recommend an OT on the front of this post, and get a little more explanatory on your subject post. Thanks!
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
I'm Rick James bitch.
Yes you are.
Because a drug that hurts them is still (probably) illegal. So just as they can have awards or medals stripped for doing other illegal things, so can they for doing drugs, regardless of what kind, assuming they're illegal.
Speeding is illegal too, and I don't know of any Olympians being disqualified over that. And if you say that's different, in Ann Arbor minor pot possession and speeding carry very similar penalties. Also, would someone be disqualified for lying under oath, beating up a hooker, or tax evasion?
Additionally, what if the athlete in question was from The Netherlands? Would they be subject to losing their medal even though pot is legal there?
I never thought about it in that way. Nice post
Pot isn't legal in the Netherlands; this is a misconception. You can get charged for possession, but it usually only happens in combination with another offense.
Prostitution is actually legal there. However, a brothel will be shut down if there's evidence that the women were forced into the sex trade.
There are other countries where pot is legal, like Portugal. So if you adjust the example the point still holds.
Good point, but this isn't the netherlands, and before you go to the Olympics you have to qualify, so if the US sets whatever rules/guidelines and it doesn't directly conflict with Olympic rules, then perhaps there ought to be a penalty. I don't necessarily agree with it, but just playing devil's advocate.
Is based on the (likely incorrect) premise that drug bans in sports are PURELY to prevent unfair competition. Sponsors/league commissioners also worry about the image of the respective sports, whether that affects branding or revenue-generation. You might argue that letting a few potheads win medals won't hurt the image (and therefore, revenue from ad sales, etc.) of a sport. Fair enough. But those that care about the revenue stream probably disagree (or, at least, want to take the high ground on the issue).
Clearly, marijuana doesn't help in any sports competition... save for maybe professional eating. Kobayashi is a fucking pothead, man.
How does that guy eat like that? He's a tiny guy with a ginormous stomach!!!
I don't think that drug bans in sports are only about fair competition. I am making the point that I think they should be.
Is this Joe Rogan?
It's odd though, as the timing is really the determining factor. Phelps tests positive for marijuana tomorrow, or 1 year before the Olympics, and nothing happens. If he test positive AT the Olympics (which would merely require him smoking with 90 days of the games), he loses the medal. So even as a stance based on morals/ethics, it's pretty thin gruel.
If he tests positive one year before, he's probably suspended from whatever competition he could swim in at that time, but you're right, he can still go on and win 1000 gold medals.
But it's no different from other sports, right? Josh Beckett isn't suspended from MLB games for throwing at a guy's head in December on a Boston sidewalk. Wait. That makes no fucking sense, but I'm hitting reply anyway, suckers.
Timing probably matters more in year-long sports that aren't governed by a league commissioner and don't involve an easily defined "regular season." So Goodell might hammer an NFL player who gets in trouble in the off-season because that's the only way to hammer him is in the regular season... but there are many swimming, cycling, etc. tourneys that dudes get suspended from that we just don't watch/care about.
Yeah, but if there isn't testing for these drugs neither the degree of use nor the specific users will be known by the public. That would render your point about sponsors moot.
I will grant you that your hypothesis that sponsors/league commissioners care about the image of illegal drug use in sports and that's why there are penalties for marijuana use is true. But this doesn't explain why they TEST for drugs. Isn't this just highlighting the fact that your players do drugs. If there were no test result, the public would be unlikely to know of any illegal drug use by players unless it was learned of by police action. Ricky Williams never would have been more known for his smoking habits than his playing ability if the NFL didn't test for pot.
I'm all for leagues issuing fines and minor suspensions if a player gets busted for possession. I just am not sure that testing is really necessary or even prudent.
I hear that. I definitely don't think the league(s)/sponsors WANT to know about recreational drug use... but unless they can selectively test for only PEDs (which would be hard considering various chemical compound overlaps, and the fact that a test that can detect one drug can often detect another), they'd have to: (1) test for the sole purpose of PEDs and if they found out the dude was hitting the bong, bury it, (2) some journalist would find out, and (3) they'd. Get. Hammered for burying the recreational drug use.
So I buy that PEDs drive the desire to test for drugs, generally, but once you open the door, you're risking credibility/image (as I referenced before) by burying the positive tests that are restricted to recreational drugs, you know?
in the next 5-10 years weed will be legalized
Maybe in more states, but I doubt nationally. The pharmaceutical companies wield too much power in Washington.
In more states? Are you talking medical marijuana or hippie mary jane?
I'm thinking the social toke will eventually be legalized in attempts to make money off of it for the government. I'm not a smoker, but I think we are heading in that direction.
There a small difference between "medical marijuana" and "hippie mary jane." I live in a state where medical marijuana is legal, and of the people that I know with a weed card (lots of people) not a single one of them has any more legitimate need for weed than you do. The medicinal distinction is one in name only, no one who smokes the medi weed is any different than the people who smoke the stuff they bought from a dealer.
It's a stretch to say that no one has a real medical need for it.
Everyone I know who has a "recommendation" got it so that they don't have to worry about getting caught with weed.
I'm not saying that everyone who gets it has a legit reason, just that there are some for whom it provides relief they cannot get elsewhere. It (the sytem)is definitely abused more than it is properly used... no doubt, but I don't see that as a "bad thing". Just my epinion.
I think the "weed does not help" argument misses the point. Weed is still mind/state altering. Good or bad, an athlete is putting something in their body that does not naturally go there. (yes, we could argue that spaghetti gives them carbs and meat gives them protein and Gatorade gives them electrolytes) but if I am not mistaken all of said things your body naturally makes....right? THC, not so much. I am not a hater, I just hate the argument that "if weed does anything it hurts your performance". Maybe not, maybe it chills your nerves enough to perform at a better level???
If you are not a hater than why do you hate the argument? I assume you are basing your chilling of the nerves statement on virtually no experience. IMHE marijuana is not a performance enhancing drug, whatsoever. The only light that it could be looked at in helping an athlete is pain relief, but thats why they are making medical marijuana legal. As Robin Williams would say, "Marijuana is only a performance enhancing drug if you put a big chocolate bar at the end of the (snowboarding) run" or something along those lines.
Let me clarify...before all you potheads get on my case. I do not hate people who use "Mary Jane", "Reefer", "Dank", "Angola", "Aunt Mary", "Northern Lights" or whatever you want to call it. So I am not hater in that respect. I am a hater of the argument though. My stance is: It changes your mental state so it should not be used in the sporting realms. Sorry for any confusion.
And you are correct, I am 29 years old and have no prior experience with the "KGB". My brother, however, has smoked enough for both of us and talked to me at lengths about it so I feel somewhat educated. The closest I have come to it is him blowing it in my face once and thoroughly enjoying Half Baked. Am I allowed to enjoy that movie without knowing what it is like to be stoned?
NOTE: The quotations are meant to be in a fun, self-deprecating sarcastic tone.
So I guess my original argument was flawed, but I would have to say that the scientific facts have proven that it is a performance enhancing drug. As for the altered state of mind, go chug 2 16 ounce red bulls and tell me if you feel like you are in an altered state of mind. Plus, of course you can enjoy Half-Baked. I only brought up experience as a result of the chill the nerves enough comment. I enjoy the song That Smell by Skynyrd, even though I have never used heroin or as they say in the song, st(u)ck those needles in your arm.
Well I do have experience with HGH. Quite a bit, actually. And I like it. The only performance it enhances is my ability to eat, giggle, and sit on my couch for prolonged periods of time.
HGH does that to you?
Haha, no. A little early still on the left coast. I was reading the top post about weed and I read that as THC (I even typed it without catching my retardedness). Go on with your day.
I do have experience with HGH, it does none of the aforementioned things.
I was reading your first post and came to the conclusion that your HGH experience sounds a lot like a THC experience. Glad we got that cleared up, I was confused.
Just curious, how did you get your hands the HGH (not specifics, obviously)? A buddy or your? A guy in the gym? Did you notice any nasty side effects?
Yeah, a buddy I knew took it, we played semi-pro football together (which is not as big of a deal as it sounds). It's intense, and you need to make sure you take it at the right time of the day or you will either never fall asleep or you will fall asleep too early. I've also used supplements that aren't HGH but stimulate your body to create more HGH naturally, which I would recommend. Good for losing weight. Still, watch the sleep thing.
Are those supplements legal? If so, what are they called?
Go to www.betterbodz.com. It's a supplement site with really good prices. They have a number of products with GABA in them, which is the HGH inducer. The one I used is called Dream Shape, it's a big seller and I know a few other people who used it with similar success. It's pretty cheap, and you only use it once a day.
Go to just about any 'anti-aging' clinic and they test you and make sure you fail. Then wala.. you have a script. I don't use GH but the sides are.... minimal. Actually most of these PEDs have minimal sides. They really shouldn't even be illegal IMO. Pretty much everyone the gov consulted agrees too, but they ignore that stuff.
I'm assuming you're excepting steroids from this?
Well, look.. all drugs have side effects. Sometimes very serious. With that said, steroids are amongst the safest drugs. You inject far too much heroin, you'll probably die. Too much testosterone.. maybe get boobs. Not saying it's the best thing to do but could be a whole lot worse. To note, I do natural(as in drug free) bodybuilding but I can't say I was never curious about the stuff. Legality is why I do not use.
"With that said, steroids are amongst the safest drugs."
Steroids vs ANABOLIC steroids, big difference.
Meh, disagree. They don't prescribe them to people to downgrade their health. I'd much rather have HRT than shots of cortisol.
It's funny you mention chugging Red Bull because caffeine is one of the most studied, most effective, least utilized performance enhancing drugs and it is totally legal.
you are under the influence, I have done it and know first hand. Give me a bicycle a day later and I will be able to perform but while under the influence I would be in the first ditch (or junk food shop to cure the munchies) that I came accross.
It would not be illegal to drive while under the influence if it inhanced your performance. If you haven't done it before, picture yourself drunk and trying to swim the 100 m butterfly or cycle around a course (not exactly the same but to a degree it is similar).
(p.s. I don't know why this post ended up here, it was a reply to the guy who said weed alters your mental state).
Can we have a moratorium on the use of the word "hater" here? It's very high school-ish.
What about Lasik eye surgery? That's legal despite altering the body unnaturally (through surgery no less, and there is a degree of risk of permanent damage).
The IOC's position regarding snowboarding and marijuana use seems precisely wrong to me: they should acknowledge that private, recreational drug use is out of their purview while generally refusing to endorse skeevy snowboarders as Olympic athletes.
"But the guy was a gold medalist, so it evidently wasn't hurting him."
This isn't exactly true. We can't really make any conclusions since we don't know if he was high when he was competing, or if he'd have done better if he didn't smoke up. Also, snowboarder. Yeah.
His test results supported his claim that he was exposed to the smoke second hand. The level was extremely low - I believe that if it was higher he wouldn't have had his medal returned.
Now he has a run named after him at Whistler which is quite fun to SKI on.
i don't really think that performance really has anything to do with it.
in most jobs, i believe you can be fired for smoking pot. it's really image and pre-existing agreements. athletes agree that they will not use certain drugs, and they will be allowed to participate in a given competition. break those rules, and the agreement is now void.
which brings me to an interesting thought... if a gold medalist murdered someone, would they be stripped of their medal...?
#1 -- private Marijuana use should be legal, it truely is a victimless crime if you just grow it yourself IMO (for the record I have never smoked it)
#2 -- it doesn't improve preformance
#3 -- your argument works even better in international competion because Marijuana is legal in some countries so now we have the possibilty of athletes being stripped of medals for a possibly legal and non-preformance enhancing act .... if you defend this, than clearly you also have no problem with people losing medals for drinking cause after all it is illegal in some countries that compete in international competitons
Listen, I am shocked that people are trying to convince themselves that weed can be a performance enhancing drug. That's ludacris. You are high! Coming from a person who recreationally smokes pot, bieng high does not calm your nerves or improve your ability to function. It makes you hella paranoid and makes you eat a shit load of food..both do not seem to apply to athletics. Also I find it ironic that phelps gets blasted for hitting a bong while many athletes (on a regular basis) abuse alcohol, engage in domestic abuse, and carry illegal firearms without bieng stripped of their athletic achievements.
Misspelling ludicrous as ludacris is my favorite lexical error.
i know phelps kept his medals but was blasted unjustly by the media..people do illegal stuff all the time and dont get near the attention
"Are you here because of drugs?"
"NO! ... what are you here for?"
Ferris Bueller's Day Off?
The forum title "Drugs" made me think of the single word line Charlie Sheen used to strike up a conversation with Ferris's sister at the precinct. Classic.
Look, here's the thing as I see it. It doesn't bother me in the slightest if someone tokes up. Doesn't lower my opinion of them, anyway. I think weed ought to be legal but I'm never going to campaign for it because A) I don't care very much and B) I think it's stupid anyway.
What does lower my opinion is that, whether or not you think it's wrong that marijuana is illegal, it's still illegal. And (I speak of college athletes on scholarship here, since that's the topic of the board) I have no sympathy for kids who violate the terms of their scholarship by smoking it. Here they have a special privilege afforded to a microscopically tiny percentage of the population - and with privileges come responsibilities, this is a fact - and some kids just flush it away. I just don't understand the mindset that risks tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars of rare and exceedingly difficult-to-achieve benefits and ranks that lower than a fucking stupid-ass drug.
"... putting something in their body that does not naturally belong there..."
Really? Do you think it's a flipping cosmic coincidence that humans--all mammals, more precisely--possess membrane bound cellular receptors specific for/complementary to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol?
Surely, you jest. And, in case not, I am quite pleased to introduce to you the term "co-evolution".