens for marijuana at 50 nanograms and confirms a failed drug test at 15. USC screens for marijuana at 20 and confirms at five. Walters said many schools are lowering their tolerance levels to that of USC.
Finally, USC is one of few schools that uses a refractrometer, which assures that a specimen is of normal volume and has not been diluted, according to Walters. In other words, it is much more difficult to use a masking device to beat a drug test at USC.
“My guess is that, other than the military academies where you get one strike and you are out, this is the most restrictive policy I know of,” Hyman says.
As with any policy, it must undergo the test of time. It could be that five years from now USC realizes the policy is too lenient and will make changes. For now, when examined closely, the policy appears to have the proper balance of being punitive as well as educational.
Now then, please enlighten us on FSU's policies, and while you're at it, try and rationalize why Saint Bobby wouldn't kick Janikowski off of his team.... He had a game to win, and needed his kicker. Get your head out of the sand, and come up for air....
for a return to normal, level-headed discussion after misinterpretations, apologies extended, apologies accepted, and a "let's move on" attitude when, lo and behold, ANOTHER thread veers off topic and disintegrates into controversy. 
