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
  #1  
Old December 17th 04, 07:22 PM
Mary Malmros
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 17th 04, 07:36 PM
lal_truckee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 17th 04, 07:47 PM
klaus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 18th 04, 03:21 AM
Mary Malmros
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 20th 04, 08:55 PM
Chuck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 20th 04, 09:15 PM
MattB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 20th 04, 09:45 PM
Mary Malmros
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 21st 04, 01:51 PM
Mary Malmros
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 21st 04, 03:20 PM
MoonMan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 21st 04, 03:27 PM
Monique Y. Mudama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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 10:47 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.