It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Round 1. JBurns V kenshiro2012: Drug Testing

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
The topic for this debate is "There should be mandatory drug testing of athletes"

JBurns will be arguing for this proposition and will open the debate.
kenshiro2012 will argue against this proposition.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words. In the event of a debater posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom. Credits or references at the bottom do not count towards the word total.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only one image may be included in each post. No more than 5 references can be included at the bottom of each post. Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references.

Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate.

Judging will be done by an anonymous panel of 13 judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. Results will be posted by me as soon as a majority (7) is reached.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.




posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Hello, first off all I would like to thank Amorymeltzer for giving me the honor of having the chance to debate with kenshiro2012. Before making my opening arguments, I would like to wish kenshiro2012 the best of luck!


In many parts of the world, a mandatory drug test is required before you can get a job, drive a motor vehicle, or even enter certain countries. But should you be required to take, and pass one before being able to compete in sporting events? I will attempt to explain exactly why I believe you should.

I would first like to present some factual information from the USOC:
[quoted]In 1984 the USOC United States Olympic Committee became the first sports organization to do drug testing on it's competitors. Since 1992, the number of drug related cases has gradually declined.

The above information clearly shows that since the introduction of drug testing, the number of athletes under the influence of some type of drug has dropped. Data shows that if we continue this, and make it a mandatory thing, that the numbers will continue to drop, possibly even faster than before. This is one reason that I can not figure out why anyone would be opposed to this.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Good day to all.
I also would like to start off by thanking both Amorymeltzer and Nygdan for allowing me to participate and to debate my illustrious opponent JBurns. To JBurns, I extend to you my best wishes, Good Luck

I am sure that this debate will be both entertaining as well as enlightening.
When we first start to ask the question, "There should be mandatory drug testing of athletes", we need to ask ourselves a couple of questions before we can fully delve into the subject.
The first question:
What country's laws will we use to guide us into which drugs should be illegal and which should be allowed. The laws covering the use of drugs vary by country, Not all countries list the same drugs as being illegal as other countries.
As an example, I would like to present both the countries of Holland and Spain. In both countries, the use of drugs such as Marijuana is legal and is a great generator of tax dollars for the governments.
The second question that we have to ask ourselves:
Why are we infringing on personal freedoms and rights of these athletes?
The drug testing of athletes violates their rights of privacy and in some cases their religious rights.
We hold these athletes in high respect. We require that they give us superhuman performance while on the field. We require that they run faster, run longer, that they are stronger than all others today as well as all before them. We as a society will not remember the person who does not hit 600 homeruns; we will only remember the ones that break the records.
The athletes of today are denied the use of advanced medical technology which they could use to perform at their maximum capability break those records and be remembered down through history.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Very well stated kenshiro2012.


I don't think any country-specific laws should be used, I believe that instead, a council of people from around the world should be appointed to create the standards.

And privacy is of course very important, however, when they play these sports, it should be treated just like driving in certain states. When you sign up, you give "implied consent," therefore you understand that you may be drug tested, and failure to comply would result in termination from that sport.

As far as athletes being denied the advanced medical technology? Older athletes like Babe Ruth weren't given the technology, so why should they have it today? Why should people using these drugs be able to easily overcome the records from athletes who dedicated their life to the sport. I believe in mandatory drug testing because I think that sports isn't about whether you win or you lose, but how hard you try. It really bothers me that you hear, "If you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough," used so commonly today. If we had a mandatory drug testing program, I believe that the old moral values of athletics would return.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Thank you JBurns for your compliment, I have enjoyed your postings on this subject so far




I don't think any country-specific laws should be used, I believe that instead, a council of people from around the world should be appointed to create the standards.


The ideal of an international committee whose purpose is to outline the specifics as to what drugs should be contraband is a good idea at first glance.
The problem with this though again lies with creating a standard list of prohibited substances that:
1) Allows for individual countries laws that allow for certain substances either for normal everyday use or for medical use.
2) A standard testing matrix that will be strictly adhered to in all authorized laboratories world-wide
3) A continuing updating of these regulations to include newer designer drug and designer gene therapy technologies.

To list as an example of how hard this would be, let’s review a quick listing of the prohibited substances according to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and World Anti-Doping Agency which sets the standards for the Olympic athletes. In the latest listing of prohibited substances are:
All Beta-Blockers – Proscribed for those who have Hypertension.
Alcohol – This is NOT a Proscribed drug in most countries
Ephedrine- Which is nasal decongestant, and has been used therapeutically for nocturnal enuresis, diabetic neuropathic edema, dysmenorrhea, narcolepsy, and myasthenia gravis.
Insulin- Required for control of Type 2 Diabetes
Any and all Diuretics - Diuretics are used to treat the buildup of excess fluid in the body that occurs with some medical conditions such as congestive heart failure, liver disease, and kidney disease. Some diuretics are also prescribed to treat high blood pressure. These drugs act on the kidneys to increase urine output. This reduces the amount of fluid in the bloodstream, which in turn lowers blood pressure.
Autologous- Which is blood that a person donates for themselves to be used for non-emergency surgery.

The above list only covers a few of the prohibited substances that are listed in the 2005 List of Prohibited Substances As you can see, some of the illegal drugs actually have other normal day to day usage and in many cases, these substances are also found in over-the-counter medications. I will admit that in some cases, but not all, a slight variation can be granted by the IOC if an athlete provides plenty of documentation that there is a medical need.




And privacy is of course very important; however, when they play these sports, it should be treated just like driving in certain states. When you sign up, you give "implied consent," therefore you understand that you may be drug tested, and failure to comply would result in termination from that sport.


This is very good on the surface but where driving is a right and privileged that is given to a person by the government, it really does not apply to the sports arena. In sports both Professional as well as Amateur, their participation in a sport is a right that is granted to them by the team and the public and not by a government. The Court of Appeals in 1994, overturned a ruling that allowed elementary and high schools to randomly test their students for drugs. The finding was that violated students' rights to be free from "unreasonable searches" under both the state and federal constitutions. So the US courts have already ruled in favor of athlete’s right to privacy.




As far as athletes being denied the advanced medical technology? Older athletes like Babe Ruth weren't given the technology, so why should they have it today? Why should people using these drugs be able to easily overcome the records from athletes who dedicated their life to the sport?


There is a problem with this statement. The technological advances that we enjoy today were not available to earlier generations of sports heroes. It is already accepted policy in the sports world to incorporate new technology as it becomes available. Examples in US Football, new protective headgear and pads, The use of spikes on shoes, microphones in the helmets, replay analysis by officials.
If the sports world can adopt new technology that protects the players, enables the players to perform better (spiked shoes), what is the problem with performance enhancement?
If they were available back in the days of Babe Ruth, would they be such a controversial problem as they are today? I think not

World Anti-Doping Prohbited List for 2005

Court Rules Against Athletic Drug Tests!



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   
kenshiro2012, I must unfortunatley announce my resignation in this debate. You have truely done a wonderful job on your part, and I must say that it was an honor being able to debate with such an intelligent person.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
JBurns,
I am truely sadden to see this. I have enjoyed out discussion and I was looking for your next post. Hope that everything is well with you and that sometime in the future, we will get to cross swords once again as your posts have enlightening as well. Good luck to you



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Very well done the both of you, and good luck to kenshiro2012 in Round 2.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join