PDA

View Full Version : Drug War Goes Crazy, Cyclist Forced to Provide Sample at Son



ande
March 19th, 2008, 06:44 AM
this is just wrong

Drug War Goes Crazy, Cyclist Forced to Provide Sample at Son's Cremation


http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/03/18/drug-war-goes-crazy-cyclist-forced-to-provide-sample-at-sons-c/?ncid=NWS00010000000001

aquageek
March 19th, 2008, 08:42 AM
OK, so yes this is a bit insane. But, this sport has a horrible reputation and is a laughing stock and on the verge of collapse. The riders really can't expect much in the way of civil treatment after they have made a mockery of the sport.

What is somewhat amusing is his fellow riders having a protest. Hell, half of them are probably juiced and dirty as can be.

I have a friend who had to delay a family vacation for a drug test for his pro sports league. Not quite the same but I see this as an inevitable consequence of bad behavior.

I really don't have a shred of empathy for anyone in that sport, to be honest. If they hadn't decided to cheat none of this would be happening.

Stillhere
March 19th, 2008, 09:43 AM
"If they hadn't decided to cheat none of this would be happening."
Amen there Geek---

LindsayNB
March 19th, 2008, 10:19 AM
I really don't have a shred of empathy for anyone in that sport, to be honest. If they hadn't decided to cheat none of this would be happening.

This seems to be slipping into the realm of collective guilt. Not every cyclist cheats so not every cyclist decided to cheat and not every cyclist should pay an excessive price for those that did. I think a little empathy is in order for anyone who is subjected to something like that under those circumstances.

aquageek
March 19th, 2008, 10:26 AM
This seems to be slipping into the realm of collective guilt. Not every cyclist cheats so not every cyclist decided to cheat and not every cyclist should pay an excessive price for those that did.

Setting aside the terrible timing of this particular test, your argument is absurd. First, cycling is a sport chock full of dopers, not just a case here or there. Second, of course every cyclist should pay. What's the alternative? Should cyclists self test or do it on the "honor system?" The whole purpose of random testing is THAT IT IS RANDOM.

You get in bed with dogs, expect fleas.

How would you feel about swimming if not everyone was tested because "not everyone cheats?" Maybe we should let the Chinese off the hook for testing for the Olympic Games, just to be fair, huh?

LindsayNB
March 19th, 2008, 10:57 AM
Setting aside the terrible timing of this particular test, your argument is absurd.

No, "setting aside the terrible timing of this particular test" would be throwing out the entire point. I have no objection to basically random testing but showing up in a funeral home to demand a test on the spot is bureaucratic insensitivity which is not excused by the fact that many cyclists use PEDs.

Somehow we have gone from clean athletes being the victims of doping to those same clean athletes being deserving of anything some heartless bureaucrat decides to subject them to.

aquageek
March 19th, 2008, 11:26 AM
You don't want to take drug tests you find another profession, it's as simple as that. I had to take a drug test recently to be a one hour a month (at most) swim coach at the Y. The policy was that after I was informed of the test I had 48 hours to take it and they didn't really care what I had going on in my personal life, 48 hours or no job, period.

smontanaro
March 19th, 2008, 11:29 AM
The policy was that after I was informed of the test I had 48 hours to take it and they didn't really care what I had going on in my personal life, 48 hours or no job, period.

Yeah, but they didn't drag you away from a funeral, which is how I interpreted the article I read. They gave you 48 hrs to give the sample.

Skip

aquageek
March 19th, 2008, 11:37 AM
Sure, it's heartless and cruel, but he knew what he was getting into when he signed on to be a professional sponsored rider in a sport with a serious drug problem.

LindsayNB
March 19th, 2008, 11:41 AM
48 hours is reasonable, on the spot at the funeral home is not, imho.


"He wouldn't even come back later in the day. It was either do it right on the spot or it would be taken as if I had refused," van Impe said.

aquageek
March 19th, 2008, 12:21 PM
48 hours is reasonable, on the spot at the funeral home is not, imho.

Actually I felt 48 hours was pretty pointless. A lot can be flushed out in 48 hours. I just don't think you can have it both ways, either you are subject to random testing or you aren't. Picking and choosing your scenarios really nullifies it all. Granted this was a little extreme but I promise you there have been plenty of creative excuses used over the years to avoid a drug test.

ande
March 19th, 2008, 12:26 PM
If cheating is so prevalent

why not
open cycling up
say anything goes and
quit testing athletes?

Stillhere
March 19th, 2008, 12:41 PM
Ande:
We could raise the same question with illegal drugs in America as well---heck, stopping illegal drug use in America is akin to whizzing in the Ocean to raise the tide---Gosh, let's fling all the doors open and make it all legal. :whiteflag:

aquageek
March 19th, 2008, 12:42 PM
That's not such a bad idea, Ande. I think that sport is pretty much passed the point of no return on drugs and image. Seems pointless to really hope for a better outcome now.

Paul Smith
March 19th, 2008, 12:49 PM
48 hours is reasonable, on the spot at the funeral home is not, imho.

48 hours is useless as is a urine test only...I posted a link here some time back that was from Bicycling magazine which explained that how high levels of HGH (which there is no urine test for and the blood test is not conclusive) and I believe Testosterone can be eliminated with a small amount of dish soap.

The athletes in the world of cycling have admitted time and again that as much as 95% of the peloton in the Tour de France is doping. Track isn't much better...maybe worse...and as swimming moves more and more into the realm of "professional" sports where athletes are making money (albeit small amounts in swimming vs. the others...for now) cheating will continue to increase.

Scheduling these tests are automated and no one set out to disrupt a funeral, but the relity is you get the call you need to be prepared for these types of occurances to happen.

orca1946
March 19th, 2008, 02:04 PM
Poor timing no doubt, some leeway should be given in terms of hours!

LindsayNB
March 19th, 2008, 02:32 PM
My point was that 48 hours was reasonable in AquaGeek's circumstances, I don't believe that the results of the cyclist's tests would have been less valid if the tester had waited until he left the funeral home or if he had waited until the next day to show his face. I totally agree that you don't want to give an athlete notice that you are doing a test, but if the testing is random than it shouldn't be an issue to delay the contact for one or six or twenty-four hours. The tester should never have shown his face in the funeral home, at very least he should have waited outside. It is important that the sample be given on the spot when demanded before any opportunity to tamper, it was not important to make the contact and demand the sample during the period when he was in the funeral home.

I still think that some people are losing sight of the objective, which is to protect clean athletes. At some point the cure is worse than the disease and I would suggest that when you become gratuitously "heartless and cruel" to those same athletes I think you have crossed that line.

Stillhere
March 19th, 2008, 02:51 PM
I have to weight in with Lindsay with this one. Having him give a sample while at a funeral is classless and unnecessary. At the very least--they should have waited until the funeral was over. Insensitive I think best describes this whole deal.

aquageek
March 19th, 2008, 03:44 PM
Yes, I will admit to insensitivity. They should have delayed if at all possible. But, it's cycling, what do you expect from that crowd, both riders and testers?

The Fortress
March 19th, 2008, 10:57 PM
That's not such a bad idea, Ande. I think that sport is pretty much passed the point of no return on drugs and image. Seems pointless to really hope for a better outcome now.

For cycling, I agree. None of them seem to care the slightest about any long term effects of their drugging. But isn't it a slippery slope, for lack of a less hackneyed term? Or is swimming sufficiently distinct from cycling?

Do the drug testers in cycling intentionally plan on popping up at funeral homes and baby deliveries? The wholly gratuitous nature seems a little sadistic to me. Unless the testers are so cynical that they believe the druggies are drugging during highly stressful family moments?

david.margrave
March 20th, 2008, 03:01 AM
I had to take a drug test recently to be a one hour a month (at most) swim coach at the Y.

That's idiotic. I'd tell them to go pound sand, job or no job. I am drug free by the way.

I remember years ago, people being thrown out of the military for false positives, and they later admitted the tests were flawed, or the lab was so poorly managed that none of the results should be trusted. I heard this story from Derek Vander Schaaf, Deputy IG of the DOD in the early 90s.

aquageek
March 20th, 2008, 04:58 AM
i have no problem taking drug tests. I really don't think it's idiotic.

david.margrave
March 20th, 2008, 11:39 AM
The only possible reason I could see for this would be if you are the only person on-deck and have to double as the lifeguard. They could be negligent if you were under the influence of controlled substances while someone drowned. Otherwise, they're just power-happy.

Everyone gets to decide where he or she draws the line on privacy issues.

aquageek
March 20th, 2008, 11:47 AM
I've never understood the argument that drug testing is a privacy matter. Taking illegal substances isn't a private thing, especially if a company is paying you to do work.

david.margrave
March 20th, 2008, 11:58 AM
Sure, I would take a drug test to work with the CIA, that's a little different, because it's a legitimate reason to exclude people from working there (susceptibility to blackmail). What I have a problem with is when a group like the YMCA has delusions of being the CIA. Why don't you invite the YMCA into your house to rummage through your belongings, and let them review your financial records to make sure you aren't earning income from illegal sources. You have nothing to hide so why would you object?

geochuck
March 20th, 2008, 12:41 PM
What sport is drug free.

Let's discontinue all sports where drugs are used.

Oh! Oh! there would be no swimming, no basketball, no football, no track and field etc etc.

Would there be any sporting events to attend?

Would there be an Olympics?

smontanaro
March 20th, 2008, 12:45 PM
Sure, I would take a drug test to work with the CIA, that's a little different.... What I have a problem with is when a group like the YMCA has delusions of being the CIA....

I think the reasons for the YMCA administering drug tests are different than the CIA and have nothing to do with blackmail or delusions of grandeur. They have both safety and liability concerns. There are two cases:


you come to work high
you're not high, but there is drug residue in your system


The first case presents obvious safety and liability problems. The second case is not quite so clear cut, but suppose there is an accident at the pool while you're in charge, and heaven forbid someone dies. The family sues you, the Y and everybody else with any connection to the incident. Yours and the Y's liabilities goes up astronomically.

In connection with another matter a lawyer told me recently that if you are at fault in a car accident with injury and there's any drug residue in your system you are going to jail. Doesn't matter whether or not you were high or drunk at the time. I hope there was a little hyperbole in that statement, but why risk it? The point he was trying to make was that we have given up many of our rights when behind the wheel. You also give up a number of rights when you agree to work for someone, in part because you are acting on their behalf. They need to protect themselves.

Skip

ViveBene
March 20th, 2008, 01:11 PM
What Skip said.

And: lots of companies now make employment contingent on passing a drug test, and there is no warning: they call you in to talk about the job in person (maybe make the offer at that time), and send you to give sample right away. So, in the event you tell them to pound sand, what is Plan B?
:oldman::notworking:

Regards, VB

david.margrave
March 20th, 2008, 02:09 PM
Plan B: Find another employer who doesn't insult me by presuming I'm guilty until proven innocent.

ALM
March 20th, 2008, 03:17 PM
Plan B: Find another employer who doesn't insult me by presuming I'm guilty until proven innocent.

Good luck with that. I'm job hunting right now. I've found that there is something even more popular with prospective employers than the drug test. It's the "background check". They pretty much won't talk to you until you sign a form consenting to one. The background check can look at all sorts of things, including your credit history.

Anna Lea

geochuck
March 21st, 2008, 08:52 AM
I don't need a job. I can use drugs without a care.

Plan B: Find another employer who doesn't insult me by presuming I'm guilty until proven innocent.