Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

WADA recreational drug enhanced bans


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,611 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 10:53 AM

The professional players' unions are getting upset about WADA's proposed long bans for recreational drug use.  They (WADA) have also, not fully reported there, increased many thresholds of recreational drug use to completely eliminate false positives from, say smoke inhaled from third party's spliff.

 

I don't get it.  Why would professional athletes have a problem with drug bans?  If players want to run the risk of taking recreational drugs, which is still a criminal offence in most countries, then they can't complain about getting a ban for it.  One player given a 4 year ban for doing cocaine would certainly be a useful deterrent for all bar the most terminally stupid of players.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#2 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 10:55 AM

The professional players' unions are getting upset about WADA's proposed long bans for recreational drug use.  They've also, not fully reported there, increased many thresholds of recreational drug use to completely eliminate false positives from, say smoke inhaled from third party's spliff.

 

I don't get it.  Why would professional athletes have a problem with drug bans?  If players want to run the risk of taking recreational drugs, which is still a criminal offence in most countries, then they can't complain about getting a ban for it.  One player given a 4 year ban for doing cocaine would certainly be a useful deterrant for all bar the most terminally stupid of primadonna players.

 

Agreed, complete nonsense.  I'm all for workers rights, but the right to take illegal drugs.  Errrr no.



#3 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 11:16 AM

If a drug: -

 - is not performance-enhancing or performance-retarding

 - does not act as a screen to prevent detection of another drug that is performance-enhancing or performance-retarding

 

then its presence in a sportsman's body is nothing whatsoever to do with WADA. If the drug is illegal, Wada possibly has the right to report it to the Police but, in this country, no one gets done for taking a drug ... only for supplying it.

 

I'm with the athletes on this; it's a restraint on their human rights and a restraint of trade.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#4 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 11:28 AM

If a drug: -
- is not performance-enhancing or performance-retarding
- does not act as a screen to prevent detection of another drug that is performance-enhancing or performance-retarding

then its presence in a sportsman's body is nothing whatsoever to do with WADA. If the drug is illegal, Wada possibly has the right to report it to the Police but, in this country, no one gets done for taking a drug ... only for supplying it.

I'm with the athletes on this; it's a restraint on their human rights and a restraint of trade.


A restraint of trade? What drug dealing?

I accept that all the rest of your points could be seen valid to a greater or lesser extent.

What about a compromise wherby WADA don't increase any bans but write into their constitution that they will report all illegal substances identified to the authorities in whichever country the test has been conducted in?


Edited by Larry the Leit, 05 November 2013 - 11:37 AM.


#5 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,611 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 11:35 AM

If a drug: -

 - is not performance-enhancing or performance-retarding

 - does not act as a screen to prevent detection of another drug that is performance-enhancing or performance-retarding

 

then its presence in a sportsman's body is nothing whatsoever to do with WADA. If the drug is illegal, Wada possibly has the right to report it to the Police but, in this country, no one gets done for taking a drug ... only for supplying it.

 

I'm with the athletes on this; it's a restraint on their human rights and a restraint of trade.

Point 1:  You have no human right to perform an illegal act

Point 2:  It's not a restraint of trade, it's a warning that to be an accredited professional sportsman you must be drug free.  If any trade tells you of a minimum bar you must meet to continue being part of that trade and part of that minimum bar is not doing illegal drugs then you've absolutely no leg to stand on if you're caught, find yourself out of a job and barred from that trade.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#6 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 11:36 AM

A restraint of trade? What drug dealing?

 

 

No, being a professional sportsperson.

 

What about a compromise wherby WADA don't increase any bans but write into their constitution that they will report all illegal substances identified to the authorities in whichever country the test has been conducted in?

 

Fair enough.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#7 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 11:39 AM

Point 1:  You have no human right to perform an illegal act

 

 

So, by that token,  a sportsman could get a ban for being caught speeding (in the highway sense) or burglary or being drunk and disorderly or not paying a parking fine?


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#8 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 11:43 AM

So, by that token,  a sportsman could get a ban for being caught speeding (in the highway sense) or burglary or being drunk and disorderly or not paying a parking fine?

 

In theory all these are possible.  What about illegal gambling on a game/race?  Should that carry a ban?



#9 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 11:56 AM

In theory all these are possible.  What about illegal gambling on a game/race?  Should that carry a ban?

 

Yes, but such investigations should be onducted by that sport's governing body. Snooker players have been suspended and banned over suspicions / proof that they had been either betting on their own sport or had been willing to produce a set result. I don't suppose the WPSBA would be too bothered if they had been down a Ascot betting on horse racing.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#10 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,611 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 12:06 PM

So, by that token,  a sportsman could get a ban for being caught speeding (in the highway sense) or burglary or being drunk and disorderly or not paying a parking fine?

If that were deemed to be in the interests of sport then, yes.

 

Many trades have conduct bars that see their tradesmen sacked, or not even allowed in the door, but have tolerances elsewhere.  A few examples:

- military personnel get the hard boot out for being caught with recreational drugs.  Who in their right mind would want to give a gun to a druggie?

- you cannot get Security Clearance for working at HMRC if you have any dishonesty crimes on your record, even if you shoplifted a 1p chew 30 years ago, but they will consider some pretty serious violence offences.  Better a honest thug than a petty thief when you have access to HMRC records.

- you'll have a hard time convincing a police force to accept you if you have a speeding offence.  Once you're in though it's a different story.

- I signed up to a code of conduct for my two professional institutes.  Both have hard requirements that can easily see me lose my accreditation if a client complained about me.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#11 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 12:23 PM

If that were deemed to be in the interests of sport then, yes.

 

 

I know your argument, Craig, but they are sports ... and despite what the RFU say, such bodies can only have rules and not laws.

 

I don't have a terrifically high opinion of Gareth Hock, but I don't think he should have got a 2-year ban for taking cocaine. In principle, everybody has a right to be treated equally under the law ... though I accept it doesn't work that way in practice.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#12 ehbandit

ehbandit
  • Coach
  • 590 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 12:39 PM

slightly o/t here. the idea behind drug testing is to prevent an unfair advantage? hypothetically, if an older person wished to take PEDS to be able to compete with younger participants, are they gaining an unfair advantage?
anyway, back on topic. I believe that governing bodies have a duty of care to players, and prohibit drug use because it can be harmful?
drug use is a very complex area, and is not black and white.

Edited by ehbandit, 05 November 2013 - 12:40 PM.


#13 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 12:45 PM

drug use is a very complex area, and is not black and white.

 

 

Guinness is. ;)

Alcohol is an illegal drug in many countries.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#14 ehbandit

ehbandit
  • Coach
  • 590 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 12:49 PM

Guinness is. ;)
Alcohol is an illegal drug in many countries.

ha, very true

#15 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,611 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 12:58 PM

I was told once by a coach that alcohol abuse by professional players isn't a problem that needs to be dealt with at governing body level these days as alcoholics tend to become so match unfit, both physically and mentally, that they essentially kick themselves out of the sport.  A very unsympathetic but blunt attitude!


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#16 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 01:17 PM

yes, but there's a big difference between liking a drink and being a full-blown alcoholic. You'd struggle to have a social life in Britain if you are of sporting age and don't go to pubs and clubs.

 

Same with social drugs, not that I've ever taken any personally or actually condone it. Like most people, I have acquaintances who have done the odd line of coke, but they are not crackheads or heroin addicts.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#17 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 06 November 2013 - 07:53 PM

. You'd struggle to have a social life in Britain if you are of sporting age and don't go to pubs and clubs.

Same with social drugs, not that I've ever taken any personally or actually condone it. Like most people, I have acquaintances who have done the odd line of coke, but they are not crackheads or heroin addicts.


Do you honestly believe this?

#18 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 06 November 2013 - 08:22 PM

Yup.

 

Do you know any single under-thirties who don't go into pubs and nightclubs? Apart from Moslems and Mormons, obviously.

 

With cocaine, it's a younger generation and yuppie thing; just like cannabis and acid was when I was in my teens and early twenties. No one takes acid any more but loads of people I know still occasionally use cannabis. There can't be many people who wouldn't know where to get hold of a bit.

 

I've never smoked cannabis, purely because I've never smoked even a puff of a single cigarette. When I was at university and going to festivals etc, a good friend ended up in a mental hospital for a fortnight or so after a bad acid trip, so I never tried that either. Loads of my other friends did. Today, they hold senior positions and are just as staid and boring as the rest of us.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#19 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 06 November 2013 - 08:36 PM

Why do you use the term muslim and not Muslim like the rest of society? I ask because I don't know why you alone do this.

Plenty, I'd suggest the majority, of teens and twenty something's manage I have fulfilling social lives without recreational drugs.

Edited by Larry the Leit, 06 November 2013 - 08:36 PM.


#20 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 06 November 2013 - 09:00 PM

According to the Islamic calendar, we are now living, not in the year 2013, but in 1434.

 

In deference to Moslems, I prefer to use the 1434 spelling.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ering_the_years

 

 

A band member counselling against the use of recreational drugs and alcohol?

 

Got it!!

You are Little Jimmy Osmond, aren't you.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users