In a recent article on ESPN.com, Terry Blount writes about the recent controversy in NASCAR, where over the past few years, a handful of drivers have been caught using drugs.
Fike admitted in an ESPN The Magazine story that he was injecting heroin while competing in Craftsman Truck Series events...
Fike's admission is the long-feared scenario of a driver racing a car at 200 mph while impaired by substance abuse. Odds are it has happened far more than what we know because NASCAR doesn't have a detailed testing plan in place to keep it from happening.
I'm no ethicist. The metaphysics of right and wrong never occupy my thoughts for more than a minute or two, at which point I revert to the comfort of my Holy Trinity: Biomechanics, Bicycles, and Breasts (did you think it was going to include bears, beets, or Battlestar Galactica? don't be silly.)
Still, some things are pretty cut and dry, aren't they? Drugs are bad. Cheating is really bad. Shun the nonbelievers, and death to the infidels.
Not-testing is bad, because not-testing does nothing to prevent competitors from cheating. Testing, therefore, is good. QED, ipso facto and ergo sum.
This doesn't sit right, though. Cheating is bad, of course, but is the use of recreational drugs cheating? Or is it just stupid?
Doping is banned from sports because modifying one's blood chemistry is dangerous, and when it's a race between doctors rather than athletes (pardon the cliche), the athletes are invariably put in danger. As the competition uses more performance enhancers, so must you, until eventually someone's blood turns to sludge or what have you. It is the escalating nature of doping that is dangerous.
The parallel in motor sports is mechanical, rather than biochemical, but its logic is analogous. Lighter materials or altered geometry may make the car go faster, but they compromise the safety of the driver. If teams were to try to one-up each other at the expense of safety, that would be bad. Cheating is bad.
But what about the downhiller who rocks the occasional doobie, or the driver who shoots up heroin? I'll tell you what, man, I've seen Trainspotting, as well as Half Baked, and those are not the sort of representatives with which these sports want to identify themselves. Drugs are bad.
What I don't understand is why people are all up in arms about the recreational drugs. This sort of thing should, in theory, be self-destructive. Smoking MaryJane should make a cyclist less able to go fast. Chasing the dragon should make a driver quite horrible at driving (Fisk, by the way, placed as high as 5th while on heroin... which casts the 38 drivers he beat in a somewhat negative light).
I'm okay with increased testing - for recreational drugs - by the central body, even though I don't quite get why it's necessary. This still leaves one more question: why are other drivers so up-in-arms about this? This Fisk guy did pretty damn well on the smack, and it's not like they don't have death-defying fireball crashes every weekend. Is there something going on, beyond the superficial "drugs are bad" platitudes?
"Shame on NASCAR for not policing our garage better than they police it right now," [driver] Kevin Harvick said. "I think we're all professional athletes and should be treated like professional athletes in other professional sports -- and shame on them for not doing that."
So. They've perceived some slight, some insinuation that they are not actually athletes. Despite the drama that threatens to tear cycling apart, despite the fallout from the infamous Mitchell report, the drivers are looking for a way to be put on the same plane as the major sports... even if that means cracking down on the ol' Reefer madness.
Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead, right? Let's see what happens when your sponsors pull out, your TV coverage disappears, and you get the WADA all up in your business. Godspeed on your crusade.
Okay, for real this time, one last question: Should I really be taking this article seriously? Is the author even credible?
NASCAR and its fans have a possible dilemma if regular testing for everyone becomes the standard. One of its stars could face suspension in the middle of a season or the start of the Chase.
Oh.
Posts
2 comments:
While I find your incessant reversion to the construction "[noun(s)] is/are bad" quite irksome, you entirely redeem yourself with the Holy Trinity part.
Testing for recreational drugs should exist in drug testing. However, only for safety issues. Heroine (I would believe) was used in this case as a stimulant to help the driver (hence doping to cheat), not because he needed it to get through the day.
Remember the 1998 (I think) Winter Olympics? The winner of the snowboarding half pipe gold medal was stripped of said medal for testing positive for reefer. It was later given back to him when the Olympics realized that Weed was not a banned substance.
Both situations lead to one or two logical conclusions...Certain drugs aren't that bad in moderation and may help performance. Scenario 2 would be that these same drugs are extremely dangerous and hence the rest of the field must've sucked to lose to these guys (or the users were sooooo much better than the field that even drug use couldn't make them losers...
Post a Comment