So it's not about safety then Drew?Originally Posted by Drew
Perhaps it's about nothing more than a latent superiority complex.
Forum whore
So it's not about safety then Drew?
Perhaps it's about nothing more than a latent superiority complex.
Ta
I think that it is, and that zero is the right number to enforce for all mind altering substances in a race environment, to achieve that safety.
Mine, or that of the governing body?
I am not superior in any way. I openly admit to enjoying all sorts of substances (when good gear is available). I do get full of myself from time to time, but there's usually quite the cue formed to point out what a dick I'm being. The few times they haven't, I genuinely feel bad about when I later figure things out.
Forum whore
Zero impairment should be sufficient Drew.
Race organisers/employers should look for a way to determine (and ensure) that - rather than making themselves the moral authority on how people should live their private lives.
Instead, they simply fall back on the weak as piss argument "But it's illegal anyway".
Ta
It seems like pandering to another minority to me sorry man.
No one is saying don't do it. We're saying don't have it in your system when you come to the track.
Forum whore
But we don't care if you're fried on legal highs.
Forum whore
It's not about pandering to a minority Drew.
It's about people minding their own fucking business when someone else's business doesn't adversely impact on them.
Mr. Responsible
Your argument, urine testing could ban unimpaired people from racing, while allowing impaired people on the track, right?
Because the urine test mightn't cover all mind altering substances.
So stoners will switch to legal highs to get around the testing (most stoners hate the synthetics, but I could see that happening).
And fair enough, that's worth investigating.
But how will a mouth swab improve that situation any more? A mouth swab picks up less drugs, so stoners will have more alternatives to switch to.
As for minding their own business, they are. They are ensuring they can remain insurable, funded and have a positive public image.
No one is forcing anyone to take drugs or not, no one is forcing anyone to race speedway. But if you want to take on the responsibility of operating a deadly race vehicle, part of your responsibility is to have zero drugs in your system.
You are right about synthetic highs, they need to test for as many drugs as possible to avoid people dodging tested drugs with non-tested drugs.
Forum whore
Fuck's sake - you're so one dimensional aren't you.
Go for your life on the urine tests - but if a urine test shows traces of THC then do a fucking swab test to see whether it's been recent usage.
It's not fucking rocket surgery.
In the riders seat
Its not fucking rocket surgery to know if tested and positive you'll get told to fuck off either
"If you can make black marks on a straight from the time you turn out of a corner until the braking point of the next turn, then you have enough power."
Mr. Responsible
Yup... Because that's zero tolerance.
Who are SNZ to say "this level of THC is acceptable to race"?
If they were to allow traces of a drug, they would have to allow traces of alcohol. So breathaliser readings of positive results can race?
Forum whore
If there's no impairment Warwick then it's nothing more than the superiority complex I mentioned earlier.
In the riders seat
I think we need to test you for impairment
"If you can make black marks on a straight from the time you turn out of a corner until the braking point of the next turn, then you have enough power."
Forum whore
There's plenty of people out there on racetracks that have a mental impairment totally unrelated to drugs Warwick.
Ta
Yeah, but it's ok 'cause we all race Sidecars together and know we're as fucked as each other.
i'm motarded
How is Shaun these days?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks