From: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: NHRA announces Piss Testing
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:42:18 -0500

geoff@ITcorp.com (Geoff Kuenning) writes:

>I have a couple of questions here, which relate to my own personal
>biases regarding piss tests:

>(1) Does the NHRA have a history of serious personal injury (including
>    death) which is traceable to substance abuse?
>(2) Are there substances which have been demonstrated to improve NHRA
>    race results?

>If the answer to (1) is yes, then I believe piss tests are justified
>in the interests of general safety.  Despite my generally rabid
>attitudes on personal freedom, I would even support drug testing when
>the only person endangered is the user, UNDER THE CONDITION that there
>is strong pressure from outside parties (such as sponsors) to win.
>(The latter sentence is based on the situation on bicycle racing,
>where the pressure is so strong that otherwise-sensible individuals
>have been known to endanger their own health to achieve better
>results.)

If the answer to (1) is "yes", it is still insufficient to justify
the piss test.  The piss test measures leftover metabolites and not
the drug itself.  What you want is a test that measures actual
impairment, not past drug use, if your real interest is safety.
Impairment testers of various types exist, are being marketed, and
have demonstrated reliability.  The device with which I am most 
familiar is also cheaper in regular use that a comprehensive piss
testing program.

The piss test might catch someone who smoked a joint a week ago but
won't catch a person who is currently sleepy, for example.  Sleepiness
is a major cause of degradation of performance and consequent accidents.

>If the answer to (2) is yes, then piss testing might be justified on
>the grounds that failure to test is unfair to drivers who don't want
>to risk their health.  It also might be justified on the assumption
>that NHRA racing is fundamentally a contest of human abilities, and
>that chemical aids are not valid factor (of course, neither are exotic
>engines...but then doesn't NHRA inspect engines for conformance to the
>rules?).

If we assume (2) then a simple counter-argument is that performance
enhancement should actually reduce accidents, all other things being 
equal.  Again, I maintain that if the issue is safety, test for 
things that impact on it directly -- i.e., cognitive or motor 
impairment -- and not on lifestyle.

Steroids may appear to be a special case but, even here, I would 
argue that if people want to pursue some sort of drug-free ideal,
let them form a special drug-free group.  Records that they set can
have a "d" superscript indicating that they don't use drugs.  For
the rest, let them do what they want with regard to steroids.

Of course, steroids don't have much to do with auto racing but I
would point out that eliminating steriods from physical competition
is rather arbitrary given all of the artificial training aids, diets,
mountain regimens, blood doping, special shoes, computers, etc., etc.,
etc., that go into producing the modern athlete.  Besides, if steroids
make athletes less susceptible to training injuries -- muscle tears
and the like -- that is a point in their favor that counterbalances
the risk.  Let the athlete decide for him/herself on the basis of
accurate information and not mythology and drug war hysteria.

>Beyond these, I can't see much justification for piss testing.  Feel
>free to correct me if I'm wrong.  But it seems to me that the only
>valid reasons for regulating *any* racing behavior are (1) general
>safety, and (2) protecting the little guy from manipulation by the big
>guy.

The only possible argument I see for piss testing would be (2) 
modified for junior high or high school athletes and only for
hormonal treatment.  Even here, I think the onus rests with the
people who argue for the piss test to prove that there is such a
high degree of risk that it justifies violating privacy.  I
believe that teenagers have rights too.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
                       --from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt
Newsgroups: rec.autos