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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Hans Knauss flunks
Hans Knauss tests positive for some banned substance. More testing to
be done to confirm the result. http://www.skiracing.com/news/news_d...hp/2034/ALPINE -- Mary Malmros Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mary Malmros wrote:
Hans Knauss tests positive for some banned substance. More testing to be done to confirm the result. http://www.skiracing.com/news/news_d...hp/2034/ALPINE I hope he's cleared - I like watching him ski... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
lal_truckee wrote:
Mary Malmros wrote: Hans Knauss tests positive for some banned substance. More testing to be done to confirm the result. http://www.skiracing.com/news/news_d...hp/2034/ALPINE I hope he's cleared - I like watching him ski... 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
klaus wrote:
lal_truckee wrote: Mary Malmros wrote: Hans Knauss tests positive for some banned substance. More testing to be done to confirm the result. http://www.skiracing.com/news/news_d...hp/2034/ALPINE I hope he's cleared - I like watching him ski... 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. Not least of all in the workplace. But that's the subject of another rant. Anyway, it wasn't pot. Seems it was a very low level of nandrolone, an anabolic steroid. See http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ng_doping_dc_3 They are going to do another test to figure out what's up, and nobody really knows, but I'm inclined to agree with where the Austrian team officials seem to be going: that is, if you were going to take a performance-enhancing substance and risk getting caught, whynt you take it in a quantity where it might do some good? To which, I suppose, the counter-argument is that maybe he was taking the stuff, tried to get cleaned for the test, and didn't get as clean as he thought he would. But taking the statements of Knauss and his team's representatives at face value, they seem pretty determined to track down the source, so... -- Mary Malmros Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
klaus wrote:
lal_truckee wrote: Mary Malmros wrote: Hans Knauss tests positive for some banned substance. More testing to be done to confirm the result. http://www.skiracing.com/news/news_d...hp/2034/ALPINE I hope he's cleared - I like watching him ski... 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. -- To reply by email remove "_nospam" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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? Matt |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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_. In fact, your response gives a lot of weight to his implied criticism: that drug testers no longer provide adequate justification for their tests. In any context whatsoever, a drug test _is_ an invasion of privacy. You may argue for its necessity in some situations, but it _must_ be justified. The justification that is provided for testing airline pilots is that there is a compelling safety interest to know if a pilot is under the influence of a drug that could cause him/her to be unable to safely fly an aircraft. 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. Clearly, there are drugs that fall into the former category but not the latter, and vice versa. Now, if you're a drug-testing bureaucrat, and you've become a wee bit complacent about that tiresome justification thing -- or, gosh, maybe you've got an interest in doing as much testing as possible, because drug tests are making you money -- you might make just such a sloppy mistake as to test an athlete for a non-performance-enhancing drug such as marijuana, when in fact you have no business at all testing for any such thing. Such a test is outside the scope of your mandate, and there is no justification for it. -- Mary Malmros Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- Mary Malmros Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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! The biggest problem I have found with the drug testing routine is finding a decongestant that isn't banned -- Chris *:-) Downhill Good, Uphill BAD! www.suffolkvikings.org.uk |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- monique Longmont, CO |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|