"Drug Testing Just Dopey"


This Forum was created to divert traffic from Current Events at the height of the BALCO scandal. It comes and goes as "needed"; it's back to being locked.

"Drug Testing Just Dopey"

Postby gh » Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:39 pm

This one is good for some heated discussion:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4632890a2201.html
gh
 
Posts: 46294
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby BruceFlorman » Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:27 pm

I just gotta ask... is this true:
The man who won the 1904 Olympic marathon, Tom Hicks, was injected with two doses of strychnine and fortified with a few swigs of brandy along the way. Twice, he roared back into the race, only to be pipped at the post by Fred Lorz, who was later disqualified for travelling by car. Now that is pure sport, in its most raw form.

I mean the story. The opinion at the end is too subjective for a clear-cut answer.

Edit: Maybe so...
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/summer-o ... -lorz.html
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Postby kuha » Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:34 pm

BruceFlorman wrote:I just gotta ask... is this true:
The man who won the 1904 Olympic marathon, Tom Hicks, was injected with two doses of strychnine and fortified with a few swigs of brandy along the way. Twice, he roared back into the race, only to be pipped at the post by Fred Lorz, who was later disqualified for travelling by car. Now that is pure sport, in its most raw form.

I mean the story. The opinion at the end is too subjective for a clear-cut answer.

Edit: Maybe so...
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/summer-o ... -lorz.html


Yes, but it was NOT "injected"; it was taken by mouth.

For what it's worth, I agree completely with the writer's point of view.
kuha
 
Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby Daisy » Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:56 pm

kuha wrote:For what it's worth, I agree completely with the writer's point of view.


I'm not sure I do, especially for steroids in the women's events. Should women really have to turn themselves into men to be competitive?

With respect to the mens events I might be a bit more sympathetic but what levels of drug cocktails would world classes athletes eventually be taking? The author derides the health argument based on a hypothetical drug with no side effects. But does such a drug exist?

With drug testing in place one assumes that even the worst druggies have to be conservative with the amount used for fear of testing. With no testing, could the liver take it?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:03 pm

Local piece on Mary Wineberg and the drug testers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25854436/
guru
 
Posts: 10265
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby Mennisco » Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:04 pm

gh wrote:This one is good for some heated discussion:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4632890a2201.html


Yeah, heat up the pablum...

Quick: How many really shitty arguments can you find before LoLo gets to hurdle number 1? I found enough to induce a temper tantrum in a hypothetical infantile genius, maybe age 4 months, who wouldn't yet have acquired empathy for the feebleminded, and the wisdom to decline taking offence at free and hysterical things like the wind, and wind....

Image
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Mennisco » Sat Jul 26, 2008 6:19 pm

From the article in question:

"Don't bother arguing the immorality of performance-enhancing drugs; that doesn't wash any more. There are too many contradictions."

NO - the question is not served by searching for quasi-analogous circumstances which can be fantasized as being approximations to the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport - the issue is, quite simply, whether it is immoral to lie.

"To be human, said Kant, is to have the rational power of free choice; to be ethical, he continued, is to respect that power in oneself and others. Lies are morally wrong, then, for two reasons. First, lying corrupts the most important quality of my being human: my ability to make free, rational choices. Each lie I tell contradicts the part of me that gives me moral worth. Second, my lies rob others of their freedom to choose rationally. When my lie leads people to decide other than they would had they known the truth, I have harmed their human dignity and autonomy. Kant believed that to value ourselves and others as ends instead of means, we have perfect duties (i.e., no exceptions) to avoid damaging, interfering with, or misusing the ability to make free decisions; in other words - no lying."

Further:

"People often poorly estimate the consequences of their actions or specifically undervalue or ignore the harmful consequences to society (e.g., mistrust) that their lies cause."

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ ... lying.html
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby bad hammy » Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:53 am

In any case, I'd like to see how fast someone could sprint over 100 metres, regardless of what substances they were taking. Even if they were to spontaneously combust after crossing the line it would still be a fascinating study. Particularly so, in fact. The promise of exploding athletes could only boost the popularity of track and field. A win-win situation, as it were.

I'd pay to see that . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby George P. » Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:21 am

Yesterday the WaPo's resident drug-lady, Amy Shipley, had an interesting piece. This caught my eye:

"You can't win in this cat-and-mouse game," said William Llewellyn, a chemist and publisher of several steroid manuals and the performance-enhancement magazine "Body of Science. "It takes a month to develop a new steroid and two years to detect it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/25/AR2008072503414.html

Of course, Asafa Powell's high dudgeon in the recent timesOnline (UK) shouldn't be missed. I'm with Powell, even though I suspect Llewellyn is probably right.
George P.
 
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mennisco » Sun Jul 27, 2008 9:00 am

Thanks for the link George. Congratulations to the 4 track and field athletes named as participants in USADA's nascent project -

"The new drug-testing program, which is being administered by USADA,........doesn't attempt to identify performance-enhancing drugs per se. Rather, it requires that the athletes submit to frequent blood and urine testing to establish personal norms in more than a dozen hormonal categories. If those numbers stay constant, it's compelling -- but not definitive -- evidence that no doping is taking place. If the numbers fluctuate, it could indicate, or at least raise suspicion, that an athlete is using drugs........

The athletes participating in the program include........sprinters Tyson Gay and Allyson Felix....[and] Bryan Clay and Dee Dee Trotter".


It could be interesting to see which athletes may decline participation in the near future, as the program expands, and for what stated reasons. Or will the test group serve as a "baseline" from which full-scale, mandatory inclusion will follow?
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Novitiate » Sun Jul 27, 2008 9:05 am

George P. wrote:Yesterday the WaPo's resident drug-lady, Amy Shipley, had an interesting piece. This caught my eye:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/25/AR2008072503414.html

Of course, Asafa Powell's high dudgeon in the recent timesOnline (UK) shouldn't be missed. I'm with Powell, even though I suspect Llewellyn is probably right.


"John Hoberman, an anti-doping expert and University of Texas professor, pointed out that a number of professional cycling teams have adopted similar programs and make the results public. "Anybody in this day and age who thinks they can get away with, 'Trust me,' is just detached from reality," Hoberman said. "Transparency is transparency." "


Clearly.
Novitiate
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:27 am
Location: Where the novices are

Postby Kurt Francis » Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:31 am

guru wrote:Local piece on Mary Wineberg and the drug testers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25854436/


Guru,

For what its worth, I consider this a sad era in which we live when to compete in sport a person has to take a piss while having another human being watch you doing it. There are many people in the world that have difficulty in doing so.

What I am in favor of is completely separating the professionals from the amateurs. If you want to be paid in the sport, then fine, go ahead and undergo the testing procedures. However, I am all in favor of separating the youth, open amateurs, and masters from the professionals. Its time to bring sanity back to sports.

Let the USATF handle the professionals. As for the rest of us, let the NCAA or AAU handle the rest.

As for the recent announcement of the USATF of testing 15-16, 17-18 year olds at the JO Nationals starting next year, I hope some parents bring some seriously LARGE lawsuits against the USATF. As a USATF member, I am publicly denouncing this move on this forum.

Kurt
Kurt Francis
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby scottmitchell74 » Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:52 pm

If one is clean as a whistle I can't imagine why you would have a problem submitting whatever.

Give TG, Allyson and others (Dara Torres) for offering to do it all.
scottmitchell74
 
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:49 am
Location: Abilene, TX

Postby EPelle » Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:59 pm

scottmitchell74 wrote:If one is clean as a whistle I can't imagine why you would have a problem submitting whatever.

Give TG, Allyson and others (Dara Torres) for offering to do it all.

Part of the reasoning behind not being a front-runner for participating is the sheer number of tests (random) to which one must submit. Some athletes feel it is a burden.

If one is clean as a whistle, they:d not have trouble stating that they are clean, either. Not all athletes profess that when provided the choice. Gay:s training mates signed up last year to state they were clean, Gay didn:t. This year he:s one of the lab rats, and none of those from last year are.

The whistle may blow, but it may not always be to signify a foul (or that one is clean).
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mellow Johnny » Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:05 pm

Kurt Francis wrote:
As for the recent announcement of the USATF of testing 15-16, 17-18 year olds at the JO Nationals starting next year, I hope some parents bring some seriously LARGE lawsuits against the USATF. As a USATF member, I am publicly denouncing this move on this forum.

Kurt


So what's your take on testing in high school sports that has gone on in several school districts for many years now?
Mellow Johnny
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 7:53 am

Postby Kurt Francis » Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:18 pm

Mellow Johnny wrote:
Kurt Francis wrote:
As for the recent announcement of the USATF of testing 15-16, 17-18 year olds at the JO Nationals starting next year, I hope some parents bring some seriously LARGE lawsuits against the USATF. As a USATF member, I am publicly denouncing this move on this forum.

Kurt


So what's your take on testing in high school sports that has gone on in several school districts for many years now?


I feel the same way; however, as far as I know (and I may be wrong on this), HS athletes aren't faced with the prospect of actually having someone unknown to them watching them. This methodology opens up the possibility for serious litigation based on an athlete perceiving rightly or wrongly that the testing person exhibited sexual advances or unwanted "stares". A whole can of worms can be opened up for minors.

With regard to the whole deal with recreational drugs, I think the whole HS testing deal is way out-of-bounds. It is NOT the business of secondary schools to be on a witch-hunt for those kids that may or may not be using recreational drugs. I grew-up during the 70s and 80s, and we all knew who the usual drug users were. Most of them that did it regularly DIDN'T compete in sports, and for those who did, it only hindered them. The vast majority of those kids that did drugs during those days have now become fully functioning adults, all grown with children and grandchildren of their own.

If we are to continue to have testing, then it needs to become less personally invasive with regard to modesty issues. Blood testing, hair sampling, or other non-invasive procedures can be implemented. Certainly, minors should not be subject to the gawking of adults at their genitals. This is ridiculous. I certainly would not allow any minor child of mine to be subject to such testing (if I had children). I have three nephews now getting involved in sports, and I will be very frank with their parents regarding the whole drug testing situation. I hope to motivate more parents to push back against the invasiveness that our currently insane world of sports authorities tries to impose on us. It is more than time to reject this insanity.

Kurt
Kurt Francis
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mellow Johnny » Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:26 pm

As a high school teacher who used to coach XC and track, I agree completely that the use of recreational drugs should not be tested for. For those kids who get caught at a party, post pictures of themselves partying it up on myspace, etc. then too bad as far as discipline regarding athletics.

However, PEDs are a different story. Thankfully, the research done so far has shown less use amongst PEDs among high school athletes than there was thought to have been so that's been a real positive.

Having an adult there watching a minor urinate is certainly concerning, yes. Agreed that other methods for testing need to be utilized.
Mellow Johnny
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 7:53 am

Postby Kurt Francis » Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:43 pm

Mellow Johnny wrote:As a high school teacher who used to coach XC and track, I agree completely that the use of recreational drugs should not be tested for. For those kids who get caught at a party, post pictures of themselves partying it up on myspace, etc. then too bad as far as discipline regarding athletics.

However, PEDs are a different story. Thankfully, the research done so far has shown less use amongst PEDs among high school athletes than there was thought to have been so that's been a real positive.

Having an adult there watching a minor urinate is certainly concerning, yes. Agreed that other methods for testing need to be utilized.


I never believed the figures thrown around in the press regarding the use of PEDs at the high school level. I have coached D3 level athletes for most of the last 6 years, and the high school level before that off-and-on since 1986 (even while I was still an athlete in college - red-shirting). Not a one of the athletes I ever worked with used anything more than caffeine. Use of PEDs almost always brings about a sudden increase in performance, and that is a huge flag to me.

Even while I was competing for Cincy back in the 80s, I knew of only a few athletes in the old Metro Conference that I ever believed were using the "stuff". I could name them, but that's old news and water well under and past the bridge. I never felt personally robbed because of those athletes performances. My thoughts at the time were they were just more willing to take a chance to make the "big time" than I or the vast majority of us at the time were willing to do. This was also the days prior to steroids becoming controlled substance and the penalty for having such without a doctor's prescription becoming a federal rap. These were also the days prior to the internet and the availibility of Mexican and Chinese-made pharmaceuticals.

As for the athletes I coach these days, I tell them that PEDs are simply not worth the risk given the rewards. Only at the professional level do the rewards potentially outweigh the risks, and to me, frankly, no stupid gold medal is worth the risk to my health due to messing with the hormonal system. As for the whole "purity of sport" blab, don't even get me started on that.

Kurt
Kurt Francis
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:12 pm

Kurt Francis wrote:. . . and to me, frankly, no stupid gold medal is worth the risk to my health due to messing with the hormonal system.

Isn't that what birth control pills are all about?
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Kurt Francis » Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:15 pm

bad hammy wrote:
Kurt Francis wrote:. . . and to me, frankly, no stupid gold medal is worth the risk to my health due to messing with the hormonal system.

Isn't that what birth control pills are all about?


Yep, and there's bad side effects associated with taking them for quite a few gals. Of course, someone here is going to suggest just the opposite, but then abstinence can go a long way too!
Kurt Francis
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby 26mi235 » Sun Jul 27, 2008 9:27 pm

Astana, run by Lance's former director, uses the blood profile approach and just released Gusev for failing on that profile even though he did not test positive. (Astana had Vino, Kash., and another test + and Mazallino (sp?) get caught up in the Oil-for drugs' investigation in Italy. (I am on the road and cannot easily check stuff).
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby croflash » Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:22 am

26mi235 wrote:Astana, run by Lance's former director, uses the blood profile approach and just released Gusev for failing on that profile even though he did not test positive. (Astana had Vino, Kash., and another test + and Mazallino (sp?) get caught up in the Oil-for drugs' investigation in Italy. (I am on the road and cannot easily check stuff).


CSC also uses it.
croflash
 
Posts: 2361
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:29 am
Location: Germany

Postby Mennisco » Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:37 am

Kurt Francis wrote:For what its worth, I consider this a sad era in which we live when to compete in sport a person has to take a piss while having another human being watch you doing it. There are many people in the world that have difficulty in doing so.
Kurt


Geez Kurt, guys grow up doing it all the time, simultaneously inspecting their buddies' endowments, and joking that too many shakes is cheating.

"3 shakes, I saw it." "2.5 and you know it, don't mess with me." "Immoral liar."

How far we've come from our natural roots.

:P
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Kurt Francis » Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:30 pm

Mennisco wrote:
Kurt Francis wrote:For what its worth, I consider this a sad era in which we live when to compete in sport a person has to take a piss while having another human being watch you doing it. There are many people in the world that have difficulty in doing so.
Kurt


Geez Kurt, guys grow up doing it all the time, simultaneously inspecting their buddies' endowments, and joking that too many shakes is cheating.

"3 shakes, I saw it." "2.5 and you know it, don't mess with me." "Immoral liar."

How far we've come from our natural roots.

:P


Sorry, I wasn't one of them, and I know I'm not the only one.
Kurt Francis
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mennisco » Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:00 pm

Kurt Francis wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't one of them, and I know I'm not the only one.


Hysterical right wingers typically have deeply rooted insecurities. Did you write columns for the high school newspaper decrying the "3 shake rule" ?
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Kurt Francis » Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:47 pm

Mennisco wrote:
Kurt Francis wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't one of them, and I know I'm not the only one.


Hysterical right wingers typically have deeply rooted insecurities. Did you write columns for the high school newspaper decrying the "3 shake rule" ?


....and insane left-wingers are typical in their constant, narcissistic railings against those who believe in maintaining some level of decorum....

Have a great day, Mennisco :lol:
Kurt Francis
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mennisco » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:02 am

Kurt Francis wrote:
Mennisco wrote:
Kurt Francis wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't one of them, and I know I'm not the only one.


Hysterical right wingers typically have deeply rooted insecurities. Did you write columns for the high school newspaper decrying the "3 shake rule" ?


....and insane left-wingers are typical in their constant, narcissistic railings against those who believe in maintaining some level of decorum....

Have a great day, Mennisco :lol:


Agreed, except that I tend to be, on many issues, about as left wing as Attila the Hen. The proctologist and the gynecologist perhaps provide egregious examples of shocking lack of decorum in your world, as outrageous as that displayed in the OJ Simpson trial, or by the slut Madonna, or Monica Lewinski in her better moments.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Daisy » Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:15 pm

Kurt Francis wrote:For what its worth, I consider this a sad era in which we live when to compete in sport a person has to take a piss while having another human being watch you doing it. There are many people in the world that have difficulty in doing so.
Kurt


Nothing stopping them taking the blood test route if they are shy.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:41 pm

Daisy wrote:
Kurt Francis wrote:For what its worth, I consider this a sad era in which we live when to compete in sport a person has to take a piss while having another human being watch you doing it. There are many people in the world that have difficulty in doing so.
Kurt


Nothing stopping them taking the blood test route if they are shy.

As I understand it, urine tests are mandatory. And I agree with Kurt on this one - when the rules require you to piss while under up-close-and-personal direct scrutiny of strangers (or even non-strangers) then things are totally f**ked up.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:43 pm

bad hammy wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Kurt Francis wrote:For what its worth, I consider this a sad era in which we live when to compete in sport a person has to take a piss while having another human being watch you doing it. There are many people in the world that have difficulty in doing so.
Kurt


Nothing stopping them taking the blood test route if they are shy.

As I understand it, urine tests are mandatory. And I agree with Kurt on this one - when the rules require you to piss while under up-close-and-personal direct scrutiny of strangers (or even non-strangers) then things are totally f**ked up.


Would it be acceptable if they were MD's?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:45 pm

Daisy wrote:
bad hammy wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Kurt Francis wrote:For what its worth, I consider this a sad era in which we live when to compete in sport a person has to take a piss while having another human being watch you doing it. There are many people in the world that have difficulty in doing so.
Kurt


Nothing stopping them taking the blood test route if they are shy.

As I understand it, urine tests are mandatory. And I agree with Kurt on this one - when the rules require you to piss while under up-close-and-personal direct scrutiny of strangers (or even non-strangers) then things are totally f**ked up.


Would it be acceptable if they were MD's?

No. It is not their qualifications. It is the fact that folks have to pee while under intense close-up scrutiny.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:54 pm

bad hammy wrote:No. It is not their qualifications. It is the fact that folks have to pee while under intense close-up scrutiny.


So what are the actual rules, mandatory blood and urine, or just mandatory urine? I would have thought one blood test would be enough and preferable, given HGH is a blood test. Or are the urine tests more sensitive for steroids, so they need both?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby mojo » Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:23 pm

bad hammy wrote:[No. It is not their qualifications. It is the fact that folks have to pee while under intense close-up scrutiny.


Good lord- it isn't that big of deal.

Of course I say this after having a roomful of people watch something the size of a small watermelon come out of me. :D :P
mojo
 
Posts: 5519
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: at the finish line freezing my butt off

Postby Marlow » Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:45 am

mojo wrote:Of course I say this after having a roomful of people watch something the size of a small watermelon come out of me. :D :P

Yeah, those hairballs can be a beyotch!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Mennisco » Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:44 am

mojo wrote:
Good lord- it isn't that big of deal.


Perhaps the perceived root of the complex imaginary problem.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest