Sven Golly wrote:
Mary Malmros wrote in news:g9OdnSo-eZKrt1XcRVn-
:


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.


You don't read well do you? Just rant on a hot button. I said safety
should be considered -- not that it necessarily is.

No, you didn't. You said, "Uh, there's also a safety consideration."
Not that it should be, but that there _is_ a safety consideration. I
understand that it's not what you meant, but it is what you said, so
you've no call to attack my reading comprehension.

Safety AND
performance enhancement are both used as justifications for athlete drug
testing.

Cite, please? Specifically, a cite of spectator safety, or athlete
safety due to NON-performance during an event -- not to athlete safety
as result of using a _harmful_ performance-enhancing substance -- being
used as a justification for athlete drug testing?

Obviously, most orgs are more concerned with the performance
side of the coin.

If that were all, they'd ban water. They're concerned about substances
and practices that enhance performance while doing harm to the user.

As for getting hired for a job, if there's a reasonable chance that your
performance will be affected by what you smoke, shoot, snort, inhale or
swallow, then yes, I think you should be tested. I don't want alcoholics
flying the 757 I'm flying in either.

Where you may have a point is where safety is NOT affected. Clerical work
for example. BUT, in the US, someone will argue (successfully I'd add)
that testing one class of worker but not another is a form of
discrimination. Which is why most companies (legally) have to have
policies to test their entire workforce.

And yet they can't explain to you why they are testing, what they are
testing for, why they're testing for that collection of stuff (typically
it's "illegal" drugs, not prescription or alcohol...make sense to you?),
or what they will do with the test results. The whole rationale behind
allowing workplace drug testing in the first place was a demonstrable
safety issue, as in your example of the 757. That was the
justification. The justification for clerical staff? Completely absent.

Now, go smoke a bowl for me will ya?

Go do it yourself it that's what you're into.

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