Vegas & The Aftermath - Diary

[kenjude]

GNER is no more. Its national express and the rolling stock is awful, as are their prices. Not sure if wi-fi is free or not thou.

As realtively early qualifers for the Virgin fessie my nephew and I are travelling from Stevenage for the princely sum of £11.50 each way. That's not much more than the price of a one day travel card from Welwyn Garden City to the central zone.

There are value prices if you know when you're travelling, can book early enough and aren't planning to travel to an event that Setanta TV might hijack at a fortnight's notice.

[MANTIS01]

Posted by: kinboshi

Oh but it SHOULD make a difference.  Like I said, taking recreational drugs is plain stupid - but they're not trying to cheat (if anything, it will affect their performances detrimentally). 

I'm not saying they should be instantly forgiven or given no punishment, but I'm saying the punishment for taking performance-enhancing drugs should be far more severe.

Smoking weed gives you the munchies whereas cocaine is an appetite suppressant. So any sport that involves weight needs rules. If we say jockeys would be banned for taking cocaine but they are ok with weed I think that would be fair.

[bobby1]

I agree.  If he'd been smoking weed then he wasn't trying to cheat.  He was just stupid.

The penalty for smoking weed shouldn't be too punitive, and should in fact be less than the charge of missing a test (which could be hiding the use of performance-enhancing drugs).  To be honest, I don't know what the penalties are for the different offences.  Does anyone know the ranges of punishments?

The penalty for taking performance-enhancing drugs should be severe. 

Recreational or performance enhancing shouldn't make a difference.

Top sporstmen/women are revered by youngsters and only set a bad example. Should we be saying, it's ok Rio, you only did a bit of weed (if that's what he did), it doesn't enhance your onfield performance...........to hell with those that idolise you and will see fit to copy you?

Geo

I agree with you Geo tho its a slightly different subject from the actual bans for performance enhancing drugs and recreational ones.

[NoflopsHomer]

Free wifi every time I've travelled down to London from Leeds. Solid enough signal.

[Rod Paradise]

I agree.  If he'd been smoking weed then he wasn't trying to cheat.  He was just stupid.

The penalty for smoking weed shouldn't be too punitive, and should in fact be less than the charge of missing a test (which could be hiding the use of performance-enhancing drugs).  To be honest, I don't know what the penalties are for the different offences.  Does anyone know the ranges of punishments?

The penalty for taking performance-enhancing drugs should be severe. 

Recreational or performance enhancing shouldn't make a difference.

Top sporstmen/women are revered by youngsters and only set a bad example. Should we be saying, it's ok Rio, you only did a bit of weed (if that's what he did), it doesn't enhance your onfield performance...........to hell with those that idolise you and will see fit to copy you?

Geo

I TOTALLY disagree Geo. The 'set a good example argument' infuriates me - if someone is good at football/music/acting it does not mean they have to live to different standards to anyone else. If Telecom Engineering became the next big spectator sport (if cricket can be popular you never know ) - I'm not missing an Amsterdam trip, a bevvy session, or a poker game because I'm a bad example to the kids.

THe responsibility for kids knowing what's right/wrong & dangerous lies with the parents NOT their entertainers.

[kinboshi]

I agree.  If he'd been smoking weed then he wasn't trying to cheat.  He was just stupid.

The penalty for smoking weed shouldn't be too punitive, and should in fact be less than the charge of missing a test (which could be hiding the use of performance-enhancing drugs).  To be honest, I don't know what the penalties are for the different offences.  Does anyone know the ranges of punishments?

The penalty for taking performance-enhancing drugs should be severe. 

Recreational or performance enhancing shouldn't make a difference.

Top sporstmen/women are revered by youngsters and only set a bad example. Should we be saying, it's ok Rio, you only did a bit of weed (if that's what he did), it doesn't enhance your onfield performance...........to hell with those that idolise you and will see fit to copy you?

Geo

Oh but it SHOULD make a difference.  Like I said, taking recreational drugs is plain stupid - but they're not trying to cheat (if anything, it will affect their performances detrimentally). 

I'm not saying they should be instantly forgiven or given no punishment, but I'm saying the punishment for taking performance-enhancing drugs should be far more severe.

Thinking about this a bit more, and the use of performance-enhancing drugs could be punished in a similar way to if an individual is involved in match-fixing.  Both are premeditated attempts to cheat.

The use of recreational drugs could be punished in a similar way to other activities that 'bring the sport into disrepute'.  As Rod said, sportsmen and women aren't necessarily role models - but if something is written into their contracts that prohibits certain activities - then they have to adhere to this.

Was watching Poker After Dark and the Poker Premier League recently, and I was thinking what great role models some of the top pros make...

[Rod Paradise]

I agree.  If he'd been smoking weed then he wasn't trying to cheat.  He was just stupid.

The penalty for smoking weed shouldn't be too punitive, and should in fact be less than the charge of missing a test (which could be hiding the use of performance-enhancing drugs).  To be honest, I don't know what the penalties are for the different offences.  Does anyone know the ranges of punishments?

The penalty for taking performance-enhancing drugs should be severe. 

Recreational or performance enhancing shouldn't make a difference.

Top sporstmen/women are revered by youngsters and only set a bad example. Should we be saying, it's ok Rio, you only did a bit of weed (if that's what he did), it doesn't enhance your onfield performance...........to hell with those that idolise you and will see fit to copy you?

Geo

Oh but it SHOULD make a difference.  Like I said, taking recreational drugs is plain stupid - but they're not trying to cheat (if anything, it will affect their performances detrimentally). 

I'm not saying they should be instantly forgiven or given no punishment, but I'm saying the punishment for taking performance-enhancing drugs should be far more severe.

Thinking about this a bit more, and the use of performance-enhancing drugs could be punished in a similar way to if an individual is involved in match-fixing.  Both are premeditated attempts to cheat.

The use of recreational drugs could be punished in a similar way to other activities that 'bring the sport into disrepute'.  As Rod said, sportsmen and women aren't necessarily role models - but if something is written into their contracts that prohibits certain activities - then they have to adhere to this.

But why should it be written into their contracts?

[boldie]

I agree.  If he'd been smoking weed then he wasn't trying to cheat.  He was just stupid.

The penalty for smoking weed shouldn't be too punitive, and should in fact be less than the charge of missing a test (which could be hiding the use of performance-enhancing drugs).  To be honest, I don't know what the penalties are for the different offences.  Does anyone know the ranges of punishments?

The penalty for taking performance-enhancing drugs should be severe. 

Recreational or performance enhancing shouldn't make a difference.

Top sporstmen/women are revered by youngsters and only set a bad example. Should we be saying, it's ok Rio, you only did a bit of weed (if that's what he did), it doesn't enhance your onfield performance...........to hell with those that idolise you and will see fit to copy you?

Geo

I TOTALLY disagree Geo. The 'set a good example argument' infuriates me - if someone is good at football/music/acting it does not mean they have to live to different standards to anyone else. If Telecom Engineering became the next big spectator sport (if cricket can be popular you never know ) - I'm not missing an Amsterdam trip, a bevvy session, or a poker game because I'm a bad example to the kids.

THe responsibility for kids knowing what's right/wrong & dangerous lies with the parents NOT their entertainers.

Agreed...can we also please note that Marijuana  is seen as a performance enhancing drug? (By the World Anti-Doping Agency anyways) So getting cuaght using them still means you're in the shit.

[kinboshi]

I agree.  If he'd been smoking weed then he wasn't trying to cheat.  He was just stupid.

The penalty for smoking weed shouldn't be too punitive, and should in fact be less than the charge of missing a test (which could be hiding the use of performance-enhancing drugs).  To be honest, I don't know what the penalties are for the different offences.  Does anyone know the ranges of punishments?

The penalty for taking performance-enhancing drugs should be severe. 

Recreational or performance enhancing shouldn't make a difference.

Top sporstmen/women are revered by youngsters and only set a bad example. Should we be saying, it's ok Rio, you only did a bit of weed (if that's what he did), it doesn't enhance your onfield performance...........to hell with those that idolise you and will see fit to copy you?

Geo

I TOTALLY disagree Geo. The 'set a good example argument' infuriates me - if someone is good at football/music/acting it does not mean they have to live to different standards to anyone else. If Telecom Engineering became the next big spectator sport (if cricket can be popular you never know ) - I'm not missing an Amsterdam trip, a bevvy session, or a poker game because I'm a bad example to the kids.

THe responsibility for kids knowing what's right/wrong & dangerous lies with the parents NOT their entertainers.

Agreed...can we also please note that Marijuana  is seen as a performance enhancing drug? (By the World Anti-Doping Agency anyways) So getting cuaght using them still means you're in the shit.

No, if you're caught it means you're on the shit.

[gatso]

can we also please note that Marijuana  is seen as a performance enhancing drug? (By the World Anti-Doping Agency anyways)

only if you use a rather distorted view of what performance enhancing means (which unfortunately WADA do). these are the comments of Olivier Rabin Wada’s director of science 18 months ago when criticised for leaving cannabis on the banned list.

"We have three criteria for including something on our list of prohibited substances and methods, at least two of which have to be met - performance enhancement, possible health dangers and a contravention of the spirit of sport," Rabin told Reuters.

"We know full well that cannabis can alleviate feelings of fear which can help performance in some sports.

"It is also risky for athletes and others around them as it can cause a distortion of perception and we also believe it violates the spirit of sport even though we understand it is mainly a social drug."

it truly amazes me that a drug which is well known to create feelings of paranoia is regarded as performance enhancing because is stops you being scared.

 

[boldie]

can we also please note that Marijuana  is seen as a performance enhancing drug? (By the World Anti-Doping Agency anyways)

only if you use a rather distorted view of what performance enhancing means (which unfortunately WADA do). these are the comments of Olivier Rabin Wada’s director of science 18 months ago when criticised for leaving cannabis on the banned list.

"We have three criteria for including something on our list of prohibited substances and methods, at least two of which have to be met - performance enhancement, possible health dangers and a contravention of the spirit of sport," Rabin told Reuters.

"We know full well that cannabis can alleviate feelings of fear which can help performance in some sports.

"It is also risky for athletes and others around them as it can cause a distortion of perception and we also believe it violates the spirit of sport even though we understand it is mainly a social drug."

it truly amazes me that a drug which is well known to create feelings of paranoia is regarded as performance enhancing because is stops you being scared.

 

Doesn't really matter for the discussion though, does it? if you get caught using it you're in trouble.

And being paranoid might make you run faster...I dunno.

[gatso]

and this was from Samaranch, head of the IOC in '98 after the Canadian snowboarder Ross Rebagliati successfully appealed against being stripped of is gold medal after a +ive test for marijuana. if you don't remember the case he argued that any traces of the drug in his blood came from passive smoking, unavoidable because of the circles snowboarders move in.

"From my point of view, the International Olympic Committee must be very tough to ban these social drugs," said Samaranch.

"It is not doping, which deals with the performance of athletes," Samaranch said.

"But I think it's an ethical point, a point of principal, and we have a duty to fight against it.

"Many people can say, `Well, marijuana is a very light drug.' I am not an expert, but many people say marijuana is a beginning to hard drugs."

so the president of the IOC came out and stated that it was not performance enhancing.

a point of note: marijuana was not a banned substance at the olympics at theses game, I believe it started in 2000. Rebagliati failed the test as he was slightly above the limit used by the ski federation, a limit which was not zero but rather like a drink drive limit

[gatso]

And being paranoid might make you run faster...I dunno.

only if we go all gladitorial on the olympics. run 100m in under 10 seconds or we release the lions, that'll make sure you run quicker.

[boldie]

And being paranoid might make you run faster...I dunno.

only if we go all gladitorial on the olympics. run 100m in under 10 seconds or we release the lions, that'll make sure you run quicker.

And that I would watch!

[kinboshi]

Going back to Rio, it's also interesting to note that he was paid at least £2M by United while he was banned from playing for eight months after missing his drugs test.

I wonder if he'd have been paid the same amount if he had turned up for the test (and hypothetically speaking of course) was found to have been smoking weed.  Or would he then have been in breach of his contract with manu?  Would they still have paid him anyway, in order to make sure they were able to keep hold of their 'asset'?