A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » Alpine Skiing (moderated)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hans Knauss flunks



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 21st 04, 03:43 PM
MoonMan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 21st 04, 04:12 PM
Mary Malmros
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 21st 04, 04:43 PM
MoonMan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 22nd 04, 12:49 AM
Mary Malmros
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 22nd 04, 12:57 AM
Mary Malmros
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 22nd 04, 02:45 PM
Chuck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 22nd 04, 02:52 PM
Chuck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 22nd 04, 04:01 PM
TexasSkiNut
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 22nd 04, 04:50 PM
MattB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 22nd 04, 05:03 PM
MattB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.