By Greg Russell
May 17th 2009 @ 6:56am
Related coverage
Oh unlucky men
Wendell Sailor wearing the St. George Illawarra jersey after announcing his signing with NRL St. George Illawarra team at WIN Stadium, Wollongong, Monday, May 12, 2008. Sailor has just completed a two-year doping ban after testing positive to cocaine in 2006. AAP Image/Dean Lewins
“Oh Lucky Man”, the penultimate episode of the current season of “Underbelly”, screened in New Zealand this week. What has this to do with sport? Believe it or not, there is a topical connection.
The topic is the positive cocaine tests that were announced last weekend for Richard Gasquet, world no. 23 tennis player, and for Tom Boonen, arguably the leading road sprinter in world cycling.
The connection is that Chris “Mr Rent-a-Kill” Flannery was portrayed in said TV program as snorting cocaine just prior to carrying out some frenzied gangland executions.
It is for such “performance enhancement” that WADA and the IOC seek to ban athletes for two years for taking cocaine in-season.
To my mind this is ridiculous beyond words, and so I would like to do my little bit to take a stance against it.
For a start it is ridiculous because in all the cases of which I am aware – e.g., Gasquet, Boonen, Wendell Sailor, Matt Stevens, Martina Hingis – the cocaine use has been purely recreational and has had nothing to do with performance enhancement in sport.
Secondly it is ridiculous because even if cocaine were being used as a stimulant to achieve better performance, it’s benefit would be no greater than that of, say, performing the haka or being the recipient of one of Alan Jones’s legendary pep talks. I don’t see WADA suggesting that players should be banned for performing the haka or listening to Alan Jones (hey, now there’s a couple of nifty ideas!).
Thirdly, even if we were to reluctantly concede that there is some illicit performance-enhancing benefit in using cocaine, it is preposterous to equate such short-lived stimulation to the sustained and much greater benefit of using anabolic steroids or growth hormones or blood boosters, all of which attract exactly the same ban.
I’m guessing that WADA would argue that someone using cocaine could in principle do so before every sporting outing, and thus could attain performance enhancement every time. Well could someone please tell WADA to have a look at Ben Cousins, and they would quickly see where regular cocaine use leads – to a ruined life, as anyone with a smidgeon of common sense knows.
All this is so obvious that there can be only one conclusion: when it comes to cocaine use, WADA seeks to impose a moral code by stealth.
Well I have something to say to WADA and the IOC. I have never taken cocaine, so presumably I am in the demographic that these august bodies feel they are protecting and pleasing with their stance on cocaine. Frankly, I am appalled.
I was appalled and embarrassed by the treatment meted out to Wendell Sailor by the Australian rugby community, most of whom behaved like sniggering schoolboys with their class-fuelled glee over a rugby league convert being banned for nothing more than many of them were doing every weekend. I always wondered how these same people would have reacted had it been a “true blue” like Stirling Mortlock or Phil Waugh who tested positive.
Probably they would have reacted in the same way as English rugby did when one of their favorite sons, Lawrence Dallaglio, became tabloid fodder for use and distribution of cocaine and ecstasy: by closing ranks and protecting him.
Poor Matt Stevens – presumably because he’s a South African, the gin-n-tonic brigade think he deserves his two-year ban.
What will the ATP and its global stars do for Gasquet? The tennis fraternity was spared this issue in the case of Hingis, because the ever-clever Swiss Miss promptly announced her retirement after her cocaine positive, meaning that her two-year ban meant nothing.
But Gasquet is at the front end of his career – will his fellow tennis professionals rally around him in support if he is handed a nonsensical two-year ban?
Oddly enough it is in cycling, a sport riven by drugs and denials and cover-ups, that one finds some common sense over cocaine.
Boonen, who has been caught for the second time, is facing a ban of only 6 months, and this is purely aimed at helping him to sort out a personal problem, as opposed to being a punishment for trying to enhance sporting performance (yeah right, a guy is going to snort cocaine because it will help him to sprint faster after 6 hours in the saddle).
At least cycling’s tawdry record with drugs equips it to know what is a drug problem and what isn’t; quite clearly and quite correctly it has decided that it has much bigger fish to fry than cocaine.
Indeed, this is exactly what Graeme Steel, Chief Executive of Sport Free NZ (formerly the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency) had the courage to say publicly in 2007: that testing for recreational, non-performance-enhancing drugs is a waste of time and money, and that these precious resources would be far better spent on looking for the much smaller number of genuinely performance-enhancing drugs, namely steroids, growth hormones and blood boosters.
Interestingly, Steel was speaking not just of marijuana and cocaine, but also of things like cold remedies (remember the huge fuss over this and Samantha Riley about a decade ago?).
Evidently Steel made no headway in his battle, because we still have the utter charade over cocaine.
If sports want to ban their athletes from using cocaine, then let’s have that as a moral debate.
But please let’s desist with the charade of labelling it drugs in sport and imposing a ludicrously penal two-year ban.
One is almost tempted to unleash Chris “Mr Rent-a-Kill” Flannery on such proponents.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(37)
Rob said | May 17th 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
How is a performance enhancing drug defined? Does a rub down with Dencorub improve performance? Cortisone shots? Any painkillers? Ice packed on an injury? I’m not being facetious.
Spiro Zavos said | May 17th 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
Greg makes an interesting argument. There is I think an ‘image of the game’ aspect, too, that needs to be considered when the issue of recreational drug use is considered.
As far as stimulants to help performance are concerned, distinction needs to be made between ‘allowable’ stimulants like pasta or the use of a coffee beans (an aid that George Gregan and the ACT Brumbies memorably used) and stimulants that had/have the likelihood of damaging the long term health of a player.
Knives Out said | May 17th 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Dear Mr. Russell,
Lawrence Dallaglio never returned a positive drug sample. His crime was arrogance, pride and stupidity. Matt Steven’s crime was illegal drug use, regardless of the desired outcome of his preferred drug. Both players received both positive and negative media attention. As I recall, Dallaglio made the front page of the tabloids. Matt Stevens did not. Regardless, the UK rugby community accepted their responses and apologies and appropriately critiqued and supported them, in equal measure. That Matt Stevens was born in SA is completely irrelevant, as is your comment about an alleged gin and tonic brigade.
Yours,
ashamed Roarer.
Knives Out said | May 17th 2009 @ 8:35am | Report comment
NB. There is no connection whatsoever with the use of cocaine and performance enhancing drugs. Performance enhancing drugs will allow medium to long-term muscle and aeorbic development whereas cocaine use inspires short burst of adrenaline. Hence cocaine would be snorted prior to an act of violence. There is a reason that criminals, football hooligans, clubbers etc do not inject themselves in the bottom with steroids prior to gangland naughtiness.
Greg Russell said | May 17th 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
KO,
1. As I have commented before in response to your abuse, at least I put my name out there rather than hiding behind a nom de plume.
2. “you are neither a scientist”
Check your facts #1: I am an internationally recognized scientist by profession (check my website, something you will be able to do, because I give my name).
3. “There is no connection whatsoever with the use of cocaine and performance enhancing drugs”
Check your facts #2: cocaine is classified as a performance-enhancing drug by WADA.
Read the article #1: the whole point of my article is that cocaine should not be classified thus – that’s all.
4. “if Mr. Russell had bothered to consider the moral connotations that leading sportsmen accept.”
Read the article #2: I wrote “If sports want to ban their athletes from using cocaine, then let’s have that as a moral debate.” In other words, I was only commenting on cocaine’s classification as a performance-enhancing drug – that’s all.
5. “Lawrence Dallaglio never returned a positive drug sample.”
Read the article #3: not once do I say he did, in fact I was very careful not to write this, because I know he didn’t.
6. “As I recall, Dallaglio made the front page of the tabloids.”
Read the article #4: Exactly what I wrote (“Dallaglio, became tabloid fodder”), where I was careful to distinguish between his treatment by the tabloids and his treatment by the English rugby community.
7. “This sort of journalism is completely base”
If this is so, then what does that make your comments? (see points 2-6 above).
I will not respond to you again, so if you want to follow up with more abuse (you generally do), then the floor is yours.
Norm said | May 17th 2009 @ 10:19am | Report comment
Greg Russell has just ko’d KO.
Knives Out said | May 17th 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
I certainly wouldn’t consider any of my comments abusive, much as I wouldn’t consider yours journalistic.
1. What is your point? The Australian generic sports fan seems to delight in posting childish names. Do you criticise them? When in Rome.
2. IRONY.. That’s spelt I.. R.. O.. Although there is nothing scientific prose in your article, btw. Your article might have had relevance had you briefly and succintly differentiated between the effects of taking cocaine and performance enhancing drugs and hence given body to a rather flimsy argument.
3. There is no connection with cocaine and performance enhancing drugs – as your introduction suggests that WADA enforces. Clearly, one is an illegal substance due to societal requirements, the other because it is a performance enhancing drug. It goes without saying that WADA does not consider cocaine performance enhancing.
5. You suggest moral irregularity and purposeful ethical confusion – and never acually confirm that Dallaglio was relieved of the charges held against him by the media. You also suggest some form of weak fascism, ‘Poor Matt Stevens – presumably because he’s a South African’ and class elitism, ‘ the gin-n-tonic brigade’. Is that honestly insightful, responsible or appropriate work? It certainly is not.
6. I don’t think so. Please articulate how.
7. I am not passing myself off as a sports correspondent. But hey, that Sam Wykes… he’s a great player.
Knives Out said | May 17th 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
Btw, who are the unlucky men? Is Mr. Russell suggesting that cocaine should not be banned in sport? Is Mr. Russell wrong to suggest that WADA are incorrect in enforcing the laws of our land/s in sport? Is that ethical subversion by numbers? I’m not sure what this article is telling me? Sport makes people healthy, drugs don’t. Can I take drugs and take part in sport and be A-OK? Should our heroes be able to take heavy duty drugs without the population knowing and not be banned from their respective sport – when if you or I were to be found under the influence at work we would be made redundant? Is that ok? Is it fair that Dallaglio – who never took drugs – was only stripped of his captaincy and hounded by the press, when the SA Matt Stevens was sacked from his job for actual illegal drug taking? Would Phil Waugh be absolved if he were in Stevens’s shoes?
Greg Russell said | May 17th 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
For those in any doubt (and who are prepared to base their opinions on facts), here is an excerpt froma recent article on the Boonen case:
“That position was confirmed by WADA spokesman Frédéric Donze, who told VeloNews that cocaine is among a class of stimulants whose use is banned only in competition.
“If you look at the 2008 WADA Prohibited List, you will find a category named ‘Substances and Methods Prohibited In-Competition’ (i.e. only in-competition),” he wrote. “Cocaine is in section S. 6 Stimulants.”"
In other words, WADA classifies cocaine as a stimulant.
WADA bans the use of stimulants because it considers them performance enhancing.
All this may be confirmed at the WADA website.
Knives Out said | May 17th 2009 @ 10:57am | Report comment
Oh, I see. Clearly then, the WADA stance has absolutely nothing to do with moral necessity. Thank you empirical evidence. Does WADA consider Mary Jane a stimulant, one wonders?
damos_x said | May 17th 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
i agree with Rob, in that couldn’t affluence be considered performance enhancing, after all, a better diet, facilities, access to the latest science & equipment will all enhance performance especially competing against opponents who do not have these available. people may consider this to be a facetious argument but let’s examine swimming for example, where it is becoming obvious that having the better suit is proving to be the difference between otherwise finely honed athletes. so if you can do everything else but can’t afford or don’t have access to the better suit ? are you on a level playing field with the athlete who does, even if it all it comes down to is who you are sponsored by. on that note, is sponsorship performance enhancing ? if you had enough & didn’y have to work a conventional job thereby being able to train & rest with complete focus on your sport, compared to an athlete who has to juggle the demands on their time of working a ‘job’ as well as training, makes it all a bit unfair really doesn’t it. i am not advocating unchecked use of steroids etc, but the term performance enhancing clearly needs a re-think.
Rob said | May 17th 2009 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
Fair enough Damos.I think about these issues whenever I hear a report that for eg a player has had some ribs cracked in the first 1/2 of a game of footy and goes into the shed at 1/2 time and gets” needled up “. Without in any way talking about drugs as such it seems to be a bit arbitrary as to what is permissible and what is not.
znotty said | May 17th 2009 @ 6:28pm | Report comment
“New Paradigms in Free-Radical Polymerization Kinetics” ….fair dinkum,you must have played half back.
Steffy said | May 17th 2009 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
Cocaine can be performance enhancing although I doubt any of the sports people caught using it were doing it for any other purpose than a recreational one.
How the press reacts to it rather depends on the sport the person played. In the UK the rugby union media make great play on how much more spiffing their players are than any other sport so when one of them is caught misbehaving they either bury the story as much as they can or try to gloss over it – in todays Independent, for example, it is Matt Stevens “drugs illness” and at the time there were many articles written about what a great chap he is and how his drug addiction (an addiction can be turned into an illness, occasional drug usage can’t so the “addiction” angle was quickly highlighted) was because of the pressures he was under – the fact he also runs a coffee shop in Bath got a lot of publicity too for some reason.
The Sunday Mirror today contains an article about allegations that Bath rugby union players went on a cocaine and booze bender at the end of their season. We’ll see how that plays out.
Michael C said | May 17th 2009 @ 7:39pm | Report comment
Cocaine is an interesting one – - it’s normally seen as proof that a person has too much money.
And this is where you perhaps need to compartmentalise – which WADA kind of struggles with (because, it’s a blunt stick and WADA tries to apply zero tolerance).
I still look back to the Australian context and all the (lack of) debate when the Howard govt made a political issue around the AFL illicit drugs policy. Howard et al were desperately trying to get into bed with the IOC (and the result?? being that we have an Australian head of WADA). However, this completely confused the issues of WADA testing for performance enhancing and a separate and additional illicit drugs policy.
The facts were spartan. However, popular opinion in some quarters liked to portray that Ben Cousins for example was ‘on the juice’ as he helped the Eagles to win the 2006 GF. Reality is, that the WADA testing – which missed A.Johns and B.Cousins – within the AFL at least target tests the top performers, and B.Cousins was the reigning club B&F winner for the Eagles and they would target test the top 3 club B&F winners. Conclusion – either – A. that Cousins was NOT on the juice if the WADA (ASADA) testing was doing it’s job), or B. WADA(ASADA) is only effective as a political instrument!!!
The findings of the AFL policy thus far have been interesting. A policy aimed at putting the health and well being of the players first. They’ve found mostly cannaboids as the drug of infringement. Mostly associated with consumption of alcohol first and mostly in the ‘off season’ and the most likely time to test positive was upon returning to training from the 4 week inter season break.
Which illustrates there’s a big disconnect between WADA in season or match day performance enhancing testing in the past compared to a decent and separate illicit drugs program. Thankfully in Australia, the new Rudd govt via Kate Ellis have taken a more productive approach to this issue. Which makes sense, given in Australia the NRL, Cricket and AFL were the sports most in question from Howard Govt ‘pressure’, and none are Olympic sports!?!?!? Wierd.
Knives Out said | May 17th 2009 @ 7:53pm | Report comment
Matt Stevens said that he was a drug addict, Steffy. Your union conspiracy theory is boring beyond words.
Tom said | May 17th 2009 @ 10:22pm | Report comment
I agree with you Mr.Russel. One point though, you incorrectly used an apostrophe when writing “it’s”:
“it’s benefit would be no greater than that of, say, performing the haka or being the recipient of one of Alan Jones’s legendary pep talks”
Other than that, a sound and understanding article. Thanks.
Steffy said | May 18th 2009 @ 2:48am | Report comment
Saying you are a drug addict sounds a lot better than saying you take it for a laugh occasionally. An addict doesn’t just dabble occasionally they take it constantly, I doubt anybody could function as a sportsman with a cocaine addiction.
Gibbo said | August 21st 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
although perhaps you are over-estimating the burden of cocain addiction?
INA said | May 18th 2009 @ 3:00am | Report comment
I’m with you Mr. Greg Russel!
Great article obviously some of the readers here don’t get that WADA is not God and their’re making alot of mistakes too not to speak about their cover ups. Do you realize that WADA test are not 100% reliable?
Since the beginning of this year they’ve established a threshold for cocaine 50ng/ml which means that Martina Hingis didn’t even give a positive test because her result was 42ng/ml. But still she got 2 years because they’ve anounced her sentence in 2008! Nonsence right?
Richard Gasquet test result is higher but still he’s not guily for me. If you can drink and use a coke before a match and hide this from the rest you must be a super hero! Imagine how awful it must be to be punished for something you haven’t done!
Tom Boonen is another matter the man has a problem with alcohol and cocaine for years you can’t hide such thing in 21c.
He’s lucky that he’s a rider and not a tennis player.Cycling federation unlike the idiots from the ITF has done something right , supporting him.
As far as I know the last 3 American presidents have used cocaine and they still have been elected, and some of the readers here are talking about moral? Give me a break , please!
Knives Out said | May 18th 2009 @ 3:12am | Report comment
That is a fair point but cocaine addiction isn’t like heroine addiction. The consequences wouldn’t affect a person that much. In essence one only has to be desiring the drug to be an addict.
Graeme Steel said | May 18th 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Greg – I am afraid you have misrepresented my position. While you correctly represent the views of Drug Free Sport NZ that the prohibited list should be substantially reduced your extrapolation of my comments to include cocaine is wrong.
I have not promoted the elimination of cocaine from the prohibited list. The use of a powerful stimulant (such as cocaine) prior to an event has the potential to enhance performance and, of greater concern, is arguably the most dangerous thing an athlete can take if circumstances such as dehydration and heat are added to the mix.
Cocaine is not tested for during out of competition testing as it has no long term performance benefit and use away from competition is therefore (arguably) none of the business of an anti-doping organisation.This is in keeping with our position but sporting organisations ignore cocaine use by their athletes at their peril if they wish to create a environment which allows the true benefits of sport to individuals and communities to win through.
Graeme Steel
Chief Executive
Drug Free Sport NZ
OldManEmu said | May 18th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Good article Greg, agree with your central argument.
El Capitan said | May 18th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Gregg,
Your statement “I was appalled and embarrassed by the treatment meted out to Wendell Sailor by the Australian rugby community, most of whom behaved like sniggering schoolboys with their class-fuelled glee over a rugby league convert being banned for nothing more than many of them were doing every weekend”, do you have proof that “many of them” were doing this over a weekend? Besides Sailors problem was the excuse that he gave that he didn’t take drugs, but then once the B sample came back admitted that yes he did.
Actually Cocaine makes you so focused on what you are doing, so it can be defined as performance enhancing, esp if your playing a game that envolves high concentration and high energy levels. Why else do clubbers take it?
Jamie said | May 18th 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
Arent we missing the point. Cocain is illegal.
Sports should ban it – but maybe not ban it under the facade of being performance enhancing.
Michael C said | May 18th 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Jamie -
cocaine IS illegal. So is speeding.
Sports clubs often become as if defacto parents/guardians of players often plucked from family in late teens – so what is the responsibility of a code/club to support the players involved.
btw – further to the AFL findings, a high proportion of those testing positive under their illicit drugs policy where found to have mental illness (whether undiagnosed or not). This policy is assisting greatly in developing appropriate support mechanisms for people with such issues to function in such an environment.
If WADA had their way – - it’s zero tolerance all the way and total exclusion. That’s not always the right outcome. After all – our whole justice system is built around case by case processes. Why not WADA.
Greg Russell said | May 18th 2009 @ 11:52am | Report comment
To Graeme (Steel):
I apologize that I extrapolated the view of Drug Free Sport NZ a bit too far. As I remember you definitely said marijuana, and I’m pretty sure you also said that testing for cannabis was not a good use of resources (when I checked the WADA website yesterday, I noticed that it groups both these two together on the banned list). I cannot remember if some media also threw in cocaine with their reports (in 2007), or if I did this extrapolation myself. Whatever, I was wrong, and I apologize.
I should also stress that my article is merely my own opinion. I apologize for the implication that my opinion is supported by your own. As you have clarified, it is not when it comes to cocaine, although it is when it comes to some lesser substances.
I do concede in my article that cocaine can technically be performance enhancing (as you write). But I wonder what you say to my point that in all cases of cocaine use of which I am aware (see listed names plus more), the use has purely been for recreational purposes.
You do write that the cocaine use has to be “prior to an event” to have ” the potential to enhance performance”. I realise that testing cannot distinguish whether people like Wendell Sailor and Martina Hingis used cocaine immediately prior to taking the field of play, but I think it is stretching common sense even to think that they did. (If I remember correctly, Wendell said he used cocaine on the Wednesday before a Saturday game.)
I was interested in your “health” defence for the position on cocaine: “of greater concern, is arguably the most dangerous thing an athlete can take if circumstances such as dehydration and heat are added to the mix.” If WADA is going to position itself in such terrain, then I wonder what you say to the point that various readers have made about “needling up”, i.e., using painkillers to mask the pain of an injury so that they can take the field. I would have thought that this (widespread) practice would be far more potentially dangerous to an athlete’s health than cocaine use, so why does WADA not ban it?
Am I correct in assuming from your comment that if Boonen had tested positive in-competition, then he too would be facing a mandatory two-year ban?
Finally, your coment is useful for those readers who refuse to accept that WADA bans cocaine for performance rather than moral reasons – thankyou.
znotty said | May 18th 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Greg,How does cocaine improve performance.
Steffy said | May 18th 2009 @ 7:39pm | Report comment
“Greg,How does cocaine improve performance”
The people who chew coca leaves in South America while working longs days at high altitude don’t do so because they wish to talk crap to each other all day and night.
znotty said | May 18th 2009 @ 8:54pm | Report comment
Steffy
i`m asking a scientist to explain how cocaine improves performance,what you do at your local night club is your business.
Greg Russell said | May 18th 2009 @ 10:57pm | Report comment
Re “How does cocaine improve performance”, see the posting above by the head of Drug Free Sport NZ (the body that policies drug use in NZ sport). See also the WADA website. Basically, cocaine is a stimulant. Being a scientist does not equip me to offer significant insight beyond this. Rather, such could be provided by those who have used cocaine and experienced its effects. As I state in my article, I have not.
znotty said | May 18th 2009 @ 11:17pm | Report comment
well i have used cocaine & it didn`t make anything but a bigger wanker (if possible) i reckon it would hinder performance myself.
INA said | May 19th 2009 @ 1:30am | Report comment
Cocaine can’t help you alot , maybe in the first 10-15 min. As a whole it ruins your performance in long term.
As Maradona has said “Imagine how much better I would’ve been without my cocaine and alcohol problems.”
Knives Out said | May 19th 2009 @ 2:36am | Report comment
Anybody with any comprehension of urban life – however slight – will be absolutely aware that coacine is not a performance enhancing drug. Further, it is completely disingenuous, and also negligent, to suggest that there is no moral motive behind the banning of cocaine otherwise cannabinoids would not also be banned – under their own grouping, of course. But hey, misrepresentation of an appropriate expert and xenophobic prose makes for great reading from where I’m sitting.
Campbell said | June 16th 2009 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
Knives,
You’ve just had Graeme Steel the Chief Executive of Drug Free Sport NZ clearly state that cocain IS A PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUG.
But obviously you are far more qualified to comment so we’ll just believe you shall we? YOU TWAT!
I have some comprehension of urban life – and sporting life – and can categorically state that coke very much acts as a stimulant – thus an enhancement to sporting performance!
Your above statement “Anybody with any comprehension of urban life – however slight – will be absolutely aware that coacine is not a performance enhancing drug” comes across with incredible arrogance – do you seriously believe your statement? Open your eyes!
Again I’ll state – YOU TWAT!
Mattyg said | August 5th 2009 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
Wouldn’t cocaine be performance enhancing for anarobic sports. 100m sprints, swim sprints, weight lifting, Tae Kwon Do, those kind of things?
Does WADA have a seperate list of banned drugs for different sports, or are the same drugs banned for all sports?
If there is a blanket ban on the prohibited list across all sports, having cocaine as a banned substance for endurance sports would be due to its stimulant effect on the quick sprint and power sports.
Dean Pantio said | November 21st 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
“Secondly it is ridiculous because even if cocaine were being used as a stimulant to achieve better performance, it’s benefit would be no greater than that of, say, performing the haka or being the recipient of one of Alan Jones’s legendary pep talks”
The peer reviewed medical science tells us otherwise. Cocaine is a stimulant and enhances performance in a range of metrics.
Ultimately though, if you don’t like the fact that your chosen sport will test and ban for certain substances you have two choices: Don’t use said substance and keep playing the sport, or give up the sport. It’s really that simple.