This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Russian ice climber Pavel Batushev has tested postive for the heart medication and World Anti-Doping Agency-listed performance enhancing drug meldonium, following a doping test at the UIAA Ice Climbing World Cup in Rabenstein, Italy in January. The 29 year old won the men's speed climbing event at the competition, but has now been disqualified and faces a 4 year sanction.
Read more
Read more
1
In reply to UKC News:
Remember you competition climbers, wacky backy (amongst other "recreational drugs" is illegal for sport, so no more "highs" for you.
Remember you competition climbers, wacky backy (amongst other "recreational drugs" is illegal for sport, so no more "highs" for you.
4
3
9
In reply to UKC News:
I'm not the sightliest surprised, when I competed in 2009 it was blatantly obvious something was going on with the Russians. The way they just appeared in the competition scene seemingly out of nowhere and they just dominated, the 20 or 30 of them all consistently ranked really high and some took podiums. It seemed to say the least suspicious to me, but since no one cared about ice climbing comp anyway it didn't really matter. I would love to see how they fare now with strict doping control.
I'm not the sightliest surprised, when I competed in 2009 it was blatantly obvious something was going on with the Russians. The way they just appeared in the competition scene seemingly out of nowhere and they just dominated, the 20 or 30 of them all consistently ranked really high and some took podiums. It seemed to say the least suspicious to me, but since no one cared about ice climbing comp anyway it didn't really matter. I would love to see how they fare now with strict doping control.
10
2
In reply to fred99:
Chris Sharma lost his title a number of years ago after testing positive.......nobody since. Not sure that it was exactly "performance enhancing".
The Russian climber appears to be part of the known systemic Russian problem - its the same substance that Maria Sharapova got caught with, and has only been on the banned list since the beginning of 2016. A disappointment, but not necessarily a surprise.
Outside of the comp world, I wonder if any himalayan first ascents are going to be taken away because of the use of performance enhancing substances (thinning agents etc)
Chris Sharma lost his title a number of years ago after testing positive.......nobody since. Not sure that it was exactly "performance enhancing".
The Russian climber appears to be part of the known systemic Russian problem - its the same substance that Maria Sharapova got caught with, and has only been on the banned list since the beginning of 2016. A disappointment, but not necessarily a surprise.
Outside of the comp world, I wonder if any himalayan first ascents are going to be taken away because of the use of performance enhancing substances (thinning agents etc)
5
16
In reply to Ian W:
Well obviously mountaineering has been full of all sorts of skulduggery for years. The K2 and Bonatti affair, Tomaz Humar etc. But the drug use - O2 and Dex etc, was at least done pretty much in the open and left to others to decide if it's cheating.
> Outside of the comp world, I wonder if any himalayan first ascents are going to be taken away because of the use of performance enhancing substances (thinning agents etc)
Well obviously mountaineering has been full of all sorts of skulduggery for years. The K2 and Bonatti affair, Tomaz Humar etc. But the drug use - O2 and Dex etc, was at least done pretty much in the open and left to others to decide if it's cheating.
3
In reply to planetmarshall:
It was well known then that it was cheating, but "everyone did it". My comment was a bit tongue in cheek, though.
Generally though, for the future of competition / sport and ice climbing, it is a huge shame if a bit inevitable. As I said upthread, it shows how widespread substance abuse is in Russian sport. Perhaps the UIAA and IFSC should preempt further issues by doing the same as other sports federations and ban Russian athletes from major championships unless they can prove they are clean?
> Well obviously mountaineering has been full of all sorts of skulduggery for years. The K2 and Bonatti affair, Tomaz Humar etc. But the drug use - O2 and Dex etc, was at least done pretty much in the open and left to others to decide if it's cheating.
It was well known then that it was cheating, but "everyone did it". My comment was a bit tongue in cheek, though.
Generally though, for the future of competition / sport and ice climbing, it is a huge shame if a bit inevitable. As I said upthread, it shows how widespread substance abuse is in Russian sport. Perhaps the UIAA and IFSC should preempt further issues by doing the same as other sports federations and ban Russian athletes from major championships unless they can prove they are clean?
1
1
In reply to fred99:
Why on earth did we subscribe to this? Performance enhancing drugs fine but climbing is supposed to be about freedom and personal exploration
> Remember you competition climbers, wacky backy (amongst other "recreational drugs" is illegal for sport, so no more "highs" for you.
Why on earth did we subscribe to this? Performance enhancing drugs fine but climbing is supposed to be about freedom and personal exploration
10
2
In reply to trouserburp:
Not if you are completion climber. There's nothing about freedom or personal exploration. It's all about proving others how awesome you are.
Not if you are completion climber. There's nothing about freedom or personal exploration. It's all about proving others how awesome you are.
19
8
In reply to trouserburp:
When I was comps officer at the BMC - some 20 years ago now - the comps committee had several meetings to decide on a drug ban approach. Some drugs had to be banned, whereas others that weren't clearly performance enhancing were left to individual sport federations to decide on. I felt strongly that the BMC should ban only those substances where was reason to believe people might take them for performance improvement, but others on the committee seemed to smell power and decided instead to try to mould the world closer to their moral ideals, even though there was no sporting or fairness reasons for their stance.
> Why on earth did we subscribe to this? Performance enhancing drugs fine but climbing is supposed to be about freedom and personal exploration
When I was comps officer at the BMC - some 20 years ago now - the comps committee had several meetings to decide on a drug ban approach. Some drugs had to be banned, whereas others that weren't clearly performance enhancing were left to individual sport federations to decide on. I felt strongly that the BMC should ban only those substances where was reason to believe people might take them for performance improvement, but others on the committee seemed to smell power and decided instead to try to mould the world closer to their moral ideals, even though there was no sporting or fairness reasons for their stance.
22
In reply to john arran:
Playing devil's advocate slightly: surely the more substances that you ban (and assuming folk actually stick to the ban) then the more likely you are to get a level playing field and a performance based on purely personal ability, no?
> ...even though there was no sporting or fairness reasons for their stance.
Playing devil's advocate slightly: surely the more substances that you ban (and assuming folk actually stick to the ban) then the more likely you are to get a level playing field and a performance based on purely personal ability, no?
In reply to Fraser:
That may be true, and if they were banning things for that reason it would perhaps be understandable, if stupid. However, the reasons for banning some things were nothing to do with level playing fields and everything to do with seeing that the 'right kind of people' are seen to be succeeding, or rather that the wrong kind of people are excluded. That's something I find objectionable in an environment that's supposed to be helping to ensure sporting fairness.
> Playing devil's advocate slightly: surely the more substances that you ban (and assuming folk actually stick to the ban) then the more likely you are to get a level playing field and a performance based on purely personal ability, no?
That may be true, and if they were banning things for that reason it would perhaps be understandable, if stupid. However, the reasons for banning some things were nothing to do with level playing fields and everything to do with seeing that the 'right kind of people' are seen to be succeeding, or rather that the wrong kind of people are excluded. That's something I find objectionable in an environment that's supposed to be helping to ensure sporting fairness.
11
In reply to john arran:
Did 'they' tell you that our were you making the assumption?
Incidentally, what's stupid about wanting fairness or a level playing field?
Did 'they' tell you that our were you making the assumption?
Incidentally, what's stupid about wanting fairness or a level playing field?
1
In reply to Ian W:
At the time of Chris's failed test marijuana was completely banned ie in competition and out of competition. Now it is not banned out of competition. So you can get wrecked as much as you like before a comp but not during one - and before anyone asks I have no idea how long you have to have not smoked before a comp for it not be considered in-competition.
I wasn't at the comp that Chris got tested at (I think it was Munich 2001) but I was at the one just prior and I suspect from what I saw at that comp that Chris was probably guilty of an in-competition offense.
Since 2001 there have been 3 more failed tests. One was recreational, one was wrong inhaler (normal foreign brand okay, UK version of the same brand not okay) and one unexplained banned substance of the kind well known to Shane Warne!
At the time of Chris's failed test marijuana was completely banned ie in competition and out of competition. Now it is not banned out of competition. So you can get wrecked as much as you like before a comp but not during one - and before anyone asks I have no idea how long you have to have not smoked before a comp for it not be considered in-competition.
I wasn't at the comp that Chris got tested at (I think it was Munich 2001) but I was at the one just prior and I suspect from what I saw at that comp that Chris was probably guilty of an in-competition offense.
Since 2001 there have been 3 more failed tests. One was recreational, one was wrong inhaler (normal foreign brand okay, UK version of the same brand not okay) and one unexplained banned substance of the kind well known to Shane Warne!
7
1
In reply to Fraser:
The words "setting an example" gave it away!
Nothing at all - that's the main objective of the anti-doping system. The stupid bit would be trying to achieve that by banning things that have no proven, nor even suspected, link to performance.
> Did 'they' tell you that our were you making the assumption?
The words "setting an example" gave it away!
> Incidentally, what's stupid about wanting fairness or a level playing field?
Nothing at all - that's the main objective of the anti-doping system. The stupid bit would be trying to achieve that by banning things that have no proven, nor even suspected, link to performance.
9
In reply to john arran:
I see, thanks for clarifying. Can I ask what was it they wanted banned which you thought shouldn't be?
I see, thanks for clarifying. Can I ask what was it they wanted banned which you thought shouldn't be?
2
1
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Botox?
> one unexplained banned substance of the kind well known to Shane Warne!
Botox?
15
In reply to Fraser:
It really is of no relevance. I'm not even sure my memory would be accurate. It was the reasons being argued for the ban that was the pertinent point.
> I see, thanks for clarifying. Can I ask what was it they wanted banned which you thought shouldn't be?
It really is of no relevance. I'm not even sure my memory would be accurate. It was the reasons being argued for the ban that was the pertinent point.
2
1
1
In reply to UKC News:
If fighting your way up a gritstone VS after a couple of cans of Websters and a spliff is not cricket then it just goes to show how competitions has nothing to do with the real thing. Don't get me started on speed climbing...
If fighting your way up a gritstone VS after a couple of cans of Websters and a spliff is not cricket then it just goes to show how competitions has nothing to do with the real thing. Don't get me started on speed climbing...
43
2
In reply to john arran:
Really? I kind of think it is!
I don't see how you can separate the two: substance(s) and reason. If you say their wanting to 'set an example' was inappropriate, how can those of us who weren't present form an opinion on whether or not it was a valid stance if we don't know what they wanted to ban?
> It really is of no relevance.
Really? I kind of think it is!
> It was the reasons being argued for the ban that was the pertinent point.
I don't see how you can separate the two: substance(s) and reason. If you say their wanting to 'set an example' was inappropriate, how can those of us who weren't present form an opinion on whether or not it was a valid stance if we don't know what they wanted to ban?
3
9
In reply to nutme:
It's about exploring how hard you can climb, too. I've only entered one competition, when a teenager, but that was why, to see how well I could climb, and because it seemed like it might be fun. I'm not out to convince anybody, just to tell the truth.
> Not if you are completion climber. There's nothing about freedom or personal exploration. It's all about proving others how awesome you are.
It's about exploring how hard you can climb, too. I've only entered one competition, when a teenager, but that was why, to see how well I could climb, and because it seemed like it might be fun. I'm not out to convince anybody, just to tell the truth.
Post edited at 22:57
4
3
In reply to john arran:
It can be a funny one, I think cannabis may aid stamina, but not across the board, and possibly not while it's effects are being felt. Incidentally, training while fatigued is meant to help with endurance, I think I read in a cycling magazine.
> It really is of no relevance. I'm not even sure my memory would be accurate. It was the reasons being argued for the ban that was the pertinent point.
It can be a funny one, I think cannabis may aid stamina, but not across the board, and possibly not while it's effects are being felt. Incidentally, training while fatigued is meant to help with endurance, I think I read in a cycling magazine.
Post edited at 23:05
1
1
In reply to Fraser:
It really isn't hard to grasp. You either ban something because you have reason to think it could be used to improve performance. Or you ban something you fully believe has no positive effect on performance (indeed that you fully believe is bad for performance) simply because you would prefer to see less of it in society. Like I said, the actual substances are not relevant because nobody was arguing a performance enhancing case for them, only a social and moral one. That, to me, is an abuse of authority in a sporting body.
> I don't see how you can separate the two: substance(s) and reason. If you say their wanting to 'set an example' was inappropriate, how can those of us who weren't present form an opinion on whether or not it was a valid stance if we don't know what they wanted to ban?
It really isn't hard to grasp. You either ban something because you have reason to think it could be used to improve performance. Or you ban something you fully believe has no positive effect on performance (indeed that you fully believe is bad for performance) simply because you would prefer to see less of it in society. Like I said, the actual substances are not relevant because nobody was arguing a performance enhancing case for them, only a social and moral one. That, to me, is an abuse of authority in a sporting body.
17
The anti-doping agency in mainstream sport is WADA which has decided to join the "war on drugs". Explicitly, they test for illegal drugs without reference to whether or not they may be performance-enhancing. So those who want climbing to be an Olympic sport are also buying into a dope-testing regime that includes recreational drugs.
5
1
18
In reply to Fraser:
I take offence at that accusation. There were several substances discussed at the time, and I couldn't be certain to have remembered exactly which were central to the discussions. I have a good idea but I see no advantage in sharing poorly-remembered details. And, as I've explained several times now, it is irrelevant anyway as it would only encourage speculation as to the retrospective value of decisions based on information that was not available and not presented at the time.
The point was, I'll repeat, that decisions were made that were not based on the requirements of the doping experts at UK Sport and not made on the grounds of sporting performance (which was the reason many substances had been left to individual sports to decide). However well intentioned it may have been, to my mind that is an example of people overstepping their competence and authority.
You seem to have a real problem with that concept.
I take offence at that accusation. There were several substances discussed at the time, and I couldn't be certain to have remembered exactly which were central to the discussions. I have a good idea but I see no advantage in sharing poorly-remembered details. And, as I've explained several times now, it is irrelevant anyway as it would only encourage speculation as to the retrospective value of decisions based on information that was not available and not presented at the time.
The point was, I'll repeat, that decisions were made that were not based on the requirements of the doping experts at UK Sport and not made on the grounds of sporting performance (which was the reason many substances had been left to individual sports to decide). However well intentioned it may have been, to my mind that is an example of people overstepping their competence and authority.
You seem to have a real problem with that concept.
27
1
In reply to john arran:
What you do not seem to grasp is that individual sports, and most definitely individuals within those sports, do not have, and indeed should never have any say over what drugs are and are not fair game or illegal.
That is down to WADA.
For you to say that you believe them to be overstepping their competence and authority, and that you should have made that decision is more of an example to show that you wished to overstep your competence and authority - or are you the world's premier scientific expert on performance enhancing drugs ?
What would happen if some Russian official was able to decide which drugs were OK or banned ?
What you do not seem to grasp is that individual sports, and most definitely individuals within those sports, do not have, and indeed should never have any say over what drugs are and are not fair game or illegal.
That is down to WADA.
For you to say that you believe them to be overstepping their competence and authority, and that you should have made that decision is more of an example to show that you wished to overstep your competence and authority - or are you the world's premier scientific expert on performance enhancing drugs ?
What would happen if some Russian official was able to decide which drugs were OK or banned ?
1
18
In reply to fred99:
I'm quite able to grasp that much, but I was responding initially to a question about how we ended up banning recreational drugs that didn't help performance, so I explained how.
What I fail to grasp is how you could perceive me (or portray me) to have been trying to overstep competence and authority. UK Sport charged the BMC with deciding which of a range of recreational drugs should be prohibited. They did this in acknowledgement that individual federations are likely to have a better idea about which substances are likely to be beneficial to performance in their sport. The BMC did not request this input but was required to make those decisions. The requirement to do that came from UK Sport. The authority to do that then rested with the BMC. My view was that we as the BMC should have been restricting our involvement to the minimal requirement of UK Sport, and not including other factors for which there was no known sporting reason.
I'm finding it pretty hard to see how I could make this any clearer.
I'm quite able to grasp that much, but I was responding initially to a question about how we ended up banning recreational drugs that didn't help performance, so I explained how.
What I fail to grasp is how you could perceive me (or portray me) to have been trying to overstep competence and authority. UK Sport charged the BMC with deciding which of a range of recreational drugs should be prohibited. They did this in acknowledgement that individual federations are likely to have a better idea about which substances are likely to be beneficial to performance in their sport. The BMC did not request this input but was required to make those decisions. The requirement to do that came from UK Sport. The authority to do that then rested with the BMC. My view was that we as the BMC should have been restricting our involvement to the minimal requirement of UK Sport, and not including other factors for which there was no known sporting reason.
I'm finding it pretty hard to see how I could make this any clearer.
23
1
In reply to fred99:
That's one hell of an assertion. WTF are WADA and when did they buy my soul?
Someone better tell Theresa May it's not up to her which drugs are illegal anymore
> What you do not seem to grasp is that individual sports, and most definitely individuals within those sports, do not have, and indeed should never have any say over what drugs are and are not fair game or illegal.
That is down to WADAThat's one hell of an assertion. WTF are WADA and when did they buy my soul?
Someone better tell Theresa May it's not up to her which drugs are illegal anymore
1
2
In reply to john arran:
It wasn't meant to cause offence, just a statement of how it's coming across, at least to me. It's no big deal either way tbh, I'm not really into climbing competitions or its testing scene.
It wasn't meant to cause offence, just a statement of how it's coming across, at least to me. It's no big deal either way tbh, I'm not really into climbing competitions or its testing scene.
1
1
In reply to john arran:
"I'm finding it pretty hard to see how I could make this any clearer."...
understandably so, I think its very clear what you are saying, and i think it probably is to most others reading this thread.
to fred99.... are you suggesting that WADA are the world's premier scientific expert on performance enhancing drugs? lol....
"I'm finding it pretty hard to see how I could make this any clearer."...
understandably so, I think its very clear what you are saying, and i think it probably is to most others reading this thread.
to fred99.... are you suggesting that WADA are the world's premier scientific expert on performance enhancing drugs? lol....
3
1
In reply to thommi:
WADA = World Anti-Doping Agency.
They probably know a lot more than anyone else (except maybe a bunch of Russian biochemists).
WADA = World Anti-Doping Agency.
They probably know a lot more than anyone else (except maybe a bunch of Russian biochemists).
1
In reply to john arran:
Another feature to this.
Let us assume (for a moment) that cannabis, heroin & cocaine were not banned for sport.
You have a dope test - it shows up 1 or more of them.
If those who have done the test do not inform the authorities then they are then guilty of aiding and abetting drug use contrary to the law of the land.
Your view on the idea of sporting officials deliberately covering up criminality ?
Your view on the idea of sportsmen and women ruining their lives through drug use ?
Another feature to this.
Let us assume (for a moment) that cannabis, heroin & cocaine were not banned for sport.
You have a dope test - it shows up 1 or more of them.
If those who have done the test do not inform the authorities then they are then guilty of aiding and abetting drug use contrary to the law of the land.
Your view on the idea of sporting officials deliberately covering up criminality ?
Your view on the idea of sportsmen and women ruining their lives through drug use ?
Post edited at 13:18
2
14
In reply to fred99:
One could argue that if they were not illegal in sport then WADA would have no more business testing for them they then would do testing for caffeine*, or checking if the competitors car tax was up to date...
*assuming it remains not on the list
edited for clarity and spelling
One could argue that if they were not illegal in sport then WADA would have no more business testing for them they then would do testing for caffeine*, or checking if the competitors car tax was up to date...
*assuming it remains not on the list
edited for clarity and spelling
Post edited at 13:57
5
In reply to fred99:
Surely there is an issue of personal liberty and privacy. Rules concerning substances that enhance performance - say anabolics that shred body fat beyond the norm - should be regulated in the interests of competition.
On the other hand, if Chris Sharma or whoever wants to smoke a joint the night before then why should that become a competitive let alone a criminal issue?
It seems to me that if that is your stance you are moving from a regulation/ competition concern to an ethical judgement, in which case maybe the whole population should be tested regularly to ensure none of us are 'breaking the rules' of criminal justice. I'd be fine, I only do caffeine and occasionally alcohol: isn't it great to moralise when your personal choices match those of power..?
Surely there is an issue of personal liberty and privacy. Rules concerning substances that enhance performance - say anabolics that shred body fat beyond the norm - should be regulated in the interests of competition.
On the other hand, if Chris Sharma or whoever wants to smoke a joint the night before then why should that become a competitive let alone a criminal issue?
It seems to me that if that is your stance you are moving from a regulation/ competition concern to an ethical judgement, in which case maybe the whole population should be tested regularly to ensure none of us are 'breaking the rules' of criminal justice. I'd be fine, I only do caffeine and occasionally alcohol: isn't it great to moralise when your personal choices match those of power..?
7
2
In reply to fred99:
"Your view on the idea of sportsmen and women ruining their lives through drug use ?"... wow, not sure where to begin on this... :-|
"Your view on the idea of sportsmen and women ruining their lives through drug use ?"... wow, not sure where to begin on this... :-|
1
2
In reply to thommi:
I wish I was ruining my life like Chris Sharma was/is....
> "Your view on the idea of sportsmen and women ruining their lives through drug use ?"... wow, not sure where to begin on this... :-|
I wish I was ruining my life like Chris Sharma was/is....
11
1
2
1
In reply to fred99:
If those who have done the test do not inform the authorities then they are then guilty of aiding and abetting drug use contrary to the law of the land.
Rubbish. Aiding or abetting means helping or encouraging.
Your view on the idea of sporting officials deliberately covering up criminality ?
If the crime is not compromising the competition and is not a substantial threat to someone then the duty to protect an individual's privacy outweighs any 'duty' to tell the police. They don't have to test for non performance enhancing drugs in the first place
Your view on the idea of sportsmen and women ruining their lives through drug use ?
They would be stupid to do so but it's their life and not up to the world dopes association. Their role is preventing performance enhancing drugs affecting competition as it makes it unfair, also puts pressure on other athletes to take them. This is the limit of their remit, other drugs are none of their business
As said, somebodies (inc BMC) along the line have exceeded their remit by taking an opportunity impose their own moral values on athletes. It's an abuse of power
If those who have done the test do not inform the authorities then they are then guilty of aiding and abetting drug use contrary to the law of the land.
Rubbish. Aiding or abetting means helping or encouraging.
Your view on the idea of sporting officials deliberately covering up criminality ?
If the crime is not compromising the competition and is not a substantial threat to someone then the duty to protect an individual's privacy outweighs any 'duty' to tell the police. They don't have to test for non performance enhancing drugs in the first place
Your view on the idea of sportsmen and women ruining their lives through drug use ?
They would be stupid to do so but it's their life and not up to the world dopes association. Their role is preventing performance enhancing drugs affecting competition as it makes it unfair, also puts pressure on other athletes to take them. This is the limit of their remit, other drugs are none of their business
As said, somebodies (inc BMC) along the line have exceeded their remit by taking an opportunity impose their own moral values on athletes. It's an abuse of power
4
In reply to UKC News:
Anyone read the title and think "Doping Charges" would be a good name for a route? Preferably a hard one so that an ascent would be newsworthy.
Anyone read the title and think "Doping Charges" would be a good name for a route? Preferably a hard one so that an ascent would be newsworthy.
4
4
In reply to trouserburp:
Well now we're in the Olympic movement they damn well do - because the IOC says so.
You competition climbers should have been careful what you asked for, because you should have known what you were going to get.
> They don't have to test for non performance enhancing drugs in the first place
Well now we're in the Olympic movement they damn well do - because the IOC says so.
You competition climbers should have been careful what you asked for, because you should have known what you were going to get.
1
5
In reply to fred99:
But both the IFSC and UIAA adopted WADA testing guidelines many many moons ago, so nothing is coming as a surprise to any competition climber. Entering the olympic movement changes nothing in this respect. We knew exactly what we were getting, because it was already in place.......
So not sure what the point is you are trying to make, apart from a further bit of anonymous trolling.......
> Well now we're in the Olympic movement they damn well do - because the IOC says so.
> You competition climbers should have been careful what you asked for, because you should have known what you were going to get.
But both the IFSC and UIAA adopted WADA testing guidelines many many moons ago, so nothing is coming as a surprise to any competition climber. Entering the olympic movement changes nothing in this respect. We knew exactly what we were getting, because it was already in place.......
So not sure what the point is you are trying to make, apart from a further bit of anonymous trolling.......
Post edited at 12:10
2
In reply to fred99:
I might be wrong but don't most countries drug laws, excluding driving under the influence, refer to possession rather than use hence having a drug in your system isn't in itself a crime?
I might be wrong but don't most countries drug laws, excluding driving under the influence, refer to possession rather than use hence having a drug in your system isn't in itself a crime?
1
In reply to fred99:
Well if you read the thread you will see that marijuana is no longer a banned substance for out of competition testing. It is still banned in-competition, ie you can't be off your face when you are competing. Just like you can't be drunk while competing. Just like you can't be off your face or drunk while driving.
But things like facts don't fit with your agenda.
Well if you read the thread you will see that marijuana is no longer a banned substance for out of competition testing. It is still banned in-competition, ie you can't be off your face when you are competing. Just like you can't be drunk while competing. Just like you can't be off your face or drunk while driving.
But things like facts don't fit with your agenda.
6
1
In reply to JHiley:
"Doping Charges" XI 10: A dangerous and ethically dubious but frequently attempted route up the steep wall and hanging groove. Dry tool up steep, bare rock on tenuous placements towards an illusory smear of ice in the groove. Follow this to the impending block at its end. Escape out left with relief and enjoy a celebratory spliff. Protected by old aid bolts of a suspect nature.
FA. a Russian Ice climber. Jan 2017
"Doping Charges" XI 10: A dangerous and ethically dubious but frequently attempted route up the steep wall and hanging groove. Dry tool up steep, bare rock on tenuous placements towards an illusory smear of ice in the groove. Follow this to the impending block at its end. Escape out left with relief and enjoy a celebratory spliff. Protected by old aid bolts of a suspect nature.
FA. a Russian Ice climber. Jan 2017
1
In reply to fred99:
It's not hard to figure out which drugs do and which drugs do not enhance climbing performance. (BTW coke most definitely does enhance climbing performance.)
That's like saying if you see someone shop lifting and don't tell the store detective you are aiding and abetting them. In fact it's even less tenable than that. You don't know how the drug got into the person's system. Maybe their drink was spiked for instance. In which case it's not even an offence.
It's not hard to figure out which drugs do and which drugs do not enhance climbing performance. (BTW coke most definitely does enhance climbing performance.)
> If those who have done the test do not inform the authorities then they are then guilty of aiding and abetting drug use contrary to the law of the land.
That's like saying if you see someone shop lifting and don't tell the store detective you are aiding and abetting them. In fact it's even less tenable than that. You don't know how the drug got into the person's system. Maybe their drink was spiked for instance. In which case it's not even an offence.
In reply to Aly:
Caffeine is of course a stimulant so whilst you can have it in your system there is a limit.
Caffeine is of course a stimulant so whilst you can have it in your system there is a limit.
1
In reply to stp:
If you're the sort of person who would watch someone shoplift and not inform anyone, then I worry about your general attitude - would you keep quiet if you saw someone nicking gear out of a rucsac at the bottom of a crag for example, or is that "different" in your eyes ?
Drink spiked - can happen, which is why athletes obtain sealed bottles and then keep hold of their own drinks.
But the defence of "passive smoking", whilst having been used, hasn't exactly been agreed with by people - more the thought that the person in question was guilty really, but "got away with it".
> That's like saying if you see someone shop lifting and don't tell the store detective you are aiding and abetting them. In fact it's even less tenable than that. You don't know how the drug got into the person's system. Maybe their drink was spiked for instance. In which case it's not even an offence.
If you're the sort of person who would watch someone shoplift and not inform anyone, then I worry about your general attitude - would you keep quiet if you saw someone nicking gear out of a rucsac at the bottom of a crag for example, or is that "different" in your eyes ?
Drink spiked - can happen, which is why athletes obtain sealed bottles and then keep hold of their own drinks.
But the defence of "passive smoking", whilst having been used, hasn't exactly been agreed with by people - more the thought that the person in question was guilty really, but "got away with it".
2
3
In reply to fred99:
Contaminated beef anyone?
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/others/cycling-contador-blames-c...
Contaminated beef anyone?
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/others/cycling-contador-blames-c...
1
In reply to fred99:
Presumably every time you see someone exceeding 70mph on the motorway you give a helpful call to the old bill to let them know there is a lawbreaker on the loose?
Presumably every time you see someone exceeding 70mph on the motorway you give a helpful call to the old bill to let them know there is a lawbreaker on the loose?
4
2
In reply to fred99:
Now you're trying to personalize it. This thread is not about me. The point is if you don't report someone shoplifting you're not breaking any laws or doing anything wrong. My point is the same is true with drugs testing. But of course in taking recreational drugs there isn't even a victim to be protected, so snitching on someone for that is pointless and rather spiteful.
> If you're the sort of person who would watch someone shoplift and not inform anyone, then I worry about your general attitude -
Now you're trying to personalize it. This thread is not about me. The point is if you don't report someone shoplifting you're not breaking any laws or doing anything wrong. My point is the same is true with drugs testing. But of course in taking recreational drugs there isn't even a victim to be protected, so snitching on someone for that is pointless and rather spiteful.
3
1
1
4
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...