Recreational drugs vs Performance drugs penalty

[willocrew]

Should athletes who take recreational drugs like marijuana, heroin, cocaine (contact me on ####@hotmail.com if you need anything) suffer the same penalty as those who are caught taking perfomance enhancing drugs?

BTW just kidding about the drug dealer email thing... sorry for raising your hopes.

 

[asterope]

Should athletes who take recreational drugs like marijuana, heroin, cocaine (contact me on ####@hotmail.com if you need anything) suffer the same penalty as those who are caught taking perfomance enhancing drugs?

BTW just kidding about the drug dealer email thing... sorry for raising your hopes.

thats a tough one there... as some recreational drugs, such as amphetamines and cocaine have stimulatory effects on the CNS and as such could be considered performance enhancing drugs! (the indians used to chew coca leaves to keep their bodies working and minds alert when harvesting crops and tending the land, the leaves contain huge amounts of nutrients and vitamins, and also have an appetite suppressing effect so they wouldnt need to eat as much to stay awake and alert)

different people react in different ways to different drugs, so i dont think that penalising athletes who choose to indulge in recreationals is fair, but if in any way the recreationals provide a performance enhancing effect, then yes they should be penalised. (for all we know, there may be some people out there that get a heightened sense of motivation from chuffing a bong every morning, and that might provide them with an edge over others... who knows!!)

its a very grey area... i dont think there is a right or wrong answer really.

 

[ScottMartin]

Should athletes who take recreational drugs like marijuana, heroin, cocaine (contact me on ####@hotmail.com if you need anything) suffer the same penalty as those who are caught taking perfomance enhancing drugs?

Any athlete should be slapped hard on general principles for taking recreational drugs. Their penalty should be shame and ridicule.
To be fair to the clean ahtletes, the recreational-drug-using athletes should be officially penalized in some way. The penalty wouldn't be so much for the possible performance-enhancing attributes of the drugs as the negative image such use brings to the athletic world.
An athlete who uses recreational drugs gives the impression of being a bit of a low-life, one whose integrity is questionable. In today's drug-enhanced athletic environment, anyone who takes recreational drugs could easily be seen as susceptible to also taking performance-enhancing drugs, and they would automatically bring suspicion upon themselves, even if the suspicion is, in reality, unwarranted.
Today's athletes and their respective governing bodies should do everything they can to avoid even the mere suspicion of illegal/recreational drug use, blood doping, etc. Athletes are role models, and they should understand and respect this; illegal/recreational drug use sends the wrong message to impressionable fans.
Athletes deserve respect for their dedication to their sports, but they should earn their respect cleanly.

Scott

 

[fauxpas]

Whether rec. drugs are performance enhancing or not, they do have interacts though and can often mask other drugs...

I'm a drug and alcohol counsellor and am always suspicious of masking agents some of my coerced clients use... When we do urine testing, we flag anything abnormal, not just illicit drugs, as a high level of an inocent chemical can mask an illicit drug...

Hence, landis' excuse of having some alcohol and that effected his high level of epitestosterone... blah, while on the tour they should not be allowed any drug or alcohol...

pro cycling has a bad-enough reputation... allowing illicit/illegal drugs into the sport is pure madness...

 

[Alias]

I think thats a tough one...
On one side, i wouldn't call recreational drugs beneficial to ones performance but as Fauxpas said, they raise different chemical levels, some of which can be used to mask other drugs.
I see addicts and "recreational" users enough to know that while for a short term, they think they're invincible, on a high. I don't think it's going to be useful in a sustained effort race type situation. Unless you put a McDonalds store at the end of a race.
They shouldn't carry the same penalty. One is quite obviously cheating, for which there is no excuse, like that guy who won this years TdF - what was his name again?
The other is a lifestyle choice. A bad choice, which has no place in any professional sport, underwater hockey included.

Back to the original question, should it carry the same penalty? No.

And thanks, willocrew, for an original question. Always good to read something different.

 

[fauxpas]

The only drug that stays in the system more than a week is cannabis...

So if they wanna party up on amphetamines, heroin, alcohol, methadone, pethadine, ice, crack, ecstacy while not in competition, let them. But if found during a tour, axe them... simple...

 

[willocrew]

Fauxpas if i didn't know better that you were a counsellor, i would think you're some backyard laboratory expert... dealer.

 

[Bro Deal]

... dealer.

Heavy user?

I think sanctioning for recreational drugs is stupid. It is basicly enforced morality, which is often justified with the standard "think of the children" ********. As Charles Barkely once said, "I am not a role model." If a drug does not enhance performance then money and effort should not be expended testing for it. It is ridiculous to worry about snowboarders smoking weed when other athletes are using EPO.

 

[fauxpas]

You guys have nfi... top sports stars sign contracts not to do risky things, like Michael Jordan was never allowed to ride motorbikes... Why? because team pay big bucks to have a person perform and perform reliably...

That's why sports superstars get dumped when they test positive for rec drugs... Also, medicinal drugs given to a rider by the team doctor may not work as well due to rec drugs being in the system. Remember, alcohol and drugs are poisons... that means the liver processes them to get them out of the body and if a dr gives a rider some medicine, the meds have to wait their turn after the rec drugs...

Also, read my previous post where I said they should be allowed to take rec drugs out of season, but when they need to wear their gameface, its gametime...

Sick of this thread, I think you druggies are just justifying your own using...

 

[wheelist]

for all we know, there may be some people out there that get a heightened sense of motivation from chuffing a bong every morning

Man, if I ever get out of bed I'm gonna prove that Asterope is right.

 

[HenryLaRoy]

Should athletes who take recreational drugs like marijuana, heroin, cocaine (contact me on ####@hotmail.com if you need anything) suffer the same penalty as those who are caught taking perfomance enhancing drugs?

BTW just kidding about the drug dealer email thing... sorry for raising your hopes.

Recreational drugs are illegal. Thus, the athlete should be reported to the legal authorities.

 

[willocrew]

hmm 50% vs 50%... interesting.

 

[wheelist]

hmm 50% vs 50%... interesting.

Yeah man. Too stoned to really make up our minds......

 

[Bob Ross]

Any athlete should be slapped hard on general principles for taking recreational drugs. Their penalty should be shame and ridicule.
To be fair to the clean ahtletes, the recreational-drug-using athletes should be officially penalized in some way. The penalty wouldn't be so much for the possible performance-enhancing attributes of the drugs as the negative image such use brings to the athletic world.
An athlete who uses recreational drugs gives the impression of being a bit of a low-life, one whose integrity is questionable. In today's drug-enhanced athletic environment, anyone who takes recreational drugs could easily be seen as susceptible to also taking performance-enhancing drugs, and they would automatically bring suspicion upon themselves, even if the suspicion is, in reality, unwarranted.
Today's athletes and their respective governing bodies should do everything they can to avoid even the mere suspicion of illegal/recreational drug use, blood doping, etc. Athletes are role models, and they should understand and respect this; illegal/recreational drug use sends the wrong message to impressionable fans.
Athletes deserve respect for their dedication to their sports, but they should earn their respect cleanly.

Scott

Wow, I'll bet you're a lot of fun at church barbecues...

What athletes do in their own spare time is their own business, period; so long as they don't hurt anybody (else). However, in the interest of the proverbial Fair Playing Field, I think it's reasonable to insist that athletes restrict their recreational drug intake to times when they are *not* at work! Regardless of whether or not these drugs have proven performance enhancing capabilities, it just doesn't seem right to show up ****** for the big game.

 

[ScottMartin]

Wow, I'll bet you're a lot of fun at church barbecues...

I don't go to church or church parties. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[willocrew]

I'm resuscitating and bringing this one back to life...

 

[wiggles]

To some extent I agree with each side. Many illegal drugs are illegal for no good reason, while the rather dangerous drugs alcohol and nicotine are left legal. Most of the illegals are there from propaganda too. But I'd rather not bandstand about my feelings on recreational drugs...

Now, will someone benefit from smoking pot? First off, they're smoking. So it seems doubtful that smoking anything would enhance performance. As an ex smoker, I remember that if I attempted to ride within 30 minutes after smoking I'd be lucky if I could make it around the block. Unless the rider is using a vaporizor, they'll just be hurting themselves. So if the rider is on a pro-contract, then sure, screen the hell out of them. They signed the contract, and if they're good enough, they probobly had some bargaining power in setting their terms too. They also had to be of sound mind when doing so. So if their contract says no drugs, no alcohol, then fine - no drugs no alcohol. The remedy should be whatever the contractors agreed to.

However, I don't believe many recreationals should be held to the same standard as performance enhancing drugs - save for stimulants. A spun up meth junkie will be able to ride for hours on end, while a pothead is going to have trouble wobbling to WaWa (if you don't know what a WaWa is, you need to live in the northeast US) - and god help you if you decide to try to do any competitive racing on an opiate (falling off about a half mile later and sleeping in a ditch sounds like a blast, doesn't it?). Different drugs have different effects - many with almost no effect on performance.

Contract concerns aside, I personally dislike drug screenings to begin with. Its a violation of my privacy, and to be honest, I feel extremely violated whenever I have to go through a screening.

 

[willocrew]

So it really boils down to a professional code of conduct which the sporting authorities are trying to enforce on their atheletes..

 

[willocrew]

45% VS 55%...

approx 50% both sides with minor fluctuations favouring flexibility..

 

[willocrew]

To commemorate my 100th post, i shall post in my own thread.

We are on 50% vs 50%.. it seems to me only 30 out of the 270 odd people have an opinion. hurh.

50/50 it is.