Drug testing?

[Madness]

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.

So the difference in cost is negligible. Thanks for that.

100% of impaired riders who are high on marijuana, will test positive for THC in a piss test.

And 100% of impaired riders who are high on marijuana, will also test positive for recent THC ingestion in a mouth-swab test, correct?

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.

But by using the more accurate test for actual impairment, the mouth-swab test, you're hardly making an allowance - you're just using a more appropriate test, one used by law enforcement agencies for road side testing.

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.

I'm saying the recent adjustment to your rules & methods could have been done better, more fairly, to address actual safety concerns. Instead, as you posted much earlier, SNZ is taking this approach to be seen in the best light by media, regardless of the potential infringement on riders human rights. I'm assuming that if there indeed are Cannabis users amongst SNZ riders then these "criminals" were already participating in the sport, it's only the adjustment that you've made that could now preclude them, regardless of whether or not it affects safety.

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.

So the poor cunt who doesn't have a habit, but had a single smoke 5 weeks prior to a race meet is fucked. You cunts are mean as. You admitted to experiencing slurred speech days after ingesting Cannabis (which is pretty unusual in my experience), yet you seem to think it plausible that someone who has gone to the efforts of passing a mouth-swab test will nek minnut go & spark a doob between races? Yeah, nah.

Can you at least see why it is an advantage for SNZ to remove drugs from the sport?

I can see the importance of removing drugs from the sport, but having a smoke 5 weeks prior is none of SNZ's fucking business.

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.

I suggest you look up the definition of a professional sport. Unless of course you hand out $100,000 to each rider every season or they're all employed full-time as riders, you're all amateurs I'm afraid.

[gixerracer]

Anyone using drugs at any time should get the fuck off any race track

[Drew]

Cry me a fucking river, you've been as big a cunt in this thread as I have.

Of course I have. The tone was set, and I obliged.

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".

My argument is not pointed singularly I think. Could be though, can't be bothered going back and quoting myself repeatedly to find out. I do remember a couple of analogies I made about safety not being furthered in any form, and it's likeness to something you said. But we'll forget that if you like since you decided to ignore the point I was making with them, and focus on how they could have been better analogies instead.

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?

I also don't know either way. Just sort of figure that actual measurements are taken it would cost more.

I'm saying the recent adjustment to your rules & methods could have been done better, more fairly, to address actual safety concerns. Instead, as you posted much earlier, SNZ is taking this approach to be seen in the best light by media, regardless of the potential infringement on riders human rights.

I guess it is someones human right to decide whether they obey the law or not. I still maintain that it's no one else's problem but their own should they get caught in the latter.

[Drew]

Anyone using drugs at any time should get the fuck off any race track

How was your Peroni the other day old man?

[nodrog:Me]

.....

But by using the more accurate test for actual impairment, the mouth-swab test....

But what if I eat hash muffins with my arse?

like the chicks that soak their tampons in vodka so they can pass the breathelyser test?

[Madness]

I also don't know either way. Just sort of figure that actual measurements are taken it would cost more.

So when you typed this...

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.

You were blowing hot air out of your arse? How unusual.

I do remember a couple of analogies I made about safety not being furthered in any form, and it's likeness to something you said. But we'll forget that if you like since you decided to ignore the point I was making with them, and focus on how they could have been better analogies instead.

The analogies you raised were all shit & I called you on it, you failed to respond. The key word here is failed.

I still maintain that it's no one else's problem but their own should they get caught in the latter.

And to be honest, I couldn't really care less as it does not & will not affect me directly. As I said earlier though, there isn't going to be much of a debate from within in light of the narrow-minded culture that's so clearly evident in racing circles. Better watch out Drew, it won't be long & they'll start testing for AIDS & other venereal diseases.

[Madness]

But what if I eat hash muffins with my arse?

like the chicks that soak their tampons in vodka so they can pass the breathelyser test?

Come on Gordy, we all know your arse is so loose that even a 3-layer banana cake with sticky icing would fall out.

[nodrog:Me]

Come on Gordy, we all know your arse is so loose that even a 3-layer banana cake with sticky icing would fall out.

what no candles!!!?

[Madness]

what no candles!!!?

Nope. They could be used to light a cleansack sized marijuana cigarette, smoked in the pits between races that only a piss-test could detect.

[Drew]

So when you typed this...




You were blowing hot air out of your arse? How unusual.

It didn't when I typed it, or you quoted it, state anything as fact. I think it is likely, and made that clear by saying undoubtedly. But I can see what you're saying, so I'll concede.

The analogies you raised were all shit & I called you on it, you failed to respond. The key word here is failed.

You gave what you described as a better analogy to one, but didn't respond at all to the point I was trying to make, that you know damn well you understood. Still haven't in fact.

And to be honest, I couldn't really care less as it does not & will not affect me directly. As I said earlier though, there isn't going to be much of a debate from within in light of the narrow-minded culture that's so clearly evident in racing circles. Better watch out Drew, it won't be long & they'll start testing for AIDS & other venereal diseases.

"Couldn't care less"? Really? You have been quite adamant/beligerant/abusive toward me, for someone with no vested interest or care about the subject. Think I'll call flat out bulshit on this score cheif!

It is asked of me when applying for my race lisence, if I suffer any medical condition that could effect my ability to race. Should the qualification be changed to include possible extra risk to emergency staff if I need medical attention and I do contract AIDS/HIV, then I will make it known. Not doing so would be irresponsible/selfish, and risk me not being able to compete through failing to meet the terms and conditions I have agreed to uphold.

[skippa1]

I believe( though stand to be corrected) that when testing sportsmen and women for performance enhancing drugs, they test for positive or negative. They don't discriminate between small or large doses, nor do they make any call on how much effect the drugs may impact performance. It's simply pass or fail.

in regard to the cost of tests, the ones we buy for work are, urine=$18, swab=$22. Urine test takes 3min, swab 12min. Urine gives conclusive yes or no, swab can be tainted with food or drink. Both have to be sent to ESR for confirmation.

If ya wanna race, just don't do drugs. Simple. Why should officials bother wasting time and dollars trying to confirm when someone had a smoke?

[Drew]

Nope. They could be used to light a cleansack sized marijuana cigarette, smoked in the pits between races that only a piss-test could detect.

Your sarcasm can be quite amusing, when you don't feel your superiority is challenged. You really should give some thought to therapy, there's no shame in it.

[Madness]

You gave what you described as a better analogy to one, but didn't respond at all to the point I was trying to make, that you know damn well you understood. Still haven't in fact.

Sorry Drew, I couldn't see either the point you were trying to make or the relevance of either of the two analogies you posted. I thought they were pretty pathetic really, maybe it was nap time?

"Couldn't care less"? Really? You have been quite adamant/beligerant/abusive toward me, for someone with no vested interest or care about the subject. Think I'll call flat out bulshit on this score cheif!

No, really, this subject has no relevance to me. I'm posting here purely for entertainment and in the interests of a balanced, reasoned debate.

It is asked of me when applying for my race lisence, if I suffer any medical condition that could effect my ability to race. Should the qualification be changed to include possible extra risk to emergency staff if I need medical attention and I do contract AIDS/HIV, then I will make it known. Not doing so would be irresponsible/selfish, and risk me not being able to compete through failing to meet the terms and conditions I have agreed to uphold.

That's nice. I can actually see the seriousness in what you've said here. On the other hand though, if MNZ wanted to know if you had genital warts, assuming it has no relevance to racing, how would you reply (let's just pretend you have them for the sake of discussion)

[Madness]

Your sarcasm can be quite amusing, when you don't feel your superiority is challenged. You really should give some thought to therapy, there's no shame in it.

I'm trying but you fuckers don't seem too receptive to it so far. Anyhow, seeing as shrinks don't usually have to wear steel-capped boots to work, I'm going to take your advice as yet more arse-emanating hot air.

[Drew]

Sorry Drew, I couldn't see either the point you were trying to make or the relevance of either of the two analogies you posted. I thought they were pretty pathetic really, maybe it was nap time?

Is that right? I'll paraphrase for the sake of time. You said that drug testing wasn't required now, because it's not been done before and hasn't caused issue...(Not that you actually know drugs haven't presented as an issue at the track, you aren't privvy to either discipline of racing incidents).

My meaning in my analogies was simple I think. Just because it hasn't been a problem, doesn't mean it won't. If we have the power to further reduce that risk, the precedent of not having done so is irrelevant.

No, really, this subject has no relevance to me. I'm posting here purely for entertainment and in the interests of a balanced, reasoned debate.

Balanced and reasoned? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ! You refuse to take anything on board from any point of view than your own. And then you misrepresent what is said and argue with that instead. "Debate", that is not. "Reasoned", something I don't think you comprehend.

That's nice. I can actually see the seriousness in what you've said here. On the other hand though, if MNZ wanted to know if you had genital warts, assuming it has no relevance to racing, how would you reply (let's just pretend you have them for the sake of discussion)

OK. In that instance, I would ask (at the same time as unintentionally confirming) why the club needed the info. Failing a satisfactory response, I would make formal complaint. Were my complaint not met with a satisfactory result still, I'D DECIDE WHETHER I STILL WANTED TO CONTINUE WITH THE SPORT JUST LIKE ANY DRUG USER HAS THE POWER TO DO.