PoleVaultPower.com

I did a quick search of the forums and didn't come up with much, so I'll pose this question to you all.


Drug Screenings, manditory, random, or big title winners only?

The reason why I've added illigal drugs into the polling questions is because I see the use of illigal drugs (like marajuana, etc.) by athletes. It is my personal feeling that people who use illigal drugs are not serious athletes and should not be able to compete until they get clean. From what I see and hear, illigal drug use among athletes is far more prevelent than performance doping.

I just wanted to get a feel for what everyone thinks. This is a pretty important subject.

The way i see it, the drug screening is not meant to detect who is serious about their athletics and who isn't. Its meant to see who is trying to gain an unfair advantage over others- hence performance enhancers. I think detection for other drugs should be left up to the police with a warrant. If they want to use drugs that will hurt their performance, let em! Easier wins for you and me. Its not the athletic associations business. BUT i think it is the coaches' and police business, and they should have separate drug screenings for illicite drugs. If a coach wants to test an athlete he suspects of using illicit drugs, i think he should have the right to do so, or give the police reason to do so.

vault3rb0y wrote:The way i see it, the drug screening is not meant to detect who is serious about their athletics and who isn't. Its meant to see who is trying to gain an unfair advantage over others- hence performance enhancers. I think detection for other drugs should be left up to the police with a warrant. If they want to use drugs that will hurt their performance, let em! Easier wins for you and me. Its not the athletic associations business. BUT i think it is the coaches' and police business, and they should have separate drug screenings for illicite drugs. If a coach wants to test an athlete he suspects of using illicit drugs, i think he should have the right to do so, or give the police reason to do so.

I kind of agree. It sees like a waste of resources for athletic organizations to test for substances that are not performance enhancing. Let's spend that money on developing better tests for HGH and things of that nature.

The way I see it, if a certain group is to be drug tested, then everyone should be drug tested.

For instance, if a school is going to test the students for marijuana then I'm all for it as long as all the administrator, teachers and support staff are drug tested as well.

So if they are going to drug test the athletes for performance-enhancing drugs, then everyone else should be tested for drugs, too (not necessarily performance-enhancing, but other drugs that affect people, such as the ones that are illegal, like cocaine and pot). That includes the officials, the USATF officers and Craig Masback. Considering some of the stupid things USATF does, I would start with Masback's office.

But you have to look at it this way.....NCAA Student Athletes are NOT like other students. They are held to higher standards. They are under a microscope.......We don't see it in track and field, but I see it all the time with the basketball guys at my school. As soon as they make it to the NCAA tourny, bookies are watching to see who is limping out of the practice facility.

If schools dont' at least have the option to test for illegal street drugs, and the student athletes get caught using, it looks bad for the University.

I throughly believe that NCAA sports is a business, and they are selling a name. It is in the best interest of the business to protect the name of the product you are selling.

If anyone disagrees with it being a business, then you are one of the lucky ones that doesn't have to deal with it.

theczar wrote:The reason why I've added illigal drugs into the polling questions is because I see the use of illigal drugs (like marajuana, etc.) by athletes. It is my personal feeling that people who use illigal drugs are not serious athletes and should not be able to compete until they get clean. From what I see and hear, illigal drug use among athletes is far more prevelent than performance doping.

Most performance enhancing drugs are are illegal to have in the United States (some are still illegal even if you could get a doctor to write you a prescription for it.) I agree with you that street drugs should be tested for as well as performance enhancers (some of which could possibly fall into both corners.)

vault3rb0y wrote:The way i see it, the drug screening is not meant to detect who is serious about their athletics and who isn't. Its meant to see who is trying to gain an unfair advantage over others- hence performance enhancers. I think detection for other drugs should be left up to the police with a warrant. If they want to use drugs that will hurt their performance, let em! Easier wins for you and me. Its not the athletic associations business. BUT i think it is the coaches' and police business, and they should have separate drug screenings for illicite drugs. If a coach wants to test an athlete he suspects of using illicit drugs, i think he should have the right to do so, or give the police reason to do so.

Why should street drugs be treated sepratley. The largest group of banned substances on the NCAA's list are stimulants. They include cocaine, meth and ecstasy. I'm sorry, but I will let you run in the 100m with the guy that's on cocaine while I race against a clean field.

SKOT wrote:

vault3rb0y wrote:The way i see it, the drug screening is not meant to detect who is serious about their athletics and who isn't. Its meant to see who is trying to gain an unfair advantage over others- hence performance enhancers. I think detection for other drugs should be left up to the police with a warrant. If they want to use drugs that will hurt their performance, let em! Easier wins for you and me. Its not the athletic associations business. BUT i think it is the coaches' and police business, and they should have separate drug screenings for illicite drugs. If a coach wants to test an athlete he suspects of using illicit drugs, i think he should have the right to do so, or give the police reason to do so.

Why should street drugs be treated sepratley. The largest group of banned substances on the NCAA's list are stimulants. They include cocaine, meth and ecstasy. I'm sorry, but I will let you run in the 100m with the guy that's on cocaine while I race against a clean field.

I think the issue is testing for street drugs that are not performance enhancing such as marijuana. That's probably the main one that is contentious.

I don't smoke pot and I certainly don't think any athletes should, but if I knew the vaulter I was competing against was a big pothead, I definitely would not feel like they had gained an advantage.

rainbowgirl28 wrote:
I don't smoke pot and I certainly don't think any athletes should, but if I knew the vaulter I was competing against was a big pothead, I definitely would not feel like they had gained an advantage.

Yes, but would'nt you be conserned about their safety? Someone who smokes pot often does not have the same reaction time as those who don't. I would never want to be near a vaulter that was a "pothead" because that person is endagering himself and potentially everyone.

theczar wrote:

rainbowgirl28 wrote:
I don't smoke pot and I certainly don't think any athletes should, but if I knew the vaulter I was competing against was a big pothead, I definitely would not feel like they had gained an advantage.

Yes, but would'nt you be conserned about their safety? Someone who smokes pot often does not have the same reaction time as those who don't. I would never want to be near a vaulter that was a "pothead" because that person is endagering himself and potentially everyone.

No. I think that athletic organizations should limit their scope to drugs that affect performance. If an athlete shows up to practice impaired by drugs or alcohol, it is the responsibility of the coach to not allow that athlete to practice.

If there were unlimited resources for drug testing, then maybe my feelings would be different, but there aren't. With the current system, the bad guys are often one step ahead of the testers. I think every ounce of resources should be spent trying to catch those who are trying to unfairly gain an advantage. All that testing for marijuana does is catch those who are idiots. I don't think USADA should be responsible for doing the job of the police, I think their focus should be on keeping the playing field level. If idiots out there want to put themselves at a disadvantage, I don't think USADA should worry about it too much.

I guess I should clarify a little bit as well. Let's say there are 4 types of organizations you might get tested by in the US: High schools, colleges, NCAA, and USADA. I don't care so much if a high school or college wants to test for pot. They are testing a younger crowd, and have more of a responsibility to be parent-like. They don't have the resources anyway to test for complicated drugs. I don't even care as much what the NCAA tests for, but I think think it's a waste of time and resources for USADA to test for things that do not enhance performance.

Heres my question on this whole Marijuana debate... I have heard of an awful lot of people who have used marijuana on limited occasions to just relax and ease their mind rather than getting all jacked up by it. Couldn't that be considered a perfoming enhancing drug? Someone who is more relaxing and not worried about the atmosphere, especially at a National meet? I think it would be beneficial, though I definately could not say for myself!

I agree with czar on this one that all drugs no matter what the nature should be tested for at all levels of competition from collegiate on up! I think those who have to use drugs to compete or get in a mindset to compete should not be allowed to taint our sport!!

BethelPV wrote:Heres my question on this whole Marijuana debate... I have heard of an awful lot of people who have used marijuana on limited occasions to just relax and ease their mind rather than getting all jacked up by it. Couldn't that be considered a perfoming enhancing drug? Someone who is more relaxing and not worried about the atmosphere, especially at a National meet? I think it would be beneficial, though I definately could not say for myself!

Marijuana is a "downer" drug, isn't it? Meaning it dulls your senses and pretty much makes you react real slow, so I can see the relaxing thing but I don't see how that can enhance your performance! If anything it would make it worse, right?

theczar wrote:

BethelPV wrote:Heres my question on this whole Marijuana debate... I have heard of an awful lot of people who have used marijuana on limited occasions to just relax and ease their mind rather than getting all jacked up by it. Couldn't that be considered a perfoming enhancing drug? Someone who is more relaxing and not worried about the atmosphere, especially at a National meet? I think it would be beneficial, though I definately could not say for myself!

Marijuana is a "downer" drug, isn't it? Meaning it dulls your senses and pretty much makes you react real slow, so I can see the relaxing thing but I don't see how that can enhance your performance! If anything it would make it worse, right?

Marijuana is a stimulant ("upper") and a mild hallucinogen. Though, it increases your heart rate, it's hallucinogen characteristics give you that relaxed feeling. I have a feeling that the calming effects are limited to addicts that are used to having THC, the active chemical in weed, present in their bodies or it is more anecdotal that anything.

Tobacco, though its a stimulant, is used to calm people down. Take Angel Cabrera who just won the U.S. Open of golf while chain-smoking the entire back nine to calm his "nerves."