PDA

View Full Version : Should tennis test for drugs that do not enhance performance?


griffin
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:09 PM
I was thinking about this in the one Hingis thread. I really donít think tennis or other individual sports should test for non-performance enhancing drugs.

Itís not that I approve of illegal drug use (although I admit I donít get as worked up about them as some do), but a) I donít think itís the toursí responsibility to play cops (itís not like they test the youngsters for alcohol use, or check their tax returns Ėhell, they donít do a think about coaches bonking underage players) and b) I really think itís a playerís own business what they do off-court.

Itís different with team sports, I think. If Tom Bradyís hitting the crack pipe, his addiction and his play will affect his whole team and their success, so the team has a vested interest in making sure heís not abusing substances. The teams just work collectively, as the NFL, to address that interest.

But if a player wants to trash her results or her career because sheís stoned? Different story.

What do yíall think? (remember, the question isnít whether coke, pot, etc., are ďokĒ or not or should be legal or not, but should the WTA test for it and punish people who test positive).

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:11 PM
they test for all known drugs

what else they gonna do, bring in the cops to test the players and then arrest them :o

griffin
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:12 PM
they test for all known drugs

what else they gonna do, bring in the cops to test the players and then arrest them :o

No, I'm saying they (the tour) shouldn't consider recreational drugs at all.

The Daviator
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:13 PM
First of all, you cannot dismiss it as a performance-enhancer as some have said in the main thread, in addition it tarnishes the image of the sport and all that stuff, so yes absolutely.

IceHock
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:14 PM
No they shouldn't, if it does not enhace their performance in anyway. What they do in their personal life is up to them, it's their life.

sfselesfan
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:15 PM
Yes...STIMULANTS ONLY. (I have a problem with the wording of the poll, because I think the justification of the first choice is to narrow...but I had to pick it anyway.)

Generally, I think they should be free to experiment like any other person...role model or not. BUT

Cocaine is a stimulant and should be included. The other recreational drugs should not be tested.

SF

BuTtErFrEnA
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:15 PM
yes they should be tested....they change you (the player) in some way and can alter your body functions even if they have a let down the high can be experienced during the match and that is not what we need...it tarnishes everything...no drugs allowed period...can't have law-breakers on tour either

Denise4925
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:16 PM
I chose "of course", but not for the reason given. My reason is that every sport should test for recreational drugs for a couple of reasons. One, the average person working on just about any job is subject to drug testing and sports should be no different, in my opinion. Recreational drug use doesn't just effect the individual, it effects everyone around them. Anything can happen in any given situation and the other players should be able to feel safe in their environment, i.e. the lockerrooms and not have to worry about another player either getting high, or is high and acting a damn fool.

Secondly, these athletes make so much money and can get caught up in drugs and alcohol because they are celebrities and it's easily accessible to them. It wouldn't hard for them to become addicted. I feel testing is a way to deter that from happening. So many athlete's careers have been derailed by substance abuse and if testing can cut down on that happening, it's better for the athlete, the sport and the fans.

griffin
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:16 PM
First of all, you cannot dismiss it as a performance-enhancer as some have said in the main thread,

What if a drug doesn't, though? What if there's no known performance benefit?

in addition it tarnishes the image of the sport and all that stuff, so yes absolutely.

I would find this more convincing if they also cracked down on other things that tarnish the image of the sport - see "coaches bonking underage players." Somehow THAT they can leave to the authorities.

kiwifan
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:16 PM
If my Dallas Cowboys have to be tested, all professional athletes should be tested. :)

AnnaK_4ever
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:17 PM
#3.

Rosslyn
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:18 PM
stupid poll, I don't want to pay a ticket for a tennis match and then watch smiling players reaching nirvana

Demska
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:18 PM
Thread #7 :o

How many more.

hablo
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:20 PM
Cocaine is a stimulant ...

Yes, they should test for recreational drugs too.

Wayn77
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:22 PM
I'm still trying to digest this news. Surely Tina wouldn't be so stupid to attempt to play under the influence. There must be some mistake.

Coke isn't conducive to an athletic sport at all.

Sure your gonna want to blast the cover of the ball, keep arguing with the umpire and banter with the crowd. Your coordination is going to be completely messed up. In other words if you are high on coke playing professional tennis: you will stick out like a sore thumb.

In answer to the question - NO.

griffin
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:23 PM
I edited the poll question for clarity.

One, the average person working on just about any job is subject to drug testing and sports should be no different, in my opinion.

OK, but not all workplaces test - mine doesn't, I've never worked anywhere that did. So if different industries and different companies can have different policies, why not different sports?

As for "they make money and might fall into abuse" - again, that's their business, imo. We don't test rich people generally, and not all players on the tour are really making that much anyway.

AnnaK_4ever
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:24 PM
Cocaine is a stimulant ...

Yes, they should test for recreational drugs too.

One has to be an imbecile to try to enhance one's results by taking cocaine.

LudwigDvorak
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:26 PM
I voted "May as well." But if they are tested positive to non-enhancing drugs, something should be done either way. I'd be crushed if I found out my idols took drugs, puts a complete damper on them and the sport.

AnnaK_4ever
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:26 PM
the average person working on just about any job is subject to drug testing and sports should be no different, in my opinion.

Speak for yourself.

hablo
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:29 PM
One has to be an imbecile to try to enhance one's results by taking cocaine.

You said it.

Yet athletes keep taking drugs they can get caught for doing...

Slumpsova
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:30 PM
so how can you describe "drugs that do not enhance performance"?
only when the player loses to the lower ranks? :rolleyes:

vutt
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:31 PM
Well, they help to relax after first round losses. While clean girls have to deal with losses hard way. So in a way it's unfair.

griffin
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:34 PM
so how can you describe "drugs that do not enhance performance"?
only when the player loses to the lower ranks? :rolleyes:

Surely you are not accusing ME of trying to defend Hingis with this poll?

Slumpsova
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:37 PM
Surely you are not accusing ME of trying to defend Hingis with this poll?
no, i just don't think your poll making any sense.

Denise4925
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:40 PM
I edited the poll question for clarity.



OK, but not all workplaces test - mine doesn't, I've never worked anywhere that did. So if different industries and different companies can have different policies, why not different sports?

As for "they make money and might fall into abuse" - again, that's their business, imo. We don't test rich people generally, and not all players on the tour are really making that much anyway.

Well, yeah it is kind of everyone's business if they are taking illegal substances. Not only would it be a waste of talent and opportunity for the player, but the sponsors who have millions of dollars invested in their careers lose out, and so do the fans. Who wants to spend good money on a ticket for an event to see a drugged out player come out of the locker room and not be able to perform to their potential, when they had a choice not to be in that condition? Tennis tickets for the average fan is pretty expensive.

Denise4925
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:44 PM
Speak for yourself.

:weirdo: What does that even mean? I said "the average person", meaning not everyone and if that doesn't include you, then okay. :shrug: Jesus, people get so riled up over nothing on this message board. :rolleyes:

griffin
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:48 PM
no, i just don't think your poll making any sense.

There are drugs athletes take to get an edge when they train or compete.

There are drugs that do nothing to help them train or compete that athletes, like the rest of us, take for a variety of other reasons.

Not that hard to understand :weirdo:

Denise - no, it's not our business if someone wastes their talent. I don't have some right to see Martina on court (rather than an opium den) or to see Serena on court (and not on a sit-com).

The sponsors have clauses that get them out of contracts if a player gets busted any serious illegal activity. I have no problem with that. I just don't think the tour needs to be involved.

Gallofa
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:53 PM
I was going to vote "Yes", but I do not really like any of the options you have provided, griffin :p.

Drugs should not be allowed in sports, period. I am not entirely sure of the effects of cocaine, but I believe it helps to feel more energetic, reduces the fatigue, and provides greater mental clarity... so I am not sure whether it is definitely performing enhancing, but there could be even a case for that.

griffin
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:56 PM
It's like any other job that tests for illegal drugs.

See if you can guess my position on testing in the workplace :lol:

Slumpsova
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:57 PM
There are drugs athletes take to get an edge when they train or compete.

There are drugs that do nothing to help them train or compete that athletes, like the rest of us, take for a variety of other reasons.

Not that hard to understand :weirdo:

Denise - no, it's not our business if someone wastes their talent. I don't have some right to see Martina on court (rather than an opium den) or to see Serena on court (and not on a sit-com).

The sponsors have clauses that get them out of contracts if a player gets busted any serious illegal activity. I have no problem with that. I just don't think the tour needs to be involved.
and i asked you how to describe the word "drugs that do not enhance performance." what if player A takes drug but she end up losing to an unranked player. will you consider that drug "does not enhance her performance" and give her a free walk? :rolleyes:

come on. you know it's silly. taking drugs is unprofessionalism and should get penalized no matter what. lol i just can't believe someone would have this stupid thought, let alone making it as a poll.

DarkchildSwiss
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:59 PM
Of course, theyíre role models, and we have to think about the sportís image

kiwifan
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:59 PM
One has to be an imbecile to try to enhance one's results by taking cocaine. I don't know. Going into the 3rd set and you're feeling tired. Take a "bathroom break" and emerge full of energy.

You said it.

Yet athletes keep taking drugs they can get caught for doing... That's for sure and every time they get caught what do they do...

...deny, deny, deny...

...Even with positive B samples, heck positive P samples...

...even when photographed doing drugs, they deny, deny, deny...

...as long as they deny they have a chance to keep sponsor money coming in. Just like why certain players don't officially retire, they just "stop playing" while hinting at a comeback every now and then. :devil:

Denise4925
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:01 PM
There are drugs athletes take to get an edge when they train or compete.

There are drugs that do nothing to help them train or compete that athletes, like the rest of us, take for a variety of other reasons.

Not that hard to understand :weirdo:

Denise - no, it's not our business if someone wastes their talent. I don't have some right to see Martina on court (rather than an opium den) or to see Serena on court (and not on a sit-com).

The sponsors have clauses that get them out of contracts if a player gets busted any serious illegal activity. I have no problem with that. I just don't think the tour needs to be involved.

Oh I totally disagree with you. I do have a right to see a good performance from an athlete who is not affected by drug use, when I pay my money to see them. They are a commodity just like anything else you pay for. If I pay money and find out later the player I paid to see cannot perform because they are too high, I want my money back. That hurts the tour, the sponsors and the organizers.

And, yeah all contracts have clauses the allows for rescision, but what about the money they've already invested? What about the legal fees for the contract issues? This in turn effects the economy because the consumer will ultimately pay the costs. It's a ripple effect. How can you have no problem with that?

terjw
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:01 PM
Of course. It's like any other job that tests for illegal drugs.
They are professionals and should not be using any type of illegal substance to aid them on or off the court.

I don't know anyone in any job having to undergo tests for taking drugs. Only sportsmen and women - and the aim is to root out taking performance enhancing drugs. Some professions - Drivers, train drivers, pilots are not allowed to. But even these professions - I didn't think they went through routine drug tests.

No - they shouldn't test for or take any action against recreational drugs - which are going to have the opposite effect to performance enhaning anyway.

Wayn77
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:04 PM
What Martina or anybody chooses to indulge in the privacy of her own home is her business and nobody damn else's.

If any of that shit is still in the system when training or competing she knows she is isn't going to able to perform.

Coke might help the deluded at the snooker/pool table or even around the poker table. It sure is going to mess up your tennis.

So: I believe there shouldn't be any testing for recreational drugs.

AnnaK_4ever
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:09 PM
I know plenty of people who have to undergo tests for drugs in many different professional fields.

Anyway, you can't tell me that an athlete who's high on coke won't have an advantage over an athlete that is not. That's just absurd. In the long run, yes, it'll destroy their health, but that won't matter while they're winning.

... and Martina has been winning sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much lately...

griffin
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:12 PM
So, you wouldn't mind having an elementary school teacher that's addicted to methamphetamines being responsible for your children's education? Or a police officer that's addicted to crack cocaine protecting an inner city neighborhood?

Seriously?

I don't have a problem with drug testing when there is a legitimate public safety or public policy issue. Police, firefighters, crane operators, people who work directly with children...

But the kid ringing up my groceries? The accountants upstairs? I don't think there's a compelling enough reason to get in someone's business like that.

Wayn77
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:13 PM
I know plenty of people who have to undergo tests for drugs in many different professional fields.

Anyway, you can't tell me that an athlete who's high on coke won't have an advantage over an athlete that is not. That's just absurd. In the long run, yes, it'll destroy their health, but that won't matter while they're winning.

An athlete high on coke will look good for five minutes and then probably suffer a heart attack or seizure. Any intelligent sportsperson will know that ... it just don't work.

Denise4925
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:17 PM
I don't have a problem with drug testing when there is a legitimate public safety or public policy issue. Police, firefighters, crane operators, people who work directly with children...

But the kid ringing up my groceries? The accountants upstairs? I don't think there's a compelling enough reason to get in someone's business like that.

LOL griffin you just used two examples of where another person's money would be effected. If the kid ringing up your groceries is high, there's more potential that a mistake in the transaction would occur, either to your benefit or to the store owner's. Also, what if the kid who rang up your groceries, in the process of bagging those groceries dropped a large can of vegatables on your toe and broke it because he was high. Would you care if he was high then? Also, I don't want the accountant who has anything to do with the company's money who's paying me to be high. :lol:

Denise4925
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:17 PM
http://xore.ca/missingthepoint.png

:spit: :haha:

AnnaK_4ever
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:20 PM
http://xore.ca/missingthepoint.png

Not at all.

What I am trying to say is there is no strict correlation between taking drugs/doping and factual improvement of results in sports games. It's not like tennis player needs only to run faster or hit harder to win matches, tennis is not powerlifting, cross country or cycling.

Yasmine
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:21 PM
I kinda agree with you Griffin but there is one huge issue imho that is difficult to overcome
How do you define a "non performance enhancing" substance? Is taking some drugs who won't physically help you be stronger, but maybe help you relax mentally and struggle less in front of pressure in this category or not? Either way you can discuss it. So although there probably are drugs that are not worth checking because players would just be dumb taking them (some have been mentionned in here) I still think checking them all is best.

griffin
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:23 PM
I don't want the accountant who has anything to do with the company's money who's paying me to be high. :lol:


I don't either. But I also don't want them hung over, etc. I don't want them being a lazy, corrupt bastard, either. If someone's job performance sucks, you can put them on warning or fire them. (or, if they're a tennis player, let their ranking suffer the consequences) Who cares about the reason?

I just think drug testing invades your privacy, and there needs to be a really compelling reason for that to happen.

Slumpsova
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:24 PM
I kinda agree with you Griffin but there is one huge issue imho that is difficult to overcome
How do you define a "non performance enhancing" substance? Is taking some drugs who won't physically help you be stronger, but maybe help you relax mentally and struggle less in front of pressure in this category or not? Either way you can discuss it. So although there probably are drugs that are not worth checking because players would just be dumb taking them (some have been mentionned in here) I still think checking them all is best.
that's totally my points.

griffin
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:24 PM
Is taking some drugs who won't physically help you be stronger, but maybe help you relax mentally ...

So do you think Amelie should get busted for drinking wine?

Allez-H
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:27 PM
I don't know. I'm a bit torn. I'm not to sure about coke being a stimulant. It might for a certain amount of times, but it will ruin you before it really provides any enhancing aspects.

I do think that it's somewhat a job for cops and not the WTA. Though I'm no supporter of any kind of drugs whatsoever, I'm not to keen about drugcontrols for anything that isn't enhancing anyones performance. If somebody chooses to ruin their careers, lives, ... with coke thats their doing and in time they'll punish themselves just by using it. But somebody's personal life and choices (no matter how wrong and even illegal) should not be investigated by a certain party that isn't related to the legal forces. As for WTA trying to keep a positive image, they'll pretty much tarnish it themselves by 'catching' the person in question and then smear it in the media.

I don't know, I've just been sceptical on this ever since Younes El Aynaoui was banned for 4 months a few years back, because he was tested positive for marijuana which is everything but a stimulant.

Denise4925
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:28 PM
I don't either. But I also don't want them hung over, etc. I don't want them being a lazy, corrupt bastard, either. If someone's job performance sucks, you can put them on warning or fire them. (or, if they're a tennis player, let their ranking suffer the consequences) Who cares about the reason?

I just think drug testing invades your privacy, and there needs to be a really compelling reason for that to happen.

Drug testing cuts down on having to fire or warn or get someone help because their job performance sucks, which in turn cuts down on turnover. My point is that yes, you are correct, there are all kinds of reasons other than drugs to make someone's job performance suffer, but in my opinion, not only is drug testing a deterrent, but it's a form of risk management.

chuvack
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:30 PM
LOL griffin you just used two examples of where another person's money would be effected. If the kid ringing up your groceries is high, there's more potential that a mistake in the transaction would occur, either to your benefit or to the store owner's. Also, what if the kid who rang up your groceries, in the process of bagging those groceries dropped a large can of vegatables on your toe and broke it because he was high. Would you care if he was high then? Also, I don't want the accountant who has anything to do with the company's money who's paying me to be high. :lol:


agree 100%.

Tennis players shouldnt be allowed to do coke while on the job, even if its not listed as "peformance enhancing".

I feel sorry for Hingis but I can't say that I believe her.

griffin
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:33 PM
Drug testing cuts down on having to fire or warn or get someone help because their job performance sucks, which in turn cuts down on turnover.

How does that cut down on turnover? Whether someone gets fired for poor performance or drug us, you still need to replace them.

I guess I just see it differently - I think with certain exceptions, your employer should focus on your job performance and not get hung up on the possible cause.

Kart
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:40 PM
Someone explain to me how exactly cocaine is a consistently performance enhancing drug.

I do not think tennis players need to be tested for recreational drugs unless they are performance enhancing and frankly I can't think of many that would be.

What they do in their own time is their business - if they perform badly, it's them that lose out.

I feel differently about drug testing in the workplace - if employers want the best out of their workers then I suppose there's an argument there for monitoring. You want to know that your employee can be depended on.

Martian Willow
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:45 PM
So do you think Amelie should get busted for drinking wine?

You know for people like this, drugs only ever means the illegal ones.

pepsi
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:45 PM
There is an international body that decides which drugs are classified as performance enhancing or not. It's called WADA. Roughly performance enhancing drugs are those that increase an athletes energy, mass, or recuperative ability beyond what the body can produce and is capable of naturally. Downers don't usually fall in that category but stimulants and uppers do, like cocaine or even excessive amounts of caffeine.

In response to the poll, sports leagues are companies like any other company. If companies have them sports leagues should not be immune from them, for image's sake or whatever reason. And as sports league are in the public eye more so than other companies, they have an interest to protect their public image more so.

Martian Willow
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:45 PM
Of course, drugs shouldn't be illegal anyway, but thats another story. :)

ico4498
Nov 1st, 2007, 08:11 PM
I do not think tennis players need to be tested for recreational drugs unless they are performance enhancing and frankly I can't think of many that would be.

caffeine is on the banned substance list. its a recreational drug that could be a performance enhancer.

i think professional sports are obligated to protect themselves from bad publicity. if they do away with testing for feel good drugs, should they also do away with all the 'Code of Conduct' rules that apply to off-court behavior?

The Olympics probably won't go along ...

Denise4925
Nov 1st, 2007, 08:15 PM
How does that cut down on turnover? Whether someone gets fired for poor performance or drug us, you still need to replace them.

I guess I just see it differently - I think with certain exceptions, your employer should focus on your job performance and not get hung up on the possible cause.

Well, usually they drug test before you are hired and then have intermittent testing at various points during employment without advanced notice. That's how it cuts down on low job performance and high turnover.

Denise4925
Nov 1st, 2007, 08:17 PM
Someone explain to me how exactly cocaine is a consistently performance enhancing drug.

I do not think tennis players need to be tested for recreational drugs unless they are performance enhancing and frankly I can't think of many that would be.

What they do in their own time is their business - if they perform badly, it's them that lose out.

I feel differently about drug testing in the workplace - if employers want the best out of their workers then I suppose there's an argument there for monitoring. You want to know that your employee can be depended on.

How is that different from how the tour should feel? Especially with their top players?

Kart
Nov 1st, 2007, 08:36 PM
i think professional sports are obligated to protect themselves from bad publicity. if they do away with testing for feel good drugs, should they also do away with all the 'Code of Conduct' rules that apply to off-court behavior?


I think you're extrapolating a bit far.

We're primarily talking about players taking drugs in their own time - not turning up high to matches. If they're doing that then one would hope someone stepped in to refuse to let them play.

BTW interesting about the caffeince I didn't know that, does that mean players can't even drink tea or coffee ?

Frode
Nov 1st, 2007, 08:38 PM
Dumbest thing I've heard in a while griffin.

Kart
Nov 1st, 2007, 08:40 PM
How is that different from how the tour should feel? Especially with their top players?

I think it's pretty clear that the toothless tour has little power over its top players Denise.

If anything, they dictate their terms to the WTA officials, not vice versa.

If you were talking about sponsors insisting their players had drug tests performed to protect their investments, I would have no problem with that.

griffin
Nov 1st, 2007, 08:49 PM
BTW interesting about the caffeince I didn't know that, does that mean players can't even drink tea or coffee ?

I think it's like pseudo-ephedrine, aka Sudafed (sp?) - they can take it, but only in certain amounts?

#1SteffiGraf#1
Nov 1st, 2007, 08:51 PM
Yes, they should...

1)Its a stimulant like many have said, and...

2)The WTA is a business too lets not forget...if you owned a busniess would you want your employees using rec. drugs?

It tarnishes the league!

Nikki
Nov 1st, 2007, 08:57 PM
I think you're extrapolating a bit far.

We're primarily talking about players taking drugs in their own time - not turning up high to matches. If they're doing that then one would hope someone stepped in to refuse to let them play.

BTW interesting about the caffeince I didn't know that, does that mean players can't even drink tea or coffee ?

Players can drink tea, coffee etc. Caffeine is hard to avoid as it is found in many food & drink products. The IOC limit is 12 micrograms/ml urine.

Caffeine has been proven to enhance performance.

I personally think that athletes should be tested for recreational & performance enhancing drugs as many crossover. They are role models after all & many earning serious amounts of money.

Denise4925
Nov 1st, 2007, 08:57 PM
I think it's pretty clear that the toothless tour has little power over its top players Denise.

If anything, they dictate their terms to the WTA officials, not vice versa.

If you were talking about sponsors insisting their players had drug tests performed to protect their investments, I would have no problem with that.

Well, they are not so toothless that they can't ban a player from playing on the tour if said player breaks the rules promulgated by the tour. How is it different from a player playing using performance enhancing drugs and recreational illegal drugs if both are banned by the tour?

The point I've been trying to make is that not only does the player eventually suffer from such drug use, but so does the tour, the sponsors, the event organizers and the fans, ergo the sport itself. They are all interconnected in some form or other. They all have something at stake and have an interest, just like the employer you spoke about wanting the "employee" be able to perform at its best ability at all times.

griffin
Nov 1st, 2007, 09:00 PM
2)The WTA is a business too lets not forget...if you owned a busniess would you want your employees using rec. drugs?


I might not want them drinking or staying out late, either - should I have the right to test for that?

ico4498
Nov 1st, 2007, 09:03 PM
I think you're extrapolating a bit far.

perhaps 'all' was a bit exaggerated, but i think its certainly relevant to the parts that protect tennis from bad publicity.

BTW interesting about the caffeince I didn't know that, does that mean players can't even drink tea or coffee ?

sure they can, only abnormal levels would result in a public positive.

#1SteffiGraf#1
Nov 1st, 2007, 09:05 PM
I might not want them drinking or staying out late, either - should I have the right to test for that?

Because drinking can be moderated by the individual alot more easilly than cocaine can be moderated?

Im not saying the players cant unwind and have fun once in a while, but cocaine is too much for me.

I would understand player will drink once in a while...but cocaine????

Sorry, gotta draw the line SOMEWHERE

saint2
Nov 1st, 2007, 09:07 PM
Of course there shouldn NOT be a test for drugs that do not enhance performance...I dont see any logic reason why that test should be...

Cam'ron Giles
Nov 1st, 2007, 09:10 PM
I dont see what the problem is if a player smoke a little weed in there personal time...:shrug:

Kart
Nov 1st, 2007, 09:26 PM
perhaps 'all' was a bit exaggerated, but i think its certainly relevant to the parts that protect tennis from bad publicity.

I actually owe you an apology because I misread your post. I didn't know that off-court code of conduct existed.

Re: caffeine - is it actually a recreational drug other than in some drinks ? I know people use it to stay awake before exams (!) but otherwise anyone taking it must be using it for performance enhancement rather than recreation surely ?

Denise4925
Nov 1st, 2007, 09:31 PM
I dont see what the problem is if a player smoke a little weed in there personal time...:shrug:

Cam, are you smokin' now?:smoke: :p

Kart
Nov 1st, 2007, 09:38 PM
Well, they are not so toothless that they can't ban a player from playing on the tour if said player breaks the rules promulgated by the tour. How is it different from a player playing using performance enhancing drugs and recreational illegal drugs if both are banned by the tour?

The point I've been trying to make is that not only does the player eventually suffer from such drug use, but so does the tour, the sponsors, the event organizers and the fans, ergo the sport itself. They are all interconnected in some form or other. They all have something at stake and have an interest, just like the employer you spoke about wanting the "employee" be able to perform at its best ability at all times.

I was being a bit flippant Denise I know but I have a hard time holding much regard for a tour that doesn't penalise its players for last minute withdrawls, stop frequent blatant coaching during matches, prevent exploitation of its younger players by coaches, tanking matches and who knows what else.

I'm not disputing that players should not take recreational illegal drugs if the tour has banned them but I question whether they should be banned in the first place. Performance enhancing drugs are a completely different issue and they should obviously not be allowed.

I take your point about the repercussions of drug use but we are talking about the lines we draw where a player's responsibility to their tennis ends and their private life begins. I don't care if Justine Henin uses ecstasy on a night out :tape: as long as she turns up fit to her matches. We should not IMHO be dictating to these people how to live their lives when they are not on the tennis court.

As for the players suffering from drug use, it's a sad fact that society doesn't seem all that interesting in intervening - look at Amy Winehouse.

I think we might have to agree to disagree ;).

Jenny.C.Fan
Nov 1st, 2007, 09:47 PM
No i don't think so, if it isn't performance enhancing then they shouldn't be tested for it, it's down to the individual what they want to take as long as it doesn't enhance their performance.

thrust
Nov 1st, 2007, 09:52 PM
Well, they help to relax after first round losses. While clean girls have to deal with losses hard way. So in a way it's unfair.
Never would have thought of that scenario-lol!! Interestng point though.

Cp6uja
Nov 1st, 2007, 09:55 PM
If some drugs not enhance performance - i'm against suspension and official punishment. But i agree that tennis players is some kind of "rolle models"... so i think is enough to publish results and for example some cocain positive player will have big $$$ (advertise problems in future) damage because that and even problems with low and police!

Gallofa
Nov 1st, 2007, 09:55 PM
Someone explain to me how exactly cocaine is a consistently performance enhancing drug.

I do not think tennis players need to be tested for recreational drugs unless they are performance enhancing and frankly I can't think of many that would be.

What they do in their own time is their business - if they perform badly, it's them that lose out.

I feel differently about drug testing in the workplace - if employers want the best out of their workers then I suppose there's an argument there for monitoring. You want to know that your employee can be depended on.

As someone who pays over 40 quid to see good tennis at Wimbledon, I expect players to give their absolute best. Tanking, taking drugs, etc. are ways of cheating the public.

Derek.
Nov 1st, 2007, 09:56 PM
Thread #7 :o

How many more.

18,128 posts. :o

How many more. :rolleyes:

Renaissance
Nov 1st, 2007, 10:24 PM
"Mens sana in corpore sano."
Martina did an advertising for SANEX some years ago,didn't she?

Exiliado
Nov 1st, 2007, 10:28 PM
No, I'm saying they (the tour) shouldn't consider recreational drugs at all.

Drugs are drugs. They should consider all kind of them. We are talking about fair play but also about people to follow.

terjw
Nov 1st, 2007, 11:24 PM
Sounds like a Big Brother type George Orwell nightmare if firms are testing their employees. It could only be in the USA that they would go down that route. Thank God we haven't gone down that route in the UK. Don't know of anyone or any company here that would do that.

Also - don't know anyone personally playing any sport while high on Cocaine. But I have known people personally in activities like snowboarding and hang gliding to be high on pot while they've been doing it. And I can definitely say it does not enhance their performance. It really is the complete opposite.

lecciones
Nov 1st, 2007, 11:26 PM
I was thinking about this in the one Hingis thread. I really donít think tennis or other individual sports should test for non-performance enhancing drugs.

Itís not that I approve of illegal drug use (although I admit I donít get as worked up about them as some do), but a) I donít think itís the toursí responsibility to play cops (itís not like they test the youngsters for alcohol use, or check their tax returns Ėhell, they donít do a think about coaches bonking underage players) and b) I really think itís a playerís own business what they do off-court.

Itís different with team sports, I think. If Tom Bradyís hitting the crack pipe, his addiction and his play will affect his whole team and their success, so the team has a vested interest in making sure heís not abusing substances. The teams just work collectively, as the NFL, to address that interest.

But if a player wants to trash her results or her career because sheís stoned? Different story.

What do yíall think? (remember, the question isnít whether coke, pot, etc., are ďokĒ or not or should be legal or not, but should the WTA test for it and punish people who test positive).

You have a very very good point. But as it is, they are role models and inspiration to some, even very young people, so they must continue to inspire. However, what if they went partying and... but you know I don't agree with drugs in the first place. In any case Martina must have been experimenting too much lately.

Volcana
Nov 2nd, 2007, 02:56 AM
Women's tennis can't afford an image as a drug-soaked, lawless sport. It's too minor a sport for that. Sponsors would pull out in droves if women's tennis got a rep for tolerating drug use. So yes, test for, and punish, anything illegal.

ZeroSOFInfinity
Nov 2nd, 2007, 03:21 AM
The common persumption, which we all grow up to acknowledge, is that if you take drugs (even non-enhancers), you are a cheat and a liar.

Well, I got a question. If you take XTC before a match, will you win? :tape:

Therefore, the tennis associations should concentrate on those drugs which would change the outcome of a match, not those which can make you "HIIIIIIIGGGGHHHH".

Yeah, tennis players are role models to the young... but so are my parents.

homogenius
Nov 2nd, 2007, 03:49 AM
no

mankind
Nov 2nd, 2007, 04:49 AM
Next thing we'll test them for drinking alcohol during tournaments, or ban them from having sex during tournaments.
I am personally aware of the effects of drugs, and no proper athlete would ever actually entertain the thought of taking them consistently. If they do, they need to take time off from the sport (ie be banned/suspended) and sort themselves out.
So, NO is my response to this. The ATP/WTA can look after their own image without resorting to this.

aussie_fan
Nov 2nd, 2007, 05:12 AM
Yes, they have to. It's affects the reputation of the player and the sport. You have got to try and keep the sport's reputation intact, if players go out and take recreational drugs, they aren't being the good role models that they need to be, it just brings the sport into dispute. The way they deal with a player testing positive for recreational drugs is another matter.

hwanmig
Nov 2nd, 2007, 05:22 AM
I never realized there was that many crackheads in Wtaworld:lol:

darrinbaker00
Nov 2nd, 2007, 05:24 AM
I never realized there was that many crackheads in Wtaworld:lol:
Obnoxious and unfunny is no way to go through life, son.

switz
Nov 2nd, 2007, 05:39 AM
as if Larry Scott has never done blow :lol:

sfselesfan
Nov 2nd, 2007, 05:44 AM
Thanks for changing the thread question after I voted. Now I look like a fucking retard in the public poll. It said "recreational drugs" before and I voted yes because some recreational drugs are stimulants that can enhance performance...(i.e. methamphetamine or amphetamine).

Please take note everyone...I absolve myself of that vote because the question has changed.

SF

winone23
Nov 2nd, 2007, 05:53 AM
Yes they should test, most jobs test nowadays anyway.

homogenius
Nov 2nd, 2007, 06:00 AM
I don't know how it works in US but I'm surprised to read that you're tested in most jobs.I don't think it's the case in other countries (maybe I'm wrong though).

gopher
Nov 2nd, 2007, 11:46 AM
yes snorting cocaine is disgusting and a crime. Obviously it should be traced wherever possible.

Pasta-Na
Nov 2nd, 2007, 11:57 AM
it will be much different to happen on American players :angel: :p

stefi62
Nov 2nd, 2007, 01:04 PM
Stress is part of high level competition. Cocain annihils inhibition, hence retrieves stress. So that's kind of enhancement, IMO. So definately it has to be tested!

Nikki
Nov 2nd, 2007, 01:26 PM
I don't know how it works in US but I'm surprised to read that you're tested in most jobs.I don't think it's the case in other countries (maybe I'm wrong though).

In the UK more & more jobs are testing for drugs at the interview stage & some throughout the actual job. I think it is going to become very common throughout.

RAA
Nov 2nd, 2007, 02:54 PM
If my Dallas Cowboys have to be tested, all professional athletes should be tested. :)


lol

go cowboys!

terjw
Nov 2nd, 2007, 04:59 PM
In the UK more & more jobs are testing for drugs at the interview stage & some throughout the actual job. I think it is going to become very common throughout.

Can you name what jobs do this at interviews with a bit of proof. I know no-one and no firm who has tested at interviews or during work - unless there's been some accident or something. And then it's usually the the police anyway.

If this was done as you say - I wonder how any student leaving university actually gets a job since hardly anyone doesn't smoke Pot or do something.

The whole pressure has been to de-criminalise these activities anyway. And I think that will happen eventually.

Cam'ron Giles
Nov 2nd, 2007, 06:17 PM
Cam, are you smokin' now?:smoke: :p

I dont do such things...*hides stach*..:bolt:

Denise4925
Nov 2nd, 2007, 08:00 PM
I dont do such things...*hides stach*..:bolt:

"stach" :haha:

FrchTwst
Nov 2nd, 2007, 08:14 PM
No.

ico4498
Nov 2nd, 2007, 08:53 PM
Re: caffeine - is it actually a recreational drug other than in some drinks ? I know people use it to stay awake before exams (!) but otherwise anyone taking it must be using it for performance enhancement rather than recreation surely ?

i only refer to it as a recreational drug 'cause technically it is a drug, usually ingested recreationally ... coffee, tea, soda, etc.

if yah pop a few of those caffeinated pills designed to keep you awake, before an athletic event, it'll give an unfair boost of energy. truth is though, the more drug conscious cheaters wouldn't consider using any performance enhancer thats already on the banned list ... unless you're Ben Johnson! :lol:

DaMamaJama87
Nov 2nd, 2007, 09:01 PM
A - It is an illegal substance of the worst kind and it is CRIMINAL to have it. Should the WTA turn a blind eye to criminal activity by one of its players?
B - It IS a performance enhancing drug. People don't say 'getting high' for nothing. It makes you feel like you can do anything.
C - If it was given to her by accident, she should still be banned for it. It's too bad but that's life. Same happened with Silken Laumann a rower from Canada who was stripped of her medals because she bought the wrong cough medication. Everyone knew she was not a doper and even the authorities acknowledged that it was only the cough medication which had a banned substance in it but still they had to strip her because technically she was breaking the rules of the sport.

Apoleb
Nov 2nd, 2007, 09:13 PM
Yes. If you're testing anyway, it wouldn't hurt to test for other banned substances. For their sake and the sake of the sport and the public in general.

And I don't think cocaine can be dismissed as recreational.

griffin
Nov 2nd, 2007, 09:31 PM
A - It is an illegal substance of the worst kind and it is CRIMINAL to have it. Should the WTA turn a blind eye to criminal activity by one of its players?

Last time I looked, the WTA wasn't a law enforcement agency :shrug: But the WTA and the ITF do turn blind eyes to criminal behavior, for example coaches having sexual relationships with underage players - which imo is FAR more odious than someone putting illegal drugs in their own bodies.

(do they card women at the player's parties?)


B - It IS a performance enhancing drug. People don't say 'getting high' for nothing. It makes you feel like you can do anything.

That doesn't mean you CAN do anything - or can do it because of that drug. Hallucinogens make some users think they can fly. Know what happens when they try?

In the unfortunate event another player tests positive to coke or weed, I think I"m going to recreate this poll. Because I think a number of folks from both sides - not all, by any means, but a good number - would be singing a very different tune :lol:

DaMamaJama87
Nov 2nd, 2007, 09:42 PM
Last time I looked, the WTA wasn't a law enforcement agency :shrug: But the WTA and the ITF do turn blind eyes to criminal behavior, for example coaches having sexual relationships with underage players - which imo is FAR more odious than someone putting illegal drugs in their own bodies.

(do they card women at the player's parties?)



That doesn't mean you CAN do anything - or can do it because of that drug. Hallucinogens make some users think they can fly. Know what happens when they try?

In the unfortunate event another player tests positive to coke or weed, I think I"m going to recreate this poll. Because I think a number of folks from both sides - not all, by any means, but a good number - would be singing a very different tune :lol:

Coaches are not WTA employees and they do not represent them. The players are and do represent the WTA. The WTA can't police the coaches just like how your job can check you for drugs but they wont do anything if your family member sells crack on a streetcorner. These things are also very very hard to prove unless the players break off the relationship and come out about it against their coach which never happens. Ignoring this type of offence (illicit drug use) is more than "turning a blind eye". It's use can be very serious and damaging to a WTA employee so they have a right to make rules about what the player can or can't do. I should hope they card players at WTA parties. It is their responsibility that nothing illegal happens at one of their own parties, just like it is your responsibility that nobody gets shot at your Christmas party.

Weed is different, it depresses your body and mind, slows things down. That is the opposite of performance enhancing. Canadian snowboarder Ross Rebigliati also lost a medal because pot was found in his system but then they restored the medal because pot has the opposite effect of performance enhancing drugs and also it is a soft drug which is legal or at least decriminalized in many places around the world. Unlike cocaine which is illegal everywhere. Theoretically all "uppers" can give you a physical edge, that is why even cough medication is banned even though in most cases it just makes you feel drowsy instead. Sorry rules are rules.

griffin
Nov 2nd, 2007, 09:49 PM
WTA players are NOT employees, fyi.

So, are you saying that they SHOULD test for coke, but not for weed? Because you seem to be basing a lot on whether the drug actually does enhance performance (which is what I was asking about in the first place ;) )

And yes, rules are rules (they certainly aren't rutabegas) - we're asking if some of the rules make sense.

chuvack
Nov 2nd, 2007, 09:54 PM
Last time I looked, the WTA wasn't a law enforcement agency :shrug: But the WTA and the ITF do turn blind eyes to criminal behavior, for example coaches having sexual relationships with underage players - which imo is FAR more odious than someone putting illegal drugs in their own bodies.

(do they card women at the player's parties?)

In the unfortunate event another player tests positive to coke or weed, I think I"m going to recreate this poll. Because I think a number of folks from both sides - not all, by any means, but a good number - would be singing a very different tune :lol:



the poll results show its an obvious a fact that your opinion - that tennis players should be able to do whatever drugs they want with no consequences, is a minority view. And this even after you worded the poll in a bias way towards your own viewpoint. It would be one thing if you put forward a convincing reason for why you think you are right, but I find all the arguments you presented in the thread are rather weak and unconvincing. The ITF should not test for drugs because they turn their back on player-coach sexual relations? Come on. You are really grabbing on straws. Doing drugs at a tennis tournament is like doing drugs on the job. They are many, many valid reasons why the WTA would not want its players on drugs at their events. In my view they have a clear and obvious right to monitor drug use behavior.

DaMamaJama87
Nov 2nd, 2007, 09:55 PM
WTA players are NOT employees, fyi.

So, are you saying that they SHOULD test for coke, but not for weed? Because you seem to be basing a lot on whether the drug actually does enhance performance (which is what I was asking about in the first place ;) )

And yes, rules are rules (they certainly aren't rutabegas) - we're asking if some of the rules make sense.

They are at least subcontractors if not literally employees. Yes I think weed is different and a positive test should not result in any action against the player. There is precedent for this in Ross Rebigliati. Same with other downers. A positive coke test should result in action even if it is accidental because it is theoretically a performance enhancing drug and is an illicit substance. Now don't ask me what to do about a positive test for sticky purple :P

Dawn Marie
Nov 3rd, 2007, 01:39 AM
I votes YES.

If 99.9% of employees have to take a drug test then they should also. Many take random drug test. Alot of these players are around young people and so forth. Of course they should. What I feel should happen is that if it a non performance drug like coke was found or weed, then I say don't ban them at all. Give/GET them help. Most employment agency's do this. It's called a work drug program.


What happened is that Hingis was doing a routine test and they found supposedly cocaine in her urine. They don't test for a certain drug they just test period.

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Nov 3rd, 2007, 02:05 AM
I don't agree that Cocaine is not a performance enhancing drug. Cocaine can you an inflated sense of self and confidence, and for me that is performance enhancing. I'm not sure about MariJ. Maybe we can ask Rosie Casals, Chrissie Evert, and Martina Navratilova if it helped them.

terjw
Nov 3rd, 2007, 02:06 AM
I votes YES.

If 99.9% of employees have to take a drug test then they should also. Many take random drug test. Alot of these players are around young people and so forth. Of course they should. What I feel should happen is that if it a non performance drug like coke was found or weed, then I say don't ban them at all. Give/GET them help. Most employment agency's do this. It's called a work drug program.


What happened is that Hingis was doing a routine test and they found supposedly cocaine in her urine. They don't test for a certain drug they just test period.

I don't believe a word of it. Employees here do not have to take a drug test in Europe. We are a bit more civilised about this and less draconian here. Even in the States - how about some proof for your wild claim that 99.9% have to be tested at work.

Drug testing for recreational drugs is a matter for the police if there's been an incident of some sort. It should be the same for the Tennis players.

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Nov 3rd, 2007, 02:10 AM
They don't test for a certain drug they just test period.

I disagree. I don't know that there is a test that points out a wide range of drugs. If there were, how would we know she tested positive for "cocaine" in particular, and not a range of drugs that the test covered.

I think they test for specific drugs. With all of the parties that the players attend, and high end celebs and others, its no wonder the players get exposed to drugs. Perhaps Martina took the drug inadvertently, although, living in LA (which in the 80's was the capital of "blow" -- at least it felt like it), I sincerely find it hard to believe.

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Nov 3rd, 2007, 02:12 AM
I don't believe a word of it. Employees here do not have to take a drug test in Europe. We are a bit more civilised about this and less draconian here. Even in the States - how about some proof for your wild claim that 99.9% have to be tested at work.

Drug testing for recreational drugs is a matter for the police if there's been an incident of some sort. It should be the same for the Tennis players.

I agree that 99% of businesses don't test, but I'm sure that most if not all of our American professional sports teams test for most every drug.

terjw
Nov 3rd, 2007, 02:31 AM
I agree that 99% of businesses don't test, but I'm sure that most if not all of our American professional sports teams test for most every drug.

I'm fine with that answer. I'm certain you are right there. All I wanted to do was challenge this myth that it's universally done in the workplace . Although I suppose some of this actually happens now in the States - it certainly isn't the case elsewhere in the world.

Donny
Nov 3rd, 2007, 02:48 AM
I'm fine with that answer. I'm certain you are right there. All I wanted to do was challenge this myth that it's universally done in the workplace . Although I suppose some of this actually happens now in the States - it certainly isn't the case elsewhere in the world.

Many- if not all- of the low wage workers at big box stores are tested. It isn't so much a test for drugs as it is a way for the stores to demean future employees and indoctrinate them into the theory of the store running their lives.

I personally knew someone who would "acquire" urine samples from hospitals to sell them to people who needed to take urine based tests- apparently business was booming for him.

DutchieGirl
Nov 3rd, 2007, 06:33 AM
I chose "of course", but not for the reason given. My reason is that every sport should test for recreational drugs for a couple of reasons. One, the average person working on just about any job is subject to drug testing and sports should be no different , in my opinion. Recreational drug use doesn't just effect the individual, it effects everyone around them. Anything can happen in any given situation and the other players should be able to feel safe in their environment, i.e. the lockerrooms and not have to worry about another player either getting high, or is high and acting a damn fool.

Secondly, these athletes make so much money and can get caught up in drugs and alcohol because they are celebrities and it's easily accessible to them. It wouldn't hard for them to become addicted. I feel testing is a way to deter that from happening. So many athlete's careers have been derailed by substance abuse and if testing can cut down on that happening, it's better for the athlete, the sport and the fans.

I'm an average person and I have NEVER had to do a drug test period. For sport or for work. So maybe in your country "the average person" may have to do that, but sure as hell not in Australia! Perhaps you shouldn't generalise so much. ;)

Your second point: Does this mean actors/actresses should do drug tests too to deter them? They make millions, and it doesn't stop many of them getting off their faces on drugs/alcohol. Drug tests don't seem to deter them much either. (well thinking about the Britney example).

DutchieGirl
Nov 3rd, 2007, 06:37 AM
Well, yeah it is kind of everyone's business if they are taking illegal substances. Not only would it be a waste of talent and opportunity for the player, but the sponsors who have millions of dollars invested in their careers lose out, and so do the fans. Who wants to spend good money on a ticket for an event to see a drugged out player come out of the locker room and not be able to perform to their potential, when they had a choice not to be in that condition? Tennis tickets for the average fan is pretty expensive.

If they waste their talent it's still THEIR business. If they are on drugs and don't perform, they won't have many sponsors anyway, and plenty of peple are still shelling out to go see movies or buy cds of actors/singers who are on drugs...Amy Winehouse, Britney, etc etc...

DutchieGirl
Nov 3rd, 2007, 06:43 AM
LOL griffin you just used two examples of where another person's money would be effected. If the kid ringing up your groceries is high, there's more potential that a mistake in the transaction would occur, either to your benefit or to the store owner's. Also, what if the kid who rang up your groceries, in the process of bagging those groceries dropped a large can of vegatables on your toe and broke it because he was high. Would you care if he was high then? Also, I don't want the accountant who has anything to do with the company's money who's paying me to be high. :lol:

:lol: What? Oh come on. You can't tell me that if a person scanning your groceries was high and short changed you, you wouldn't notice. I mean really, that would be about the only way they could get something wrong. All they have to do is scan the products, and you generally stand there and watch what they arte doing while you are waiting to pay anyway. So it's not like they could stand there and scan the same product 10 times by accident coz they were high.

DutchieGirl
Nov 3rd, 2007, 06:46 AM
I don't know, I've just been sceptical on this ever since Younes El Aynaoui was banned for 4 months a few years back, because he was tested positive for marijuana which is everything but a stimulant.

Good point - and also, not all countries have the same laws when it comes to drugs. ie marijuana is legal in NL...

DutchieGirl
Nov 3rd, 2007, 06:48 AM
Drug testing cuts down on having to fire or warn or get someone help because their job performance sucks, which in turn cuts down on turnover. My point is that yes, you are correct, there are all kinds of reasons other than drugs to make someone's job performance suffer, but in my opinion, not only is drug testing a deterrent, but it's a form of risk management.

Yeah - in sports it just leads to months or years of court appearances and appeals instead. ;)

DutchieGirl
Nov 3rd, 2007, 06:50 AM
I think it's like pseudo-ephedrine, aka Sudafed (sp?) - they can take it, but only in certain amounts?

Correct. If they have over a certain amount of caffeiene, then they get busted. But they can have a coffee or 2. ;)

DutchieGirl
Nov 3rd, 2007, 06:53 AM
I was being a bit flippant Denise I know but I have a hard time holding much regard for a tour that doesn't penalise its players for last minute withdrawls, stop frequent blatant coaching during matches, prevent exploitation of its younger players by coaches, tanking matches and who knows what else.

I'm not disputing that players should not take recreational illegal drugs if the tour has banned them but I question whether they should be banned in the first place. Performance enhancing drugs are a completely different issue and they should obviously not be allowed.

I take your point about the repercussions of drug use but we are talking about the lines we draw where a player's responsibility to their tennis ends and their private life begins. I don't care if Justine Henin uses ecstasy on a night out :tape: as long as she turns up fit to her matches. We should not IMHO be dictating to these people how to live their lives when they are not on the tennis court.

As for the players suffering from drug use, it's a sad fact that society doesn't seem all that interesting in intervening - look at Amy Winehouse.

I think we might have to agree to disagree ;).

:yeah:

DutchieGirl
Nov 3rd, 2007, 07:01 AM
I'm fine with that answer. I'm certain you are right there. All I wanted to do was challenge this myth that it's universally done in the workplace . Although I suppose some of this actually happens now in the States - it certainly isn't the case elsewhere in the world.

Precisely. God, if someone asked me to do a drugs test in an interview, I'd walk out then and there. I've never smoked a cigarette (let alone any other "harder" sort of drugs), and barely drink, so I would feel it a big invasion of my privacy if they wanted to drug test me. Thankfully, I haven't never heard of anyone I know having to do a drug test for work.

Nikki
Nov 3rd, 2007, 09:15 AM
I don't believe a word of it. Employees here do not have to take a drug test in Europe. We are a bit more civilised about this and less draconian here. Even in the States - how about some proof for your wild claim that 99.9% have to be tested at work.

Drug testing for recreational drugs is a matter for the police if there's been an incident of some sort. It should be the same for the Tennis players.

In the UK some do have to undergo random drug tests, such as the Armed Forces. Also many employers are requesting drug test before they employ you, such as the Ambulance service, some security firms.

I do believe it is going to become more common in future years.

DutchieGirl
Nov 3rd, 2007, 10:34 AM
In the UK some do have to undergo random drug tests, such as the Armed Forces. Also many employers are requesting drug test before they employ you, such as the Ambulance service, some security firms.

I do believe it is going to become more common in future years.

Armed forces is pretty understandable though, no? I mean alot of jobs you have to have background checks to make sure you haven't done anything illegal in the past and stuff. My Dad was working at the airport, and he had to have a police record check to make sure he wasn't likely to try to bomb the place. But drug testing for jobs not to do with security then I think random drug testing or asking for a drug test before you employ them is a bit extreme.

homogenius
Nov 4th, 2007, 08:35 AM
Many- if not all- of the low wage workers at big box stores are tested. It isn't so much a test for drugs as it is a way for the stores to demean future employees and indoctrinate them into the theory of the store running their lives.

I personally knew someone who would "acquire" urine samples from hospitals to sell them to people who needed to take urine based tests- apparently business was booming for him.

I'm happy to not live in US.

griffin
Nov 4th, 2007, 07:54 PM
the poll results show its an obvious a fact that your opinion - that tennis players should be able to do whatever drugs they want with no consequences, is a minority

...and of course we know that the majority is always right :angel:

The ITF should not test for drugs because they turn their back on player-coach sexual relations?

No, the fact that the WTA and ITF turn their backs on sexual abuse of players simply puts the lie to the argument that the tours have to test for pot, cocaine, etc. because they're illegal.

I think the ITF should stop testing for drugs that don't have genuine performance-enhancing capabilities because imo what player's do on their personal time is their own business. Try reading what I've actually posted - I've been pretty clear about why I think they should only test for PED, and why I think some of counter arguments are bogus.

Chrissie-fan
Nov 4th, 2007, 08:58 PM
There's a contradiction in some of the arguments on this thread...."Sure, they should test for recreational drugs because they are harmful for the image of the game." Well, if that's the case there's a bigger risk in testing than there is in not testing because if somebody gets caught it will harm the image of the game. No such risk if you don't test for substances that don't enhance performance anyway (on the contrary I'd say). Cocaine may be a stimulant in that it gives you a mental boost, but it will kill your coordination, so it will harm you more than do you any good. It certainly didn't help Martina any (if she sniffed the stuff to begin with, that is).

The role model thing always sounds laughable to me. Just because I like, say the Stones doesn't mean that I want to put a needle in my veins just like Keith Richards and just because I like Hingis doesn't mean that from now on you can find me with a rolled up dollar bill and a line of coke on a mirror, it's ridiculous. If you are a fan of a tennis player you want her/him to win tennis matches and maybe you want to copy her backhand or something but it doesn't mean that you want to copy every aspect of their lives.

Denise4925
Nov 4th, 2007, 10:21 PM
I'm an average person and I have NEVER had to do a drug test period. For sport or for work. So maybe in your country "the average person" may have to do that, but sure as hell not in Australia! Perhaps you shouldn't generalise so much. ;)

Your second point: Does this mean actors/actresses should do drug tests too to deter them? They make millions, and it doesn't stop many of them getting off their faces on drugs/alcohol. Drug tests don't seem to deter them much either. (well thinking about the Britney example).

Ummm, it wasn't a generalization. I guess I should have clarified that I was speaking about the average American. I'm sorry, I didn't think I had to make that clear. Please don't take offense. There's no need to get angry about anything I've said. It's just my opinion I'm expressing. You don't have to agree, because I'm not trying to convince you.

KennyChante4ever
Nov 5th, 2007, 11:59 AM
No, if it doesnít aid performance, itís their business what crud they put in their bodies

So much of this "crud" you can get at your local GNC so it's not a big deal. :shrug:

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Nov 5th, 2007, 12:35 PM
No, if it doesn’t aid performance, it’s their business what crud they put in their bodies

So much of this "crud" you can get at your local GNC so it's not a big deal. :shrug:

Where is the proof that you can get Cocaine at "your local GNC?!!!!!!!" Now, you can still probably get ephredrine and certain other substances that metabolize into illegal substances, as those products are being taken OFF the shelves on a regular basis, because it takes time to discover them. But last I was there, they made Cocaine pretty difficult to get off your local health food shelf!:tape:

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Nov 5th, 2007, 12:42 PM
Cocaine may be a stimulant in that it gives you a mental boost, but it will kill your coordination, so it will harm you more than do you any good. It certa.

Where is the proof for this statement? Not only you have said this Chrissiefan, but others. I can see where long term use can cause this problem, but short terms use? Not in my experience. And plenty of athletes have done cocaine -- it was rather common to find athletes doing both cocaine and marajuana when drug testing first came into sports here in the US. Some performing at the highest levels were doing the drug and managing high performance sporting careers.

I need a couple of references other than Martina Hingis' statement in order to believe this one. Again, long term, I can believe it. Short term, I don't believe it does effect coordination.

Vitas Gerulitis eventually went down from cocaine, but performed for a long time doing it. It was once he was doing it 24 a day when it took him out.

The problem I see with cocaine is coming down from it. It can effect ones sleeping pattern (keeping the person up), and many people then result to some type of relaxer to offset the cocaine effects. That I could see effecting an ahtletes coordination. And too much of it could make one shaky and generally isn't a good thing for resperation, etc. But as I wrote, plenty of athletes managed before random testing outed them.

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Nov 5th, 2007, 12:52 PM
If they waste their talent it's still THEIR business. If they are on drugs and don't perform, they won't have many sponsors anyway, and plenty of peple are still shelling out to go see movies or buy cds of actors/singers who are on drugs...Amy Winehouse, Britney, etc etc...

Surely it is their business, except that in the case of athletics, we pay to see these performers at their physical best withOUT any substances aiding or hurting them. In that respect, when any active athlete does drugs, it is the paying fan's business.

As for Britney and Amy? Who gives a rats butt. Although, I don't feel that drugs is helping either of them performance wise. It seems that each is going down hill quite quickly in fact.

Still, if Hingis is innocent, I'm happy that she's going to challenge the findings.

hablo
Nov 5th, 2007, 01:34 PM
Where is the proof for this statement? Not only you have said this Chrissiefan, but others. I can see where long term use can cause this problem, but short terms use? Not in my experience. And plenty of athletes have done cocaine -- it was rather common to find athletes doing both cocaine and marajuana when drug testing first came into sports here in the US. Some performing at the highest levels were doing the drug and managing high performance sporting careers.

The info is actually out there, if people really wanted to know ...

griffin
Nov 5th, 2007, 01:55 PM
Surely it is their business, except that in the case of athletics, we pay to see these performers at their physical best withOUT any substances aiding or hurting them. In that respect, when any active athlete does drugs, it is the paying fan's business.

Then shouldn't you also be monitoring alcohol intake and training regimen?

What's a bigger rip-off to you as a fan? a) Someone smoking a joint the weekend before a tournament starts; b) a player getting drunk the night before a match and coming on court with a hangover (heck, the ATP was providing beer and other drinks in the players lounge at the USO); c) showing up for a tournament overweight and out of shape?

Using your reasoning, why should one be subject to testing and discipline, and the others not?

Chrissie-fan
Nov 5th, 2007, 02:13 PM
Then shouldn't you also be monitoring alcohol intake and training regimen?

What's a bigger rip-off to you as a fan? a) Someone smoking a joint the weekend before a tournament starts; b) a player getting drunk the night before a match and coming on court with a hangover (heck, the ATP was providing beer and other drinks in the players lounge at the USO); c) showing up for a tournament overweight and out of shape?

Using your reasoning, why should one be subject to testing and discipline, and the others not?
I agree. We have to careful not to create a witch hunt. I'm all for testing players for performance enhancing drugs and if they test positive for something serious, they should be suspended - not for a few months or for a year, but for life as far as I'm concerned. But for me it doesn't have to include recreational drugs. It's not that I'm a fan of people doing cocaine, heroin, lsd or whatever, but since it doesn't involve players trying to get an unfair advantage over their opponents it's quite frankly not the WTA's business. What's next? Big brother watching over players' shoulders to see if they eat their quota of apples for the day?

Chrissie-fan
Nov 5th, 2007, 02:21 PM
Where is the proof for this statement? Not only you have said this Chrissiefan, but others. I can see where long term use can cause this problem, but short terms use? Not in my experience. And plenty of athletes have done cocaine -- it was rather common to find athletes doing both cocaine and marajuana when drug testing first came into sports here in the US. Some performing at the highest levels were doing the drug and managing high performance sporting careers.

I need a couple of references other than Martina Hingis' statement in order to believe this one. Again, long term, I can believe it. Short term, I don't believe it does effect coordination.

Vitas Gerulitis eventually went down from cocaine, but performed for a long time doing it. It was once he was doing it 24 a day when it took him out.

The problem I see with cocaine is coming down from it. It can effect ones sleeping pattern (keeping the person up), and many people then result to some type of relaxer to offset the cocaine effects. That I could see effecting an ahtletes coordination. And too much of it could make one shaky and generally isn't a good thing for resperation, etc. But as I wrote, plenty of athletes managed before random testing outed them.
Well, whatever the case may be - it definitely didn't help Hingis who has been playing the worst tennis of her career by far. In fact, if Hingis improved her performance with cocaine I would have hated to see how she would have done without it.

darice
Nov 5th, 2007, 04:13 PM
no cause if it's not giving them any kinda edge then what's the big deal? :scratch: