[mr1303]

Hi all

Just read over the WBF's anti-doping policy. It turns out that if I smoke a joint at some point in the next week or so before the world junior pairs, and the test me, I could be banned.

Similarly, should I start taking testosterone supplements for reasons unknown to me, I could also be banned.

In my mind, there is no need whatsoever for anti-doping regulations to take place in a bridge event. Maybe beta-blockers might make a slight difference to the very small percentage of the bridge playing population who get nervous during a bridge event, but over and above that I can see no need for this whatsoever.

I know the WBF wants to keep bridge as an olympic sport, but surely the IOC's doping policies should be much more sport specific.

Anyway, that's my view on the matter. Discuss....

[inquiry]

I think we need an anti-doping policy not only in the WBF, but in the BBO as well... Because one thing for sure, there are WAY TO many Dopes playing this game.... :-)

I just hope I don't get lumped into the Dope category.

(for those not familar with the slang use of the word Dope, it is defined as....
"Slang. A stupid person; a dolt." )

[mr1303]

Including those who think that the version of two/too/to used to indicate an excess is spelt TO

[inquiry]

mr1303, on Jun 22 2006, 08:42 AM, said:

Including those who think that the version of two/too/to used to indicate an excess is spelt TO

Okey dokey.. include me in that dope group, so I change my position, there should be no anti-doping policy as this dope wishes to keep playing.

[Deanrover]

I think in all sports they should only test for performance enhacing drugs. So for athletics, how much weed you have in your system should be irrelevant (people have been banned for taking this performance DEhancing drug before!), and for bridge drugs like weed, steroids etc. shouldn't be tested for unless they can be shown to assist performance (I know a number of top players enjoy the odd joint, and at least one of the very top players always plays stoned, he/she finds it help performance).

[han]

It seems too me that the rules of the IOC are made with physical sports in mind, so the doping-rules probably don't make two much sense for bridge. This is perhaps another reason not two strive for bridge too become an olympic sport?

[hrothgar]

Lot of room for discussion in this thread:

First and foremost, the IOC has a very strict drug policy. As you note, the IOC and the ISF ban a variety of recreational pharmaceuticals. Banning drugs like pot is primarily based on moral issues rather than any strong arguments that drug XYZ can rightfully be considered to be performance enhancing. (There have actually been some interesting incidents where the IOC policies weren't appropriately aligned with the ISF. The case involving the gold medal winner for snowboarding back in Nagano back in 1998 is the best none incident). Personally, I think that there is a world of difference between performance enhancing drugs and recreational pharmaceuticals. Furthermore, I think that it is a major mistake to strip medals based on whether or not some group approves of a player's behavior off the “field”. From my perspective, I see two major problems with the existing policies.

1. Why the decision to limit the morality police to testing for drugs? Why not strip medals for anyone who has ever had a divorce or doesn't vote in political elections?
2. Different countries have very legal standards regarding the consumption of drugs. Many countries (including the US) are down right puritanical. Others, like the Netherlands are fairly permissive. I'd find it quite amusing if the Netherlands were to argue that its players should be exempted from bans on THC...

For better or worse, the IOC has made its bed. What I really don't fathom is why the WBF decided that they want to go and lie in it. The IOC has made it perfectly clear that they will not recognize bridge as an Olympic Sport. I see no reason why the WBF should maintain this senseless preoccupation with drug testing. The IOC drug policy was designed with world class athletes in mind. It is VERY poorly suited for a recreational game with a geriatric user base. Many drugs that the IOC considers to be banned performance enhancing agents for its athletes are standard medicines for various bridge players. Beta blockers are an obvious example...

This conflict has already lead to some real idiocy. Back in 2002, Disa Eythorsdottir was stripped of a medal for refusing to take a WBF mandated drug test. What's more interesting is some of the discussions surrounding the events in question. Asya Kamsky posted that the drug testing policy was based on randomly selecting members of the medal winning teams. The “winner” of the original random draw was Lynn Deas who was promptly exempted from the test. (I never heard how this whole issue got sorted out. I'm assuming that some kind of gag order was involved)...

If the WBF is serious about drug testing, then they need a “real” drug policy; with well defined policies that are administered in an objective and transparent manner. All members of a medal winning team get tested. Teams stand (or fall) as one. The WBF decision to treat drug testing as a half-assed game is a recipe for disaster.

[Echognome]

This is probably a deeper argument involving what privacy issues are involved and what you are volunteering for with your participation. I'm sure drug testing at the workplace has some similar overtones for debate.

I imagine that the WBF is not implementing this policy in order to preserve the sanctity of the competition, but rather to portray the image of solidarity with a "no drugs" campaign more generally. Whether this is appropriate or not is, I am sure, subject to much debate.

Perhaps the bigger debate should be whether we should have three two's! What's going on there?

[Badmonster]

I'm just curious. Have they ever actually tested anyone?

[hrothgar]

Badmonster, on Jun 22 2006, 05:15 PM, said:

I'm just curious. Have they ever actually tested anyone?

Palmer was tested in 2002

[barmar]

Echognome, on Jun 22 2006, 10:11 AM, said:

I imagine that the WBF is not implementing this policy in order to preserve the sanctity of the competition, but rather to portray the image of solidarity with a "no drugs" campaign more generally. Whether this is appropriate or not is, I am sure, subject to much debate.

The WBF still harbors the delusion of mind sports joining the Olympics some day, so they're aligning their policies with that goal.

As for why the IOC and ISF have rules against recreational pharmaceuticals, I think it's pretty obvious. Sports stars, and Olympic athletes in particular, are expected to be role models. Not just within their athletic domain, but more generally.

Regarding the differing laws, even countries that legalize recreational drugs don't actively condone it, they just prefer education over punishment. But even ignoring this, should an international body like the IOC really use the least common denominator, rather than a concensus, in setting its policies (I presume the representatives of the more permissive countries had a say in the decision)?

If other "moral deficiencies" like divorce or homosexuality had more of a stigma today than they actually do, I could see them being used as criteria to disqualify competitors. I'll bet that if an Olympic athlete had 'come out' in the 40's he could have been stripped of his title; many countries had laws prohibiting homosexuality at the time, and even the ones that didn't considered it morally reprehensible. But these days, divorce is practically the norm in western society, and homophobia is politically incorrect, so these shouldn't impact an athlete's chances. But drug use is still considered inappropriate, and not something we want our children to emulate.

One other thing. Even if you don't think sports stars should be role models for morality, it's not unreasonable to expect them to be role models for physical health. And most recreational drugs are not healthy for you.

[mike777]

Yes the whole steroids, performance enhancing issue really seems to miss the boat here.

It is more a matter of when and not if when drugs or chemical enhancement becomes more the norm for our children and ourselves. Do you really believe that drugs that can improve memory in older people will not be used? If that is not enhancement what is? If computer usage enhances children you better bet a drug will be bought and used for our kids in a flash. Chip implants made out of chemicals (drugs) anyone?

Karen McCallum just won the World Mixed Pairs while battling breast cancer. She must have been using some drug or chemical to enhance yourself. Right on!

[jdonn]

Not to be a stickler, but doesn't this thread belong in the 'offline bridge' section? I am starting an "Enforce the no bridge related topics in the Water Cooler" campaign.

[pclayton]

Jill Meyers was tested a few years ago too, and she wrote about it in the BW.

Disa had her medals pulled, or something like that, after Montreal, I think......please don't sue .

What's considered a performance enhancing drug in bridge? Caffeine? Should Diet Cokes be banned from the playing site. I want to be there when the directors pull Brian's stash of Mountain Dew that he keeps at the table.

Still, I think its within the rights of the ACBL or the USBF if they want to stop their players from bringing illegal (relative term, I know) drugs to tournaments. Bridge doesn't need the negative publicity. The organizations are paying for the trips and its not a lot to ask for the players to abide by some minimal standards of conduct.

But the morality question has nothing to do with the issues surrounding performance-based drugs.

[bid_em_up]

mr1303, on Jun 22 2006, 08:14 AM, said:

Just read over the WBF's anti-doping policy. It turns out that if I smoke a joint at some point in the next week or so before the world junior pairs, and the test me, I could be banned.

Similarly, should I start taking testosterone supplements for reasons unknown to me, I could also be banned.

Worse yet, try catching a cold and finding a OTC medicine that wont get you barred. (Or so I have heard).

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Jun 22 2006, 06:56 PM, said:

What's considered a performance enhancing drug in bridge? Caffeine? Should Diet Cokes be banned from the playing site. I want to be there when the directors pull Brian's stash of Mountain Dew that he keeps at the table.

Don't forget caffeine's evil twin sister nicotine...

I'm not sure whether or not nicotine should be considered performance enhancing. With this said and done, I'm quite sure that (suddenly) depriving some players from their cigarette's would have a serious impact on their level of play. Imagine what would happen if folks were forced to go cold turkey during a major event...

[helene_t]

barmar, on Jun 22 2006, 05:37 PM, said:

As for why the IOC and ISF have rules against recreational pharmaceuticals, I think it's pretty obvious. Sports stars, and Olympic athletes in particular, are expected to be role models. Not just within their athletic domain, but more generally.

I disagree. It's not the job of IOC to say what makes a good role model. Different cultures have different norms and IOC is an international organization.

[keylime]

There's been strong rumors if memory serves, about Ritalin use in adult for improved concentration and memory for mindsports.

[han]

jdonn, on Jun 22 2006, 10:48 AM, said:

I am starting an "Enforce the no bridge related topics in the Water Cooler" campaign.

People all over the world, please join us, the People's Front for Free Placement of Topics. Mark Reeve, we are supporting you in your quest for freedom of forum-choice.

[keylime]

"...all we are saying...is give forum choice a chance...."