Drug testing?

[skippa1]

And like you said before, there could be a very good reason for that.

(And it's not necessarily because all racers agree with the current reasoning).

Looks like I'm right on all counts then. Righto, I'm off to other threads, ta ta

[haydes55]

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.

Yes, surprisingly, a racing governing body has to follow the law......

Legally, having to provide measures to reduce risks to all involved. Legally, marijuana (using the big word to sound smarter than me is) is classed as a mind altering illegal substance. Since this has potential to alter competitors minds (according to the government) which could impede split second, life saving decisions, measures need to be in place to eliminate it's presence.
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.

[Katman]

Yes, surprisingly, a racing governing body has to follow the law......

Legally, having to provide measures to reduce risks to all involved. Legally, marijuana (using the big word to sound smarter than me is) is classed as a mind altering illegal substance. Since this has potential to alter competitors minds (according to the government) which could impede split second, life saving decisions, measures need to be in place to eliminate it's presence.
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.

But a swab test would certainly provide a far more accurate indication of the possibility of impairment.

Oh, that's right - you don't want to incur the cost.

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

[Katman]

Yes, surprisingly, a racing governing body has to follow the law......

Do they ban anyone who has demerit points?

[oneblackflag]

Do they ban anyone who has demerit points?

I would have thought someone with demerit points (especially from multiple infringements) would be showing signs of a risk taking/reckless personality, they could quite possibly be putting other racers safety at risk on the track (almost certainly more so than the racer that passed the doobie 3 weeks ago while at his mates 30th).

[haydes55]

But a swab test would certainly provide a far more accurate indication of the possibility of impairment.

Oh, that's right - you don't want to incur the cost.

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

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

I said, you can't guarantee that THC only impedes those who have THC in their saliva.

As for demerits, that's just a stupid argument, no racing body is trying to enforce unrelated laws. What you do when you drive in public is entirely up to the police to reduce risk. When it comes to racing, it is up to the officials to reduce risk. Treating the road rules with no respect has no reflection on how a person treats racing rules. If I raced like I drove I'd merge into the first corner, so penalty points for driving are a retarded comparison when they are completely different situations.

[Berries]

I would have thought someone with demerit points (especially from multiple infringements) would be showing signs of a risk taking/reckless personality, they could quite possibly be putting other racers safety at risk on the track (almost certainly more so than the racer that passed the doobie 3 weeks ago while at his mates 30th).

Wow. Isn't riding a motorbike showing signs of risk taking? Or does everyone ride around at 30km/h on your track?

[oneblackflag]

Wow. Isn't riding a motorbike showing signs of risk taking? Or does everyone ride around at 30km/h on your track?

Yes riding is risky isn't it. I don't see how the guy who smoked 3 weeks ago and is not currently impaired contributes one bit of fuck all to an increased safety risk.

If you keep getting demerit points for speeding etc it seems logical to me that you are more prone to taking risks than your average rider (possibly just unlucky huh?). If its relevant to test and ban people for things they do in their private life (that don't necessarily impair their performance on track), why would it be irrelevant to look into their traffic violations in the interests of safety? Hell why stop there, there could be guys that are terribly depressed, maybe suicidal coming to race... better do a psychological evaluation pre race too.

[oneblackflag]

Treating the road rules with no respect has no reflection on how a person treats racing rules.

How do you know this?

[onearmedbandit]

Interesting that those that don't race are the most vocal and outspoken about this, defending "rights" to smoke and participate (even if there has been days or weeks between the two events)or arguing about the suitability of the tests.

those that race should choose. I haven't seen any racer here say they would be happy to share the course with anyone that has THC in their system. These guys take the risks on the track, let them decide what's fair and what isn't.

Oh I guarantee there are racers here who have consumed cannabis with 8wks of racing here who are holding their tongue.

[skippa1]

Oh I guarantee there are racers here who have consumed cannabis with 8wks of racing here who are holding their tongue.

No doubt about that, in fact I eluded to that very thing a few posts back.

What i am saying, is it's up to those that race and their governing body to make the rules, not those with a keyboard. That includes the type of test used, when and where.....

[McWild]

I think we can all agree that if you ride motorcycles, especially if you race motorcycles, you don't care about your own life or anybody else's.

So it's really a moot point.

[Kickaha]

I think we can all agree that if you ride motorcycles, especially if you race motorcycles, you don't care about your own life or anybody else's.

So it's really a moot point.

I dont agree with that at all you ginga gollywog

[budda]

No doubt about that, in fact I eluded to that very thing a few posts back.

What i am saying, is it's up to those that race and their governing body to make the rules, not those with a keyboard. That includes the type of test used, when and where.....

MmmmHmmmmmm .........

[haydes55]

Yes riding is risky isn't it. I don't see how the guy who smoked 3 weeks ago and is not currently impaired contributes one bit of fuck all to an increased safety risk.



If you keep getting demerit points for speeding etc it seems logical to me that you are more prone to taking risks than your average rider (possibly just unlucky huh?). If its relevant to test and ban people for things they do in their private life (that don't necessarily impair their performance on track), why would it be irrelevant to look into their traffic violations in the interests of safety? Hell why stop there, there could be guys that are terribly depressed, maybe suicidal coming to race... better do a psychological evaluation pre race too.

If someone had a joint 3 weeks ago, and is NOT impaired, that competitor is no risk to safety.

If another has a joint 3 weeks ago, turns up on race day and IS impaired, this competitor is a risk to safety.

How can these two be distinguished?
Unless it can be proven that EVERY person (from a 45kg 16 year old girl, to a frail 72 year old), will not be impaired after X amount of time, then zero has to be the limit.

No one is arguing that if you have any THC in your system, you must be high. But THC in your system proves you COULD be impaired. "Could" is reason enough, in terms of risk management.