Drug testing?

[Bassmatt]

The best test, will be the test which detects more THC.

There is no guarantee that anyone with any level of THC in any bodily fluid isn't impeded. there is no study which says that THC present in Urine and not saliva will definitely not impede every single person (all shapes sizes and metabolisms).

Since it can not be guaranteed, it can not be allowed. Hence ZERO tolerance.

Bloody hell, the urine tests dont find THC in your piss. THC does not stay in your body for weeks. The tests show the presence of the metabolites (look it up) of THC remaining in the body.
The fact you don't know what your talking about makes your argument pretty fucken weak.

[Katman]

Read my post a second time, with your glasses on old man :P

I don't need glasses. The problem here is your inability to grasp logic.

If someone loses their license for careless, dangerous or reckless driving, do MNZ/SNZ suspend their racing license as well?

It would seem to me that anyone who is guilty of any of those offences could very well pose a great risk to those around them on a racetrack. They'd be the sort of person who might try to stuff their bike down the inside going into a hairpin where there's no room to do so or brake check someone behind them just for a laugh.

[Madness]

Hayden, if you actually believe that anyone could still be impaired at all 3 weeks after ingesting Cannabis then quite frankly you're even more of a muppet than your earlier posts in this thread suggested. The effects of Cannabis last 2-3 hours, up to 10 if ingested orally.

Skippa, you are correct in that it is up to SNZ, MNZ & their respective members to decide on this issue. Please consider that the OP posted this on a public forum for discussion, which is exactly what has resulted. In light of the way that SNZ seem to want to embark on this witch hunt, there is probably more balanced discussion on the subject happening here than there ever could be through official channels.

[Katman]

This is taken straight from MNZ's website listing what they consider to be misconduct.

(ix) Competing in, or controlling, any event while under the influence of alcohol or any judgment impairing drug. As regards alcohol, a person is considered 'under the influence' if their alcohol reading exceeds the youth alcohol limit permitted for driving on a public road.

Considering that the youth alcohol limit has only fairly recently been changed to a zero limit, it would appear that prior to that ruling coming into effect, you could have had a couple of beers on the morning of an event and probably still been good to go.

[kiwi cowboy]

I'm not actually 'defending' anything.

I'm pointing out the absurdity of racing authorities placing themselves in the position of being nothing more than mindless government puppets - along with the hypocrisy of those racers who see no problem with getting on the piss the night before a race event.

Katman while I agree with some of what you are saying I disagree when you say the authorities are being mindless puppets.

The reason could be that if there was a fatal or serious crash and tests were done and found to contain THC or other substance the OSH and other parties would try to crucify the MNZ and or the club running the event.
There only really covering there arses and rightly so in my opinion as having talked to some of the guys running an event where a death accured the pressure on them to show everything was done properly was high (and every thing was right I would like to point out).

[Katman]

The reason could be that if there was a fatal or serious crash and tests were done and found to contain THC or other substance the OSH and other parties would try to crucify the MNZ and or the club running the event.
There only really covering there arses and rightly so in my opinion as having talked to some of the guys running an event where a death accured the pressure on them to show everything was done properly was high (and every thing was right I would like to point out).

I believe their obligation should be limited to imposing the requirements outlined in their own Code of Conduct - that of preventing from racing anyone who is 'under the influence'.

If the best way to determine impairment is to also conduct a swab test if a urine test shows positive, then that is the way they should handle it.

And besides, if every single competitor had to submit to a drug/alcohol test then OSH may well be able to crucify the organiser in the event of a serious accident if traces of drugs/alcohol were found, but as the testing is only a small random selection, the organisers would have no way of being able to guarantee with 100% certainty that every competitor is clear of any trace of drugs/alcohol.

[jasonu]

It's far cheaper to ride roughshod over people's liberties.

Participating in motorcycle racing is not a liberty.

[Katman]

Participating in motorcycle racing is not a liberty.

Maybe not.

Having the freedom to live your life how you choose to (if it doesn't adversely affect others) is a liberty.

[bluninja]

Maybe not.

Having the freedom to live your life how you choose to (if it doesn't adversely affecting others) is a liberty.

I find I'm adversely affected by your inability to write simple English. Therefore you are not at liberty to post that way again

[jasonu]

Maybe not.

Having the freedom to live your life how you choose to (if it doesn't adversely affect others) is a liberty.

True enough.
But if a private party or organization (eg AMCC or MNZ) running an event (eg motorcycle racing) says if you want to participate you are not allowed ANY trace of pot, dope, THC etc in your system when tested (the test, right or wrong, chosen by the party or organization) and you test positive for said substances then being excluded from the event is hardly encroaching on ones liberties.

[Katman]

True enough.
But if a private party or organization (eg AMCC or MNZ) running an event (eg motorcycle racing) says if you want to participate you are not allowed ANY trace of pot, dope, THC etc in your system when tested (the test, right or wrong, chosen by the party or organization) and you test positive for said substances then being excluded from the event is hardly encroaching on ones liberties.

It is when it goes way beyond their Code of Conduct which simply states that a competitor cannot be 'under the influence'.

[oneblackflag]

True enough.
But if a private party or organization (eg AMCC or MNZ) running an event (eg motorcycle racing) says if you want to participate you are not allowed ANY trace of pot, dope, THC etc in your system when tested (the test, right or wrong, chosen by the party or organization) and you test positive for said substances then being excluded from the event is hardly encroaching on ones liberties.

I'd say if the test is 'wrong' it defiantly encroaches on your liberties.

[Paul Searancke]

Maybe not.

Having the freedom to live your life how you choose to (if it doesn't adversely affect others) is a liberty.

Its really very simple(just like me),if you don't like the rules and therefore don't want to comply with them, then don't join.

[jasonu]

I'd say if the test is 'wrong' it defiantly encroaches on your liberties.

Maybe you are correct. But my point is the clubs rules are there in front of you when you sign up. If you don't like the rules or don't agree with them then don't sign up.

Its really very simple(just like me),if you don't like the rules and therefore don't want to comply with them, then don't join.

Wot he said.

[Shaun Harris]

If you cannot do the time, do not do the crime! Pretty simple really.

alternatively, do not smoke pot during racing season and give your system time to clear out before attending any race meetings, it is NOT an addictive drug, so that is also easy to do.