Drug testing and footbag in the Olympics

Stoke · Post by **Stoke** » 11 Dec 2008 18:27

Please read my post before voting in the poll.

I was reading a random article from a Fark link about some chess player busted for doping. One paragraph caught my attention:

The only reason there are doping tests in chess in the first place is that the World Chess Federation (FIDE) has been trying, since the late 1990s, to make chess an Olympic discipline. And anyone wishing to be part of the Olympics must submit to the rules of the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

I thought "Isn't footbag trying to get into the Olympics? How hard are we trying? Why don't we do drug testing, atleast at IFPA sanctioned tournaments?"

So where can I read about what the footbag community is doing to get our sport into the Olympics? And what do you think? Are there too many other hurdles to worry about before we start doing drug tests? I understand that there will be expenses involved.. And I'm sure there are some of you who might have to drop out of competition if we started screening people.. So would it be too much trouble or what?

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 11 Dec 2008 18:55

Stoke wrote:I thought "Isn't footbag trying to get into the Olympics?

My impression is that we aren't, and that there haven't been serious talks about this for a few years. I don't recall the exact details, but since footbag would be a summer olympic sport, we'd need "federations" on several continents and countries. As recently as 2002, there was no footbag in Asia, and footbag has only started up seriously in South America in the last couple years. Even in countries where footbag is well-established, I don't think there are federations that meet the requirements of the IOC.

There is also the question of whether or not our freestyle competition format (routines) are well-established enough, and formalized enough for us to be considered. Net has more olympics potential, but the net scene is even smaller and geographically isn't in a good position to qualify as an olympic sport.

I don't really see any reason for us to have drug-testing in footbag, considering how far off the possibility of being in the olympics is.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 11 Dec 2008 19:28

The long term goal of the IFPA is to have footbag recognised by the IOC as a sport. That doesn't mean it would be in the Olympics, just that it would internationally regarded as an actual sport. I think the goal was to achieve this by 2030. There are a few people working on it a little but I don't know if much progress has been made lately.

Regarding drug testing. I voted no, but only because of the cost. Ideally we would have lots of money and we would definitely do drug tests, including for recreational drugs, and people who tested positive on both samples would face bans etc.

Although I'm actually totally opposed to recreational drug testing in sport, I recognise that it's a part of legitimate sports and if we want footbag to be considered a sport (and I do) we should follow the guidelines that other sports have to set. I don't think it would be helpful to get into a meaningful debate about it at a policy level until footbag is officially recognised as a sport.

Stoke · Post by **Stoke** » 11 Dec 2008 19:36

That's kinda disheartening. But thanks, Ken.
And Jeremy.

Jeremy wrote:I don't think it would be helpful to get into a meaningful debate about it at a policy level until footbag is officially recognised as a sport.

That makes sense.
But does anyone recognize chess as a sport? [Rhetorical question. I don't want to hijack my own thread..]

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 11 Dec 2008 19:40

Jeremy wrote:Everything he said

Completely agree.

Cass · Post by **Cass** » 11 Dec 2008 20:19

The whole point of drug testing is to make sure athletes aren't taking any performance enhancing drugs. Are there even any drugs that would enhance a footbaggers performance? I don't see why we should be testing for drugs just because other sports do it, if there is no other legitimate reason.

Footbag becoming an Olympic sport is not something that I'm too concerned about.

Kyle Hewitt · Post by **Kyle Hewitt** » 11 Dec 2008 20:51

Cassy wrote:The whole point of drug testing is to make sure athletes aren't taking any performance enhancing drugs. Are there even any drugs that would enhance a footbaggers performance? I don't see why we should be testing for drugs just because other sports do it, if there is no other legitimate reason.

Footbag becoming an Olympic sport is not something that I'm too concerned about.

i dunno when i got high i would shred better a lot of the time

i dont smoke right now and haven't been for a few months now

Cass · Post by **Cass** » 11 Dec 2008 21:07

I don't think that shredding high makes a significant enough difference to disqualify someone, especially considering the test comes out just as positive if they smoked 2 weeks ago at a party or that day.

Yeah Vasek didn't deserve to be world champ 6 times because he smokes dope

Kyle Hewitt · Post by **Kyle Hewitt** » 11 Dec 2008 23:53

Cassy wrote:I don't think that shredding high makes a significant enough difference to disqualify someone, especially considering the test comes out just as positive if they smoked 2 weeks ago at a party or that day.

Yeah Vasek didn't deserve to be world champ 6 times because he smokes dope

oh im just trying to say it does make a difference for people lol.

Frank_Sinatra · Post by **Frank_Sinatra** » 12 Dec 2008 12:00

People could be using performance enhancing drugs & getting an unfair advantage right now, who knows? Not that I have any reason at all to assume that anyone is. Just saying, if I were interested in being a top level competitor, I'd definitely want to feel like I was competing in a fair environment.

I hope it isn't inevitable for this topic to be about whether smoking grass makes you better at footbag.

mc · Post by mc » 12 Dec 2008 12:41

I'd say that the performance-enhancing (or in my case, performance-permitting

) drug that I use the most to help me play footbag better is caffeine.

I can't remember the last time I had a session that wasn't recently preceded by a coffee, or, less commonly, an energy drink.

I also like those 5-hour Energy drinks, which contain caffeine, and also lots of B vitamins, although I don't think they are considered a drug.

My experience with cannabis is that it does not enhance my performance in any way. Occasionally, it enhances my experience, but mostly, it's a large hindrance.

I do not think we should be concerned with drug testing at this point. I am not personally concerned with the Olympics.

professor · Post by **professor** » 12 Dec 2008 16:28

Cassy wrote:The whole point of drug testing is to make sure athletes aren't taking any performance enhancing drugs. Are there even any drugs that would enhance a footbaggers performance?

I think anabolic steroids would definitely enhance a player's performance. They wouldn't help on "game day" per say, but in simple terms, what steroids do is increase your muscle's efficiency to regenerate after being broken down. This means if you took them after having a session, your muscles would not only repair faster, but also stronger than normal.

This would mean one could have longer and harder sessions with less days rest in between. Which, would obviously be a huge disadvantage to people not using steroids.

Should we drug test now? I don't believe so. Too much cost for our small sized sport and who would want to risk taking steroids for $2000 at Worlds?

When the sport is larger? Definitely test.

Post by **Zac Miley** » 12 Dec 2008 16:51

I would be totally for drug testing if it weren't expensive. Basically I agree with everyone.

QuantumBalance · Post by **QuantumBalance** » 12 Dec 2008 18:39

I voted no. but I wouldn't argue against it. to be in the olympics I would be straight edge. you hadme at the standard other sports set. the best mix is on right now.

Shredinger Z · Post by **Shredinger Z** » 14 Dec 2008 16:23

Well.. I voted no.

My reason is that there are some drugs that don't make play better (ex. smoke joints), and in a drug test these substances give positive...

I use to smoke like 2 or 3 joints per week and when I'm high (what is like 3 hours from 168 hours of a week), I don't play better.. I can't play..

I'm not having any type of advantage in training and I shouldn't be banned of a competition if what I take doesn't give me an extra.

But the problem is that THC is on the list of banned substances, as other drugs that don't increase stamina or make your muscles stronger( I'm not saying that all the drugs of the list should be erased, but some of them should be at least tested if the effects are positive or negative for the sport)

An athlete can take whatever he wants if he doesn't cheat. And the cheat in the sport is controlled by doping. The doping works like that, if is on the list, is banned. If is not on the list, it's legal. Lots of proffesional athletes and sports teams ( basketball, football (soccer), handball, cycling...) have people working for them to find substances that don't appear on the list.

So basically I don't think that footbag needs to do doping controls because the actual doping list would ban a lot of players (me including) and I don't think it's fair by the reasons I explained.

Tripp · Post by **Tripp** » 15 Dec 2008 18:56

I think you should have to test positive to compete.

Shredinger Z · Post by **Shredinger Z** » 16 Dec 2008 07:33

Tripp wrote:I think you should have to test positive to compete.

No, it's not like that. The drug test can be done before or after the competition.

If it's done before, you can compete if you give negative. Positive means that there is any banned substance that appears in the test.

If it's done after the competition, you compete either, (it's logical, because before there is no way to know if you are cheating) but if gives positive, you got banned and if you won something in that competition, you lose it.

Tripp · Post by **Tripp** » 17 Dec 2008 15:21

Yeah, I know. I would rather see it, if it in fact enhances performance. Why? Better shred.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 17 Dec 2008 15:43

I think it's basically undeniable that particular drugs do enhance performance in physical activity, including footbag, and it would make no sense for people to take performance enhancing drugs after competitions unless it was to improve their performance after the event.

The illegality of recreational drugs is because if you're competing at a level where you're drug tested then you're a role model and should be setting a good example, and because they're illegal. My opposition to recreational drug testing in general is that I think what you do outside of your job should be your own choice and you shouldn't be held to higher standards than the law. The counter argument to this, which is also fairly valid, is that when people are caught doing illicit drugs it does harm the sport, which not only harms the job of that particular person, but of all the people with jobs in that sport, and so frequent random testing works by discouraging people from taking drugs in the first place, which is deemed to be a greater benefit than the damage caused when the tests find people out who wouldn't otherwise have been caught. I guess it's liberal vs social perspectives.

crazylegs32 · Post by **crazylegs32** » 21 Dec 2008 18:20

We need to test politicians, actors, and musicians if that role model argument is to hold up.

modified

Drug testing and footbag in the Olympics

Do you think we should start doing drug tests at major tournaments?

Drug testing and footbag in the Olympics

Re: Drug testing and footbag in the Olympics