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
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
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
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
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!