Considering that without doubt some motorcycle racing competitors have been using Cannabis at whatever level for decades now, I'd like you to tell us how this has compromised the sport?Originally Posted by lukemillar
Que?
Considering that without doubt some motorcycle racing competitors have been using Cannabis at whatever level for decades now, I'd like you to tell us how this has compromised the sport?
Ta
By that logic, there's no need for any safety improvements over and above what's been normal for however long.
Let builders and the like fall from the roof of a building site, and sod training them in safe prceedure.
Let doctors operate with dirty hands, and utensiles. Who cares about infection?
Just another failing facet for a flawed argument, on your part. Keep up the good work.
How was your ride? Doesn't seem to have done anything toward waking you up.
Que?
Drew, any test that identifies traces of THC but cannot distinguish between ingestion 6 weeks prior and one day prior cannot be described as an adequate safety measure, just as it can't be used for law enforcement purposes. I've been wide awake since I woke up thismorning, unlike a lot of the sheep around here.
http://whoresandgangsters.com/node/97
Ta
But since the activity of smoking or any other taking of cannabis is illegal, anyone with it in their system is shit out of luck.
Que?
Apparently so. Still, the subject was posted on an internet forum for discussion and we've been discussing it. Dunno about you but it's getting pretty fucking boring now & I'm giving up on any reply from Luke to my question, not that I expected one.
Fuck I'm glad I don't have the slightest inclination to take up racing.
Ta
Given how long a riders briefing might take, with your level of understanding, I'm fucken glad you don't race aswel!
Que?
On the contrary, a better analogy to this discussion would be a situation where all doctors had to live in a bubble, so they didn't ever come in contact with germs, even 6 weeks prior to operating, regardless of the fact that a simple scrub down prior to entering the theatre would suffice in minimising the risk of infection.
You should write for Shortland Street.
Que?
Says the guy who admitted some ten pages in to having not read the OP & was going off without an understanding of what the discussion was about. Real sharp
Ta
Be it SNZ or MNZ, doesn't change anything I've said though.Says the guy who admitted some ten pages in to having not read the OP & was going off without an understanding of what the discussion was about. Real sharp
You can cling to any straw you like, but participating in an illegal activity and then bitching about the possibility of any consequence, is retarded. Any way it's looked at.
Que?
I wasn't referring to SNZ vs MNZ, more the fact that there are different options on the SNZ table in regards to test methods. Have a coffee, might help?
I'm not bitching about it either Drewfus, I'm not a participant & I haven't been disciplined. I'm merely offering a differing point of view, one which anyone who is a participant isn't likely to want to offer themselves due to the princess-like attitude being displayed right here by yourself and others. You don't disagree (I think) that the effects of ingesting Cannabis have well & truly gone after 4 or 5 weeks yet you insist that testing to this level is acceptable because it doesn't affect you & you don't give a rats arse about the freedom of choice of others, despite the fact that it presents no danger to anyone.
A fucking sad reflection on society really.
Ta
You weren't just offering a different opinion though. You were very aggressive in attacking anyone who said that testing for the presence of THC is fine with them.
I have no problem with people getting high. It is their and my prerogative to do whatever they like to their bodies. But for higher testing, there is undoubtedly a higher bill to be paid. It's the members that foot that bill, and as one I don't see why I should.
Forum whore
so approx how many heinys will you have the night before a race meeting?
Ta
Once I'm feeling the effects, I stop. I'm happy to admit this hasn't always been the case.
We're all hypocrites, I wonder where it is you're going with this line of questioning.
Que?
Cry me a fucking river, you've been as big a cunt in this thread as I have. I've been aggressive in disagreeing that any amateur sport body should have the right to dictate what it's members do in their own time that has no effect on what they do in the sport. So far the only argument I'm hearing from you lot is "because it's illegal" - so if this is not about safety, but some perverted idea that it's SNZ's job to uphold the drug laws of this country, then why aren't they also vetting for traffic convictions, etc? - I'll tell you why, because they're being discriminatory towards responsible Cannabis users, using methods deemed inappropriate for actual law-enforcement agencies to use in their failed "war against drugs".
You know for a fact that mouth-swab testing is more expensive than a piss test? Where's some evidence of this (not that I'm disagreeing, I don't know) as there was no mention of a higher cost in the OP from Hayden, who seems to have had the NZDDA sales pitch. I'm assuming that the parameters differ because one sample is taken from the inlet, the other from an outlet, so to speak, rather than due to a more involved/expensive process.
Where's Hayden with some facts in this regard?
Mr. Responsible
I'm silent when it comes to what I don't know. As far as cost is concerned, safety costs are a high priority, so the difference in cost should be classed as negligible.
100% of impaired riders who are high on marijuana, will test positive for THC in a piss test.
Not all who test positive for THC will be impaired to a level which effects racing. This is a moot point because it is an illegal substance and for an official organisation to make allowances for members to break the law, whether at 5 weeks before or 5 days would be ludicrous.
No they don't have to enforce NZ laws. But they don't have to adjust their rules and methods to allow criminals to participate.
What's to say a racer will abstain for a week before racing, then get a swab, pass, then light up a joint after the first race? A urine test shows people who have a drug habit. Those with a habit are unlikely to stop smoking and it's crazy to expect racers yo be tested before and after racing, when it could be too late, and after racing it is not a safety issue for that meeting.
Can you at least see why it is an advantage for SNZ to remove drugs from the sport?
By the way, SNZ is hardly an "amateur sporting body" when they write and enforce the rules for meetings in NZ which often hand out prize money of up to $100,000 in one night.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks