MoonMan wrote:
Mary Malmros wrote:

Sven Golly wrote:

Mary Malmros wrote in
newsaadnb1kYOQ02lrcRVn- :



The
justification that is provided for testing athletes is to prevent
them from taking substances that are harmful _to the user_, but
that there is an incentive to use anyway because they enhance
athletic performance.


Uh, there's also a safety consideration.

No, Sven. Wrong. _You_ may feel that safety _should_ be considered,
but safety is _not_ the justification that is provided for the
invasion of privacy that is involved in athlete drug tests. If you,
or anyone, wants to advance that justification as a rationale for
extending drug tests on athletes, you may feel free to do so. But
you have to make your case and convince WADA, the FIS, or someone
else in authority to agree with you.

Do you understand why it's important to make these distinctions? Do
you understand why it's important to clearly identify the
justification for your invasion of someone's privacy, and why _you_
should be entitled to make such an invasion? Do you understand the
distinction between the law, the regulations of a sporting federation
such as the FIS, the regulations of the USOC, the IOC, and the US Ski
Team -- and why it is important to know just what authority they do
and do not have?

Go and apply for a job in the USA these days, and chances are you'll
be told to pee in a cup. Don't be in a hurry to give up your right to
demand a justification.


What invasion of privacy?

If I want to race at an national (or for that matter International) level I
have to agree to drug testing. No one is forcing me to do this it is my
choice!

No wonder drug testing is such a growth industry, when people conflate
and misunderstand the issues like this. Yes, MoonMan, you do have to
agree to "drug testing" if you want to race on any number of levels. It
is a condition imposed by the governing body of the sport -- not the
gummint. The justification for said testing is that they want to
prevent people from using _harmful performance-enhancing drugs_.
Accordingly, their mandate is to test for drugs that are in that
category. They're not supposed to test for ginseng, or for that matter
water, which are performance-enhancing but not harmful; and they're not
supposed to test for substances like marijuana, cyanide, or fugu fish
poison, which are harmful or intoxicating but not performance-enhancing.
They are supposed to test _only_ for _harmful performance-enhancing
substances_. So, yes, you have to agree to "drug testing" if you want
to race. You do _not_ have to agree to be tested for any drug or
substance on the face of the earth. There is no justification
whatsoever for it.

And _any_ of the testing _is_ an invasion of privacy. Checking through
someone's bodily fluids is at least as much of an invasion as going to
their house and rummaging through their closets. The argument is made
that in some instances, the invasion of privacy is necessary and
justified. But as soon as they -- or you -- start getting weak and
wobbly about the justification, they're out of line.

The biggest problem I have found with the drug testing routine is finding a
decongestant that isn't banned

Use a neti pot and be glad you don't have asthma.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.