Abstract Today there is a continual abuse of drugs by intercollegiate athletes even after some drug-induced deaths such as that of a basketball star at the University of Maryland U.S in 1986. The drug testing programs have shifted tactic to randomization and every year approximately 250 players undergo the test each season. (Goldberg, 2009) The athletes remain informed of the necessary measures of testing. Randomized testing program is today a subject of criticism considering the failures and embarrassment suffered during participation. It is equally a source of panic among athletes and their couches, for instance a Florida couch took away his entire team from a hotel because of some smell of Marijuana emanating from adjacent rooms for fear of them failing the randomized drug tests, prior to their games on probabilities of the smoke finding its way to the players’ system. (Fertman, 2008)There are many instances when team physicians have failed to administer medication to athletes on the same fear of traces of some banned ingredients during the random drug tests. The drug testing procedures are mostly undertakings occurring through analysis of urine samples. Since the random tests take place between play, the issue of dehydration, a common phenomenon among participating athletes never get the required consideration. This mechanism of testing is a serious predicament considering the problems associated with passing of urine while one is dehydrated. According to Borts and Bowers (2000), occurrences of violent short-term illnesses are common phenomenon especially when such athletes try to gulp down some water or soft drinks to meet test requirements. These measures face criticism because drug abuse is a common experience among athels since time in memorial and the authorities ought to come up with proper measures of curbing the vice other than rushing the last minute during play. As an inherent vice in the society, drug abuse requires programmed countermeasures to handle it as a societal and not a sport related undesirable quality of life. Arguably, by relating their concerns to the intercollegiate athletes, the involved parties indicate that the authorities concerned are trying to express their apprehensions over a societal problem other than solving the problem. Politically the athletes are able to offset the routine checkups and thus anxiety of authorities. The question imposed on the randomized tests of athletes involves the legality of the action for instance, under most constitutional laws, mandatory urine tests are impermissible invasion of privacy. (Goldberg, 2009) The authorities on the other hand have supported the expedient as a determinant over drug usage in the athletic commune. The minimum story on the topic The incidents of so termed “drug abuse” among most college athletes involves right usage of drugs such as anabolic steroids. This is the reason why volunteered drug tests can result to positive identification of documented ingredients. Probably the random testing would be disincentive compared to common procedure of testing. The ability to detect drugs usage during common tests is a good indication and practice that detection is not an efficient procedure for elimination of usage among college athletes. The uses of performance enhancing drugs have been there fore decades. The “International Olympics Committee” has placed measures to ban usage for support of a fair play. The initi