« Terminator 2 | HomePage | A hammers win!!! »
Friday, 31 August 2007
Misinformation again
Again it is in the press and around for public comment. The issue of recreational and performance enhancing drugs in sport. The mis information being stated by people such as head coaches who obviously should be keeping to their area of expertise is awesome.
Statements to the effect that a football player who takes amphetamines recreationally could also have a performance enhancing effect on the playing field. This is a misunderstanding of what the terms recreational and performance enhancing drugs mean.
It is not the drug that is performance enhancing or recreational, it is why and how the drug is taken that makes it recreational or performance enhancing. It is the goal of taking the drug in the first place.
If an elite footballer is going to take a stimulant like amphetamines to enhance their performance then they are going to have to approach it in a very well planned and meticulous way for there to be any chance of success. They would have to be very careful about what they consume, the amount they consume and the timing of the consumption of the drug. If one is not going to do this then there is no reason to take the drug in the first place.
Once they have done such a thing, they are then going to do all the other things to assist with their performance such as proper sleep, proper diet, not taking any other drugs like alcohol and so on.
If one is going to take amphetamines recreationally then the goal is to get wasted, and the more wasted you get the better. That is the whole point of the exercise in the first place. So what they do is get with their friends for a night out and then go and meet some guy who somebody knows. They give him money and he gives them some powder. They have no idea if the powder is what it is meant to be but they take it anyway.
Now one takes a stimulant because they want to go out and partee. One does not take amphetamines to veg out at home. To do that you would smoke marijuana. So after you snort the powder they go out to some ‘full on’ night spot such as a club of some kind. The amphetamines make you feel indestructible and like you can handle anything. That is why you take it. It also allows you to party for long periods of time with out rest or sleep. So the footballer goes out to a club where there are lots of people and will usually drink alcohol as well and will stay out very late. That is the goal of recreational amphetamine use in the first place.
If someone does that then it is very unlikely that their performance on the football field a day or two later is going to be enhanced at all. In fact it is very likely that it will lead to a significant fall in performance.
It is not the drug that is performance enhancing or recreational. It is how and why the drug is being used that makes it performance enhancing or recreational.
Graffiti
17:31 Permalink | Comments (10) | Email this
Comments
Hi Graffiti,
Makes common sense to me. Not sensational enough for the press though!
Kahless.
ps. wot no piccies?
Posted by: kahless | Saturday, 01 September 2007
It's the standard drug scare and myth that's been around for a long time. I can remember the idea of "if you take one drug that's the beginning of the long slippery road to addiction". Most people still believe that.
Maybe you should get on the media and start to shout the other view.
Posted by: Madeleine | Saturday, 01 September 2007
Hello Kahless,
This was a 'by request' post. so I didn't do any 'visuals'.
In this instance it is not a matter of sensationalism. Its the press not liking confidentiality between doctor and patient.
Some players medical files were stolen and sold to a TV station and then they published them. This has lead to legal action and an assessment of media ethics. Listening to the majority of the press reactions they side step the confidentiality issue and just keep repeating that the public have a right to know.
Of course for doctors, social workers, psychologists counsellors and so forth this is of considerable importance if the press are so willing to be a participant in breaking patient confidentiality.
Tony
Posted by: Tony | Saturday, 01 September 2007
Yes Madeleine,
there are lots of myths about such things and have been for a very long time.
One could seek to have the alternative view stated in the press but it's not what they want so it will always get very little copy.
Tony
Posted by: Graffiti | Saturday, 01 September 2007
Some bastard lawyers made me break client confidentiality this week by subpoena. They want his file records in a family court procedure. So much for his therapy now! I hope is ex wife enjoys what seems to be just another slap in his face.
Its not just the media that are unscrupulous and looking to cause some attention, don't forget the lawyers that make $500 per half hour.
k
Posted by: kenoath | Saturday, 01 September 2007
Hi Tony,
I would say that the press should be prosecuted for abetting a theft; bet that isn't being done or talked about either!
I never know any more when I pick up a newspaper which are the lies, which are the truths, and what lies in the middle. Our press lie, I know it. So I dont but newspapers anymore, unless I fancy doing a cross word or reading my horoscope or want mondays sport supplement.
Kahless.
Posted by: kahless | Saturday, 01 September 2007
Ohh my goodness Ken!
They can do that?
Why are lawers, solicitors and all those 'law' type people, well, why do they work in such an unethical way? It's not justice they really want, it seems they will do anything for the highest bidder.
While saying that i hear the balance shouting loud and clear in the back of my mind, that there are lawers who work for us and not just against us. It's just so ... umm ... sucky! (I was going to say bad but that's a tad full on and splashes the 'lawers with a conscience' with badness too and that's not justice, it sounds more like bigotry)
I don't know the person you're talking about Ken, no idea of the situation but it certainly sounds VERY sucky!
Hi Tony...
Posted by: Roses | Monday, 03 September 2007
Hi Roses,
Yes they can subpoena any file of a clients
Tony
Posted by: Tony | Monday, 03 September 2007
But Tony? It should that be allowed?
I know some people are very sick creatures and perhaps share with their therapists some really important info and all that (*giggles* yep...here it comes) 'but' forcing therapists to break confidentiality sucks so big time!
A therapist doesn't have to give the information though do they? Would it mean a goal or jail sentance for the therapist if they didn't give the info?
Hope your weekend was a nice one. Mine was. Ohh by the way... Happy Fathers day! Cheers...
Posted by: Roses | Monday, 03 September 2007
Roses,
Therapists like almost any one else can be forced by the courts to provide information that it may require. The most usual scenario is with the family court, when one parent is trying to prove how the other is so bad. So they get the counsellors notes as a 'fishing' exercise to try and dig up some dirt.
The counsellor should be aware of the possibility of this and inform the client and thus various matters may not be discussed or only in a general way.
If you see the client heading in a direction where they may disclose some information about an illegal activity then you must also inform them and you dont want any specifics. For instance in drug counseling not uncommonly the client at some time has been involved in drug deals and so forth. So the counsellor makes sure they get no specifics and thus they can subpeona all they like and there is nothing to find in the notes.
I would like to add, that at least in Australia this only happens very infrequently, or at least that has been my experience.
Tony
Posted by: Tony | Monday, 03 September 2007