If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2004-12-21, MoonMan penned: 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! Yes, and if I want to get a job lately, I have to pee in a cup and subject myself to all sorts of questions. If I don't want to do that, I can just ... um ... not get a job. Way to miss the point. What any job? I think that would be illegal here and stupidly expensive and unreliable at that. There are News stories about changing the law to allow headteachers to require drug tests at schools though. Mind you what is an interview if it's not subjecting yourself to all sorts of questions? I still don't see the invasion of privacy though. -- Chris *:-) Downhill Good, Uphill BAD! www.suffolkvikings.org.uk |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Mary Malmros wrote:
MoonMan wrote: Mary Malmros wrote: Sven Golly wrote: Mary Malmros wrote in newsaadnb1kYOQ02lrcRVn- : snip 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. I don't have to agree to testing for "any drug or substance on the face of the earth" I have to agree to be tested for specific drugs and groups of drugs listed in a totally incomprehensable document. mind you it's random testing and I haven't been tested yet and for that matter do not expect to be, I'm not good enough 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. I suppose my point is that I consider that the justification is this case is valid (in most cases, I'm not convinced about testing for ilegal but not performance enhancing drugs) and I am only going to give permission if I think the case is justified. For example if I was going for a job as a Petrol Tanker driver or an Airline Pilot ie where such testing was relevant. 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. Whats a neti pot ? and yes they just changed the rules on inhalers didn't they. -- Chris *:-) Downhill Good, Uphill BAD! www.suffolkvikings.org.uk |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
MoonMan wrote:
Monique Y. Mudama wrote: On 2004-12-21, MoonMan penned: 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! Yes, and if I want to get a job lately, I have to pee in a cup and subject myself to all sorts of questions. If I don't want to do that, I can just ... um ... not get a job. Way to miss the point. What any job? I think that would be illegal here and stupidly expensive and unreliable at that. Where's "here"? It's sure 'nuff legal in these United States, and widely practiced in corporate America. In fact, here's a good one for you -- Nortel Networks, a company based in Canada, started mandating drug testing for all new employees AND all contractors in 1999 -- that is, for its US employees and contractors. Not the Canadians. Know why? It's illegal there. That's one example; there are plenty of others. Lucent started doing the same thing in around the same timeframe, for example. Stupidly expensive? Yes indeed. But they still do it. Some numbskull at Company A becomes convinced that "drug testing" is a good idea. Can't articulate what they should test for. Can't state what it is that _all_ the company's employees do on the job that makes this necessary or even desirable -- some of them are stuffing envelopes, some of them are writing software, some of them are answering phones, some of them are driving forklifts, but they all gotta prove that they're drug-free! Can't say what they'll do if someone tests positive. Can't describe how confidentiality will be maintained. But they're gonna require "drug testing". And, just like the loyalty oaths in Catch-22, it escalates. To be _really_ drug-free, Company A then demands that all of their vendors also be drug-free. So Companies B, C and D need to do the same. And on and on and on. There are testing companies making a great deal of money out of this. Chances of making it go away at this point are slim to none. There are News stories about changing the law to allow headteachers to require drug tests at schools though. Mind you what is an interview if it's not subjecting yourself to all sorts of questions? Any HR rep will tell you that there are many questions you aren't allowed to ask in an interview. I still don't see the invasion of privacy though. Then you won't mind if I go to your house and go through your sock drawer looking for drugs, right? -- Mary Malmros Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
MoonMan wrote:
Mary Malmros wrote: MoonMan wrote: Mary Malmros wrote: Sven Golly wrote: Mary Malmros wrote in newsaadnb1kYOQ02lrcRVn- : snip 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. I don't have to agree to testing for "any drug or substance on the face of the earth" I have to agree to be tested for specific drugs and groups of drugs listed in a totally incomprehensable document. And you went ahead and signed a document that you claim was "totally incomprehensible", allowing someone (you don't know who) to demand bodily fluids of you (you don't know what) under some circulstances (you don't know when) and to use the results you don't know how? MoonMan! Buddy! Listen, I got a really hot deal on an Austrian slopeside property, you can get in on it if you act now! mind you it's random testing and I haven't been tested yet and for that matter do not expect to be, I'm not good enough 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. I suppose my point is that I consider that the justification is this case is valid (in most cases, I'm not convinced about testing for ilegal but not performance enhancing drugs) and I am only going to give permission if I think the case is justified. For example if I was going for a job as a Petrol Tanker driver or an Airline Pilot ie where such testing was relevant. Well, that was my point, MoonMan. In sports, there is a justification provided for the testing of athletes for the presence of _harmful_ performance-enhancing substances. Therefore, Hans Knauss shouldn't be getting tested for marijuana. And, AFAIK, he wasn't. However, you'll probably remember from the 2002 Olympics that a snowboarder tested positive -- for marijuana. Everybody said, "Oh ha ha," but it really wasn't funny at all. The test should never have been made, let alone had its results publically announced. The guy's privacy was invaded in a big way. 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. Whats a neti pot ? and yes they just changed the rules on inhalers didn't they. Yeah, AFAIK inhalers are waaaay restricted. But a neti pot is a really good aid to decongestion and general nasal health. The idea freaks people out a bit at first, but it'll save you a lot of sickness. Really. Take a look at http://www.bytheplanet.com/Products/...ti/Netipot.htm and try not to laugh TOO hard at the picture of the woman using the neti pot. -- Mary Malmros Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
MattB wrote:
Chuck wrote: snip I hope it's not pot. The only way pot is a performance enhancing drug is if you have twinkies waiting at the finish line. Like everything, the whole drug testing thing has gone *way* overboard. -klaus I would respectfully disagree. Pot smoking snow sliders endanger both themselves and everyone else around them. Doesn't matter if it's a ski racer or a recreational skier/boarder. Out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about someone who's had a beer or glass of wine at lunch? I'm not talking a pitcher or bottle but a single serving. Depends on the person. In most cases one glass of wine or one beer is not going to affect their judgment enough to make them a danger. One bowl, joint, blunt, etc of today's marijuana however severely affects a persons judgment. It's hard to use today's marijuana in moderation because it's so potent. It's not like the stuff that was around back in the 70's. I feel either substance can be combined with skiing in moderation, but would agree with your statement in cases of excess. Also, if someone tests positive for pot it means they have used it sometime in the past 3-4 weeks. Do you really think someone who smoked (or ate) pot three weeks ago is a danger? No, and that is a problem with testing urine for THC. Blood tests would be much better. I don't care if someone smoked three weeks ago. But if they're still buzzin', I don't want them anywhere near me or my family on the slopes. -- To reply by email remove "_nospam" |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Mary Malmros wrote:
Chuck wrote: klaus wrote: [snip] I hope it's not pot. The only way pot is a performance enhancing drug is if you have twinkies waiting at the finish line. Like everything, the whole drug testing thing has gone *way* overboard. -klaus I would respectfully disagree. Pot smoking snow sliders endanger both themselves and everyone else around them. Doesn't matter if it's a ski racer or a recreational skier/boarder. Non sequitur, Chuck. Klaus said that pot is not a _performance-enhancing drug_. Sequitur. If it were still in his system and affecting his ability to ski, it could cause a crash that injures both himself and spectators. Sequitor even if it were not in his system. It encourages others to use, again endangering themselves and others around them. -- To reply by email remove "_nospam" |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Whats a neti pot ? and yes they just changed the rules on inhalers
didn't they. Yeah, AFAIK inhalers are waaaay restricted. But a neti pot is a really good aid to decongestion and general nasal health. The idea freaks people out a bit at first, but it'll save you a lot of sickness. Really. Take a look at http://www.bytheplanet.com/Products/...ti/Netipot.htm and try not to laugh TOO hard at the picture of the woman using the neti pot. I would have laughed, had my allergist not had me try a saline nasal rinse a few times. It was supposed to become a daily ritual. Let's just say that I didn't find it to be a "soothing and pleasant practice", nor did it make a positive impact on my situation. Each time I tried it, my nose burned for the rest of the day. I tried it with just water and that wasn't a whole lot better. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Chuck wrote:
MattB wrote: Chuck wrote: snip I hope it's not pot. The only way pot is a performance enhancing drug is if you have twinkies waiting at the finish line. Like everything, the whole drug testing thing has gone *way* overboard. -klaus I would respectfully disagree. Pot smoking snow sliders endanger both themselves and everyone else around them. Doesn't matter if it's a ski racer or a recreational skier/boarder. Out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about someone who's had a beer or glass of wine at lunch? I'm not talking a pitcher or bottle but a single serving. Depends on the person. In most cases one glass of wine or one beer is not going to affect their judgment enough to make them a danger. One bowl, joint, blunt, etc of today's marijuana however severely affects a persons judgment. It's hard to use today's marijuana in moderation because it's so potent. It's not like the stuff that was around back in the 70's. Interesting. I'm generally much more concerned with drinkers than tokers. From my observations if someone over indulges in pot they head down to the lodge (more cautiously than usual) to chill and maybe eat some pizza. The overdone drinker on the other hand becomes more daring and willing to take risks. Much more dangerous IMO. As far as pot potency today, people just need to adjust serving sizes, and I think many do. Imagine if beer and wine were replaced with whiskey and vodka. Would you still drink a 12 Oz. serving? I wouldn't. I feel either substance can be combined with skiing in moderation, but would agree with your statement in cases of excess. Also, if someone tests positive for pot it means they have used it sometime in the past 3-4 weeks. Do you really think someone who smoked (or ate) pot three weeks ago is a danger? No, and that is a problem with testing urine for THC. Blood tests would be much better. I don't care if someone smoked three weeks ago. But if they're still buzzin', I don't want them anywhere near me or my family on the slopes. I'm pretty sure the THC stored in your fat cells would show up in blood a lot like it does in urine, so I suspect test results would be similar. The truth is, I bet there's a lot more stoners near you and your family happily making turns that you might imagine. From a perspective of working a number of years at a ski area (one that even random drug tested employees), it seems to be a big part of the lifestyle. Personally, I'm a lot more afraid of the distracted, big SUV driving, cell phone talking people out there. The stony skiers will likely be a lot more focused on what they are doing. Matt |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Chuck wrote:
snip Non sequitur, Chuck. Klaus said that pot is not a _performance-enhancing drug_. Sequitur. If it were still in his system and affecting his ability to ski, it could cause a crash that injures both himself and spectators. Sequitor even if it were not in his system. It encourages others to use, again endangering themselves and others around them. In that case we should test everyone to be sure they got a good night's sleep too. Just think, if I'm sleepy because my baby was teething all night I just might accidentally take you out on the hill. Very dangerous. Matt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|