click here for this article's associated links

MOUTIER, Switzerland - Three U.S. gymnasts were given "severe warnings"
after testing positive for marijuana, the International Gymnastics
Federation (FIG) said Wednesday.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Drug testing of athletes has gotten completely out-of-hand. And it might be
interesting to construct a thought experiment to analyse the situation. For
instance, why do we insist that our athletes be completely drug-free when
other kinds of public performers escape such vigilance? If we test our
athletes to be sure their performances are unaided by pharmacological
means, shouldn't we also test our musicians before they give recitals or
concerts?

It seems quite likely that playing certain difficult piano concertos could
be accomplished more dexterously under the influence of amphetamine, just
as a bicycle racer might achieve a faster time using such a drug.
Historical evidence reveals that for some jazz musicians at least, practise
sessions aided by cannabis enabled them to improvise more interestingly
during their performances. And what if taking certain risky body building
drugs enabled latin percussionists to play their timbales and bongos even
more amazingly? Shouldn't we test all such musicians to ensure that their
performances are "genuine" and not pharmacologically aided? Shouldn't a
musical work produced with artifical help from drugs be invalid, an affront
to the composer and public alike? Shouldn't a musician who had used drugs
as part of his training forever be tainted, and his performances forever be
suspect? After all, performance of a difficult musical piece is as much of
a physical and mental exploit as any sport, and if we can't trust athletes
to resist the temptations of pharmacologically-assisted lucre and fame, why
should we trust musicians?

And if a musician tested positive before a concert, shouldn't he then be
disqualified from performing? Or if a positive test occurred after a
concert, shouldn't the musician receive uniformly bad reviews? Musicians
should obviously be drug-tested before and after recoording sessions as
well, and if positive, no recording should be issued to a public that wants
to be sure that they are not being deceived.

And what about painting, sculpture, acting, writing novels and a host of
other arts and crafts performed for the public? Before painting or
sculpting, an artist should submit to drug tests, before writing, a
novelist prove his clarity of mind, and actors submit urine samples before
coming on the set each day. Shouldn't we have a commission that drug tests
all these individuals to ensure that their creative works are
"naturally-produced" and not tainted with drug-induced facilitation? Surely
a painting or a sculpture would be far more valuable were we to ensure that
no pharmacological means were used in its creation, a film with only
lifetime-drug-free actors of far better quality. Such a commission might
certify paintings, films, public performances of plays and music, and thus
guarantee that no drugs played a part in their creation. It is quite
narrow-minded to concentrate on drug-free athleticism when all these other
areas are totally ignored.

The above reflections might asisst us to penetrate the preconceptions and
assumptions that underlie a most absurd aspect of the modern "war" on drug
use, as well as illustrate some further not insignificant absurdity
concerning the values we attach to certain human efforts and exploits, but
apparently not to others of great similarity.

-- Peter Webster

Associated links:

Pubdate: Wed, 6 Mar 2002
Source: Associated Press (Wire)