Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ckn

WADA recreational drug enhanced bans

22 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Guinness is. ;)

Alcohol is an illegal drug in many countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

This relevant to my question how?

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

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017