|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,513 Year: 6,770/9,624 Month: 110/238 Week: 27/83 Day: 3/3 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Meldonium Mess | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
When a drug is first added to the list of banned substances there should be a grace period. Do players get advanced notice that a drug is going to be added to the list? Perhaps that notice constitutes a sufficient grace period. Here is an opinion that it would be best to do away with drug testing altogether. Opinion: Why sport should allow doping | CNN
quote: Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Coverage in the tennis media is tending toward the view that her explanations are more excuses than anything else I think that is in part because the medical reasons for decades of use are not considered plausible and the number of players who are using it dwarfs what medical reasons can explain. Beyond that, I cannot recall too many situations in other sports where fellow athletes expressed much sympathy for people caught during drug testing, and in some cases those fellow athletes were involved in their own performance enhancing drug scandals. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
A two year suspension for a first time offense that was inadvertent and that involves more than 300 other athletes is absurdly harsh In my opinion, a two year suspension sounds harsh even for a deliberate offense. Regarding the 300 other athletes, I feel a bit differently from you. Those 300 other athletes might raise the question of notice, but they also raise questions about the prevalence of a medical condition requiring meldonium treatment among a large population of otherwise extremely fit athletes. That cloud of questions envelops Sharapova as well. One possible conclusion is that these folks have been using the drug as a performance enhancing substances for years.
Interesting how tennis works - you're suspended while you appeal. Some players have successfully challenged drug testing failures, but they can never recover the lost earnings or tournament points. Marin Cilic, the 2014 U.S. Open champion, was suspended for 12 months by the ITF in 2013, later reduced to 4 months by the CAS after he had already served almost 6 months. Sharapova is not in a similar position to Cilic, as she is not challenging the test failure, nor is she denying all responsibility. Does it make sense to delay a suspension if what you are arguing about is the length of the suspension? Maybe not. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
That paragraph wasn't comparing Sharapova's case to Cilic's. It was about the unfairness of suspending first and going through the appeal process later. Cilic was noted because upon appeal his suspension was shortened to less time than already served. Understood. My point is only that Sharapova has a lot less to complain about with respect to having her sentence start during her appeal. Cilic and others would have much more of an issue with the rules. I understand that Sharapova's suspension has been back dated to some time in January. Also, generally speaking, drug testing results are not overturned all that often.
but what if you're a Victor Troicki, in 2013 suspended for 18 months, reduced upon appeal to 12 months. His $6 million in lifetime prize money might seem like a lot, but at 30 he's nearing the end of his careeer I did try to work up some sympathy for a thirty year old who has made a few million dollars but now needs to go to work, but I was not quite able to do it. I might need to know more about his circumstances... Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Another issue not mentioned yet is that WADA failed to consider that it might take meldonium some time to clear from an athlete's system. Evidence is gathering that the time period is not short. Many athletes who failed for meldonium are claiming they stopped taking it before the end of 2015. WADA amended the guidelines for meldonium in April to a higher level for tests before March 1, but they're obviously winging it because conclusive research data doesn't yet exist. Your point regarding oversight is well taken. In particular, getting the period wrong, coupled with a system where the suspension kicks in before the appeal is a recipe for disaster. Of course once again, this particular issue does not affect Sharapova who has acknowledged taking meldonium after the cut off date. I'm not convinced that a fair way of policing performance enhancing drugs exists. The reason is that it seems to be accepted that it is okay take performance enhancing drugs until the specific concoction becomes illegal. Providing notice, and a proper time based on the drug half life in the body may be a problem once a drug is identified as an enhancer, but IMO, most of those meldonium users were deliberately using a performance enhancer for which testing technology was not sufficiently evolved to catch them. As a result athletes and sporting authorities are involved in an arms race in which the sporting authorities are always chasing the science. Not a desired situation. With the exception of folks with a real medical need, IMO those athletes were in fact not within the spirit of the rules. They most important reason for legitimate reason for limiting drug use in sports, in my opinion, is the trickle down affect to young users entering the sport who may feel compelled to take short cuts that will physically damage them. If that can be prevented without depriving an athlete of their livelihoods, then I would not care a whit about what those guys do. Except that I might admire their abilities just a tad less. If it turns out that nobody can really serve a tennis ball at over 160 mph or hit a 550 foot home run without chemical enhancement, then what is there to marvel at when somebody does those things? We might just as well let folks use "waldoes" or exoskeleton suits. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
If this implies that you don't believe the existing prohibited list creates the bigger problems then I agree. I'm missing your meaning here to the extent that I cannot tell what it is we are agreeing on. Is the list a problem or not?
NN writes: As a result athletes and sporting authorities are involved in an arms race in which the sporting authorities are always chasing the science. Percy writes: Yes, but they should be "chasing the science" in both directions. There's the need to continually identify new performance enhancing substances and methods, but also to identify legitimate needs for them. I think the PED arms race is extremely problematic and that the adverse relationship between the athletes and the regulators is unhealthy for the sport. In this case, we seem to agree that many folks are taking meldonium in order to enhance their performance and not for any medical purpose. With respect to meldonium, I suspect that there are very few players who can justify a legitimate medical use. Maybe Sharapova can, but I have my doubts even about that.
for example, a first-offense failure for an over-the-counter substance that now results in a suspension could instead yield a warning with more intensive testing for a year), but instead full responsibility is placed on the athlete. If we are not talking about notice, then whose fault is it other than the athletes? By now folks should know that you cannot just pick up stuff at GNC or Walgreens and assume that it is okay. And what is the effect on folks that have competed, and must continue to compete with those folk if in many cases, we cannot even say when the effects will diminish? Would the fair thing be to allow everyone that must compete with them to cheat during that period? For example, some PEDs are things that are effective during training and help players get stronger over shorter periods or to train longer. Some of the involved substances aren't even in athlete's systems in a significant way during competition. Why shouldn't those folks, when they are caught, be banned until their muscles wither away? Should they be allowed to use that booming serve or that extra couple of feet on their fastball? Or what about some technique that they mastered by doing some extra practice that some PED made possible? Okay for a receiver/quarterback pair to exploit that special connection developed from a few extra hours of practice per day over a summer? When will those advantages wear off? I think WADA is likely guilty of exactly the kinds of excesses you cite. But I don't think it is because they are power hungry mad men. Instead it is because they legitimately fear the effects a Tour de France type scandal would have on their sport. Certainly some sponsors don't want to be around drug spectacles, and at least some viewers would lose interest. With a more lax policy on enhancers, I think it is completely possible for the WADA to forfeit any hope of keeping the sport clean. Maybe they should just say screw it and stop testing so we can assume that everyone is juiced.
Imagine you're a poor asthmatic Laotian athlete who only speaks Lao. Good luck. A Laotian would need some help with this. Do any of these athletes, or at least any significant number of them, lack access to that kind of help? I agree that language can be a significant problem. But surely these folks generally have access to trained medical folk. Are their doctors saying that they too missed this stuff?
Should treatment for a genetic condition like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy be allowed just like treatment for the genetic (or at least congenital) condition of type I diabetes is allowed? Jay Cutler, quarterback for the Chicago Bears, is the diabetic athlete who comes to mind. Maybe those things should be allowed in the right case. Good question. How do you feel about the use of prosthetic legs in say track and field or tennis? In my view there is some line to be drawn here, but I don't know where that line belongs.
Athletes with exercise intolerance issues don't normally rise above the "casual athlete" level I have a ball handling deficiency that does not allow me to dribble a basketball with the proficiency of say Steve Nash, or Stephen Curry and I have never been motivated enough to even try to improve. I have always believed that to be a problem that prevented me from playing basketball at the Div I level. Not everybody can be a professional athlete. Maybe there is no answer for folks like Baldelli. I could live with that. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
It sounded like we agreed that items newly added to the banned list have the potential to cause more problems than items already on the list. Okay. There may have been some negations in the sentence where I lost my way. Yeah, I agree with what you say above.
NN writes: If we are not talking about notice, then whose fault is it other than the athletes? There are no hard answers to that question. The reality is that it is complex with distributed responsibility. Distributed among whom? If we have ruled out the issue of notice, which I did in my question, are we not talking about the athlete and his hirees as being responsible? If so, I am comfortable with the athlete being held responsible. I understand that some folk might not be, but what if all that had to happen was for a staff member or family member to fall on his sword to allow any athlete to escape punishment? Surely that is not a viable scheme?
what extent must those of us lesser winners in that lottery (as you and I must be classed) be their victims? Victims? Perhaps we have a fundamental difference about how we see things. I'm not saying that your view is invalid, but I don't see not being a world class athlete as being victimized or cheated in some way.
Near and farsightedness can have congenital and genetic origins. Novak Djokovic, tennis's current male #1, wears contacts. Where do we draw the line at overcoming shortcomings that have congenital or genetic origins? Somewhere between wearing contact lenses and blood doping and prosthetic devices? We may disagree on where the line is to be drawn, but we agree in principle that there should be aline. What if there turned out to be some kind of goggles or other eye wear that could actually improve your ability to shoot a basketball or hit a baseball, would those things be fair if worn by folks with normal (non myopic) vision. Maybe that's a bit closer to the line than ordinary contacts. What about golf carts? Not allowed, but what about stretching equipment for basketball folks who have back problems? Or knee braces, or casts for football players? Those are allowed. I can recall some fairly goofy science fiction stories based on this stuff. I vaguely recall a story where gifted people were forced to wear inhibitors (for example, extra weights, and earphones playing static to disrupt thinking) in order to not have daily advantages against normal folk. Vonnegut maybe? Cannot remember much else about the story. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I didn't mean that responsibility should be spread among the athlete, their management group and their entourage. \ No, you didn't. That was my idea.
I meant that sports ruling bodies also have a responsibility to create sane, consistent and reliable processes that can be followed with reasonable effort. I'm asking you for more detail about this. I need some convincing. For items that are already on the list, and for which notice is not an issue, I don't see any additional responsibility to place on the sports ruling bodies when an athlete deliberately or inadvertently breaks the rules. Perhaps an example showing how the sports ruling body bears some responsibility would be helpful.
That one's not familiar to me, but maybe Robert Sheckley is another possibility? Maybe. After doing a quick search on wikipedia, the short story 'Harrison Bergeron' by Kurt Vonnegut seems to mostly closely match the details I can recall. Harrison Bergeron - Wikipedia
quote: ABE:
If a drug as common as Sudafed has this little research then one might suspect that less common medications have even less research. I don't think you have made the case that the Sudafed research is insufficient. And I'm not going to take the leap about how little less research there might be on some other substance without looking at the details. But surely for sudafed, that are substitutes that can be used. I think the availability of alternates is one thing that ought to be considered when banning a substance. If there is some suspicion, and plenty of effective alternatives, then what's required before banning a substance? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I'm not trying to convince you. I don't think that's possible. If you understand my position I'm happy. I think I understand your position, but it appears to me that your position is not defensible. I understand that you don't owe me a defense.
The athlete has no control over the fact that many banned substances are present in over-the-counter medications By now, athletes know that over the counter medications have to be checked out. Almost none of the stuff that makes the news involves stuff that could not be looked up. Sharapova's situation as she described things involved a combination of not getting a notice and not looking things up. An alternative position would be to not ban things like pseudoephedrine, because they are commonly in products, despite the fact that people were abusing that substance for performance relate reasons. I don't consider that to be a reasonable approach. Just being in over the counter products alone does not seem a valid reason for allowing things. There is plenty of information out there and in cases where notice is not an issue, there appear, to me anyway, to be adequate ways for an athlete, one who knows that he can be tested at any time, to check stuff out. Yes it does require some level of being proactive.
can also be present in nutritional supplements and even in contaminated food. Athletes really cannot take nutritional supplements whose contents they do not know. Is it really that difficult to avoid doing that? Contaminated food would be a problem, and I would ask for believable examples where folks got hammered because they ate contaminated food. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You're just echoing the same mindless WADA position: Deny there's a problem, put the entire burden on the athlete. That's an incredibly easy tone to take. I might say that you are just repeating the whines of those athletes that get caught except for the fact that such a statement would be without basis. The overwhelming majority of folks seem to have no problem avoiding the issues with over the counter medicines. For the record, I have not encountered WADA's statements about who is to blame. I came up with my own opinion based on what little you've told me.
...described the Lem-sip example that can differ in formulation between northern and southern Ireland and yet "look the same" Athletes subject to testing cannot go by things looking the same. They have to take special precautions that the rest of us do not, and often that means not taking stuff for which they do not have complete information. In my view, you have yet to demonstrate that the burden on athletes is too high.
Uh, yes, whether you acknowledge it or not. My question was meant as an invitation for you to provide some information.
NN writes: Contaminated food would be a problem, and I would ask for believable examples where folks got hammered because they ate contaminated food. I accept that banned substances might be found in contaminated food. But that still does not mean that athletes are overly burdened. If athletes are unreasonably being held responsible for food contaminant, I was guessing that might reflect in folks being found to have violated drug policy based on something they ate. There might well be other indications, like athletes having to be overly cautious or having to needlessly avoid harmless food, but you haven't offered any way for me to judge the scope of a problem. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
denying athletes access to nutritional supplements (in the sense that they could only take them at their own risk) is not reasonable. I'm not sure I agree with that for reasons I will get to, but your solution to have an approved list of supplements seems workable. I might modify it a bit, but maybe it would work as you suggest. Here are my reservations... Is it actually supplements that are banned or is it specific chemical substances? Is there any substance, that someone might not put into a supplement? How can there be an approved list if there is no oversight over production. The composition of any of this stuff could change in an instant, with the only impact being that you can point your finger at the authority if they are involved. Under the current circumstance, an approved list simply cannot work. In my opinion, the best solution would be for someone, not necessarily the government agency, to step up and provide a service for athletes and to do the monitoring, testing, etc. for them at the risk of their own reputation (for a respectable remuneration of course). It may not be practical for the USADA or WADA to be in the supplements business but perhaps they could be in an inspection business if someone stepped up and did this. But either plan, yours or mine, would likely cost some money if the plan was to be anything other than blame shifting. I wonder whose money would be involved? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
That there's an appeal process is an improvement over my initial impression, but even in that all the burden has been placed on the athlete. In an upside down system, athletes must prove they had submitted to valid drug testing or were out of the country Warning. What follows is a defense of a rigorous appeal process that burdens athletes. Contents may inspire anger and may prompt accusations of shilling. Proceed at your own risk. Generally speaking, all testing programs are sampling programs that are proxies for an exhaustive, impractical, intrusive, and nigh impossible monitoring of what an athlete does. Testing programs are not 100% with respect to catching folks for many reasons, one of which is that for some substances, improvements can be gained even if the substances/practices are not detectable during competition. Sampling programs are effective only when we can assume that folks by and large are complying with the rules. Such assumptions cannot be maintained after it is shown that most athletes are cheating.
The IAAF has had its own problems, including possible complicity in Russian cheating. That is indeed a major problem. But no matter who is to blame, it is ultimately unfair for the cheaters to compete against non-cheaters. Punish the IAAF; even remove them from the process. But the problem of what to do with folks who broke the rules still remains. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
If the drug tester arrives for the test and the athlete isn't there then the test could be considered positive with a 2-year ban. You say "could be considered positive". What is sufficient reason for the test to not be considered positive? If it is simply the athlete explaining what happened, then the issue is what?
If by cheating you mean an athlete taking banned substances or using banned methods, then it's the opposite. The more athletes cheating the more will be caught. Yes, it is true that any testing program at all will catch more cheaters as they cheat. But the number of caught cheaters is not a goal. The goal should be that the level (percentage or fraction) of cheaters that manages to compete is low. Accordingly, I'm talking about the probability of catching an individual athlete that is cheating, and the effectiveness of a random sampling program at establishing a percentage of drug-free individual athletes. If cheating is rare, then we can achieve a high level of compliance by doing no or almost no testing. Higher rates of defects (cheating) require higher levels of verification to achieve similarly high drug free ratios. You can play around with the numbers, but the process is exactly analogous to using sampling to detect defects in a factor. As the defect rate increases, the sampling rate must also increase if the goal is to ship a constant level of defect free product. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : Answer remaining question, fix punctuation. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
An unexcused failure to provide a sample could result in the sample being considered "positive" for a prohibited substance, resulting in a 2-year penalty. I think a key word here is "unexcused". Probably for an athlete without a reputation for ducking scheduled drug tests, a reasonable explanation excusing his absence is probably going to be sufficient. On the other hand, is an injury really a great excuse for missing a pre-scheduled drug test? Don't injured athletes normally show up for school events even when they are on crutches?
NN writes: As the defect rate increases, the sampling rate must also increase if the goal is to ship a constant level of defect free product. Percy writes: In my industry we used to call this "testing quality in," as opposed to designing and implementing it in. In many industries, manufacturing processes are imprecise and defects arrive without the occurrence of fault, particularly when the processes are new and characterization is incomplete. Software defects on the other hand, are largely the fault of folks dealing inadequately with complexity and of course it is important to strive to eliminate bugs. Some of that elimination comes for things like unit testing and integration testing, code inspections, etc, during the process. In the semiconductor industry, for example, often the best that can be done with new processes is to get the defect rate down to a manageable level and then do test/discard on individual ICs. Yield numbers in the area of 60% for very large circuits are not unusual. Some of the alternatives, such as adding redundancy or self correction add to energy consumption and delay. It would be great if athletes were not under pressure to look for an edge, but the reality is that in some sports, short cuts are extremely attractive, and can pay huge returns for those that get away with it. I don't believe it is possible to design in drug "freeness" in the face of folks deliberately pursing an edge that might land them fame, money, etc. "You should call USADA's Drug Reference Hotline at 800-233-0393 to find out the current status of any substance you may consider taking." I suppose world class athletes had best take that advice seriously. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : Insert word yield. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Percy writes: That wasn't about a "pre-scheduled drug test." I explained the scenario: We are talking about a test during a scheduled time period, and supposedly an injury or some other understandable reason prevented attendance. You appear to be speculating that an athlete being somewhere else, maybe due to injury provides some risk, and your later suggest that it is not reasonable that the athletes excuse would be accepted.
Percy writes: Let's say an athlete said they be at the Smith High School track doing wind sprints every day at 10 AM, but that one week it's closed for repairs and the athlete switches to the Jones High School track, or they pull up with a sore muscle and cut the workout short, or an injury causes the track work to be dropped temporarily. If the drug tester arrives for the test and the athlete isn't there then the test could be considered positive with a 2-year ban. You have suggest that the above represents some unfair burden to the athlete, but it does not seem as if the burden is all that difficult to meet unless an excuse is something hard to come by, submit, and have accepted. Are you aware of instances where an injured athlete missed a test because he got hurt and some testing agency then sanctioned the athlete? If not then why shouldn't I consider your worry about a burden to the athlete to be mere idle speculation. How would you run a drug testing program so that it 1) does not burden athletes "excessively" and so that 2) the program details are not merely a blueprint for how to evade testing? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024