With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as applied to him, and there is no indication that the information about prescription medi-cátions could not be provided confidentially, and treated so, unless the test results come back positive. See Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 659-60, 115 S.Ct. 2386. Therefore, like the Supreme Court, "we will not assume the worst” and will not invalidate the policy on this ground. Id. at 660, 115 S.Ct. 2386. 6 . Our decision today comports with an opinion from the Seventh Circuit in a case that is nearly identical to this one on the facts. See Todd v. Rush County Schools, 133 F.3d 984 (7th Cir.), cert. denied,- U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 68, 142 L.Ed.2d 53 (1998); see also, Willis v. Anderson Community Sch. Corp., 158 F.3d 415 (7th Cir.1998), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 1254, - L.Ed.2d - (1999) (No. 98-1183)

A: holding railroad regulation requiring random drug testing without particularized suspicion to be reasonable in light of connection to public safety
B: holding that when the district court imposed drug testing in connection with a special condition of substance abuse program participation  it was  not required to specify the number of drug tests a defendant must undergo as a part of the treatment program
C: holding that random drug testing for student athletes did not violate their fourth amendment rights
D: holding that required drug testing of student who had been suspended for fighting was unconstitutional because there was no reasonable suspicion of drug use and no special needs requiring a suspicionless search distinguishing todd and vemonia on their facts
D.