Drugs - anyone know anything about this?
Douglas Newlands
Age article names Disa Eythorsdottir, characterised as an American professional,
as refusing test. Claims it is a diet drug for a back condition and that it is
on prescription but she does not have a certificate to cover it.
Also quotes Damiani as saying 2 players have failed but so narrowly that they
did not publish names.
I'll put this on r.g.b and see what anyone else knows.
Douglas
-----Original Message-----
From: Cathy Chua [mailto:snip]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 11:46 AM
To: Newlands Doug
Subject: re brige scandal
Today at about 6.45am Simon got me to listen to the radio. Rosemary B was talking on 3aw (?) about drugtaking in bridge. Apparently an Age article this morning reports that 2nd place in the Women's had been stripped of her medal (as they always describe it) for refusing to take a drug test....Doug, do you know any more about this from your bridge chat internet things?
Cathy
--
Dr. Douglas A. Newlands, School of Computing & Mathematics,
Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria 3217, Australia,
Tel +61(03)52271165 [Fax 52272028]
email: do...@deakin.edu.au http://www.deakin.edu.au/~doug
Ron Lel
"Douglas Newlands" <do...@Deakin.Edu.Au> wrote in message
news:ClWc9.17$af....@news.deakin.edu.au...
> Hi Cathy,
>
> Age article names Disa Eythorsdottir, characterised as an American
professional,
> as refusing test. Claims it is a diet drug for a back condition and
that it is
> on prescription but she does not have a certificate to cover it.
> Also quotes Damiani as saying 2 players have failed but so narrowly
that they
> did not publish names.
> I'll put this on r.g.b and see what anyone else knows.
>
> Douglas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cathy Chua [mailto:snip]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 11:46 AM
> To: Newlands Doug
> Subject: re brige scandal
Doug, now you know how I made that 3NT contract last Wednesday.
:-)
Ron Lel
John Crinnion
> Hi Cathy,
>
> Age article names Disa Eythorsdottir, characterised as an American professional,
> as refusing test. Claims it is a diet drug for a back condition and that it is
> on prescription but she does not have a certificate to cover it.
> Also quotes Damiani as saying 2 players have failed but so narrowly that they
> did not publish names.
> I'll put this on r.g.b and see what anyone else knows.
>
> Douglas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cathy Chua [mailto:snip]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 11:46 AM
> To: Newlands Doug
> Subject: re brige scandal
>
>
> Today at about 6.45am Simon got me to listen to the radio. Rosemary B was talking on 3aw (?) about drugtaking in bridge. Apparently an Age article this morning reports that 2nd place in the Women's had been stripped of her medal (as they always describe it) for refusing to take a drug test....Doug, do you know any more about this from your bridge chat internet things?
>
> Cathy
Yes, she asked in advance if the drug was pemissible, and says they did not know.
I think the whole idea of drug testing of bridge players is monstrous.
What next? Vaginal smears for signs of recent intercourse?
Thomas Dehn
"Douglas Newlands" <do...@Deakin.Edu.Au> wrote:
> Age article names Disa Eythorsdottir,
> characterised as an American professional,
> as refusing test. Claims it is a diet drug
> for a back condition and that it is
> on prescription but she does not have a certificate to cover it.
Being on a diet drug is no reason to refuse the drug test.
She coulkd easily have taken the drug test
and then let them sort out later whether her
diet drug is allowed or not. Refusing the
drug test was dumb.
Thomas
Mike Preston
Not if the diet drug was not the only drug in her system at the time.
mike
Thomas Dehn
And thus, by refusing the drug test, she created
the false impression that she might have used
other drugs. Even more dumb.
Thomas
Mike Vaughn
<thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
Out of context, but who are these officious people who think they should
go around testing for drugs at a bridge contest? It isn't an Olympic
sport, for crying out loud ;-)
This is (North) America after all.
> Thomas
Nat Silver
>...but who are these officious people who think they should
> go around testing for drugs at a bridge contest? It isn't an
> Olympic sport, for crying out loud ;-)
Several of you are either missing the point or do not want to
address the point. Conditions of contest were set to conform
to Winter Olympic Games standards. The idea, now dead,
was to show that international Bridge could be an Olympic
event.
jur...@t-online.de
Where you have freedom and democracy and justice for those who can
pay? Where you have Homeland Security, and Meese and Ashcroft can
become attorney general?
>> Thomas
Douglas Newlands
:In article <al35hs$1n5qrp$1...@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de>, "Thomas Dehn"
Ummm, do the Canadians agree with this or has Montreal been moved?
:)
Douglas
Thomas Dehn
The WBF was trying to convince the IOC that
Bridge should become an olympic sport.
Then, taking performance enhancing drugs is cheating,
and cheating should be illegal in any
competotove game or sport.
> This is (North) America after all.
You might have missed the subtle point that the
WBF is not a "(North) American" organisation,
but an international organization.
Thomas
Ed Reppert
wrote:
> Where you have Homeland Security
We don't have Homeland Security yet (although I fear we will when
Congress gets done).
--
Regards,
Ed
jur...@t-online.de
<thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
>"Mike Vaughn" <mtva...@neu.REMOVE.edu> wrote:
>> In article <al35hs$1n5qrp$1...@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de>, "Thomas Dehn"
>> <thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
>> > Being on a diet drug is no reason to refuse the drug test.
>> > She coulkd easily have taken the drug test
>> > and then let them sort out later whether her
>> > diet drug is allowed or not. Refusing the
>> > drug test was dumb.
>>
>> Out of context, but who are these officious people who think they should
>> go around testing for drugs at a bridge contest? It isn't an Olympic
>> sport, for crying out loud ;-)
>
>The WBF was trying to convince the IOC that
>Bridge should become an olympic sport.
>Then, taking performance enhancing drugs is cheating,
>and cheating should be illegal in any
>competotove game or sport.
Since there are no known performance enhancing drugs, and since
burocrats must have their regulations, why not test for the major
performance reducing drugs - the rationale might be fairness to the
other competitors - e.g. booze and nicotine. For Bridge, but not for
Chess, a test for excessive bile might also be called for.
PS before anyone replies that booze and nicotine are beneficial - this
is true only in the very short term and in moderate quantities, except
in the case of addicts, and we don't need any addicts, do we?
Thomas Dehn
<jur...@t-online.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 08:14:13 +0200, "Thomas Dehn"
> <thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mike Vaughn" <mtva...@neu.REMOVE.edu> wrote:
> >> In article <al35hs$1n5qrp$1...@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de>, "Thomas Dehn"
> >> <thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
> >> > Being on a diet drug is no reason to refuse the drug test.
> >> > She coulkd easily have taken the drug test
> >> > and then let them sort out later whether her
> >> > diet drug is allowed or not. Refusing the
> >> > drug test was dumb.
> >>
> >> Out of context, but who are these
> >> officious people who think they should
> >> go around testing for drugs at a bridge contest? It isn't an Olympic
> >> sport, for crying out loud ;-)
> >
> >The WBF was trying to convince the IOC that
> >Bridge should become an olympic sport.
> >Then, taking performance enhancing drugs is cheating,
> >and cheating should be illegal in any
> >competotove game or sport.
>
> Since there are no known performance enhancing drugs
There exist drugs which can increase bridge performance.
Get very nervous because you will have to play in the vugraph
against Meckwell? A beta blocker might help.
Exhausted and very tired after one week of
world championship bridge? Stimulants (such as caffeine:->>>)
will prevent you from falling asleep during the night session.
Thomas
Gordon Rainsford
> There exist drugs which can increase bridge performance.
> Get very nervous because you will have to play in the vugraph
> against Meckwell? A beta blocker might help.
Are they banned? I take them for migraines. Others take them for high
blood pressure, and I think some take them for PMT, aside from anxiety.
> Exhausted and very tired after one week of
> world championship bridge? Stimulants (such as caffeine:->>>)
> will prevent you from falling asleep during the night session.
>
>
> Thomas
--
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
Giovanni Bobbio
> Thomas Dehn <thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
>> There exist drugs which can increase bridge performance.
>> Get very nervous because you will have to play in the vugraph
>> against Meckwell? A beta blocker might help.
>
> Are they banned? I take them for migraines. Others take them for high
> blood pressure, and I think some take them for PMT, aside from anxiety.
Check www.wada-ama.org
They have a link to a "List of prohibited substances and methods" in the
home page. This list seems to be IOC-approved and beta blockers are in the
list.
--
Giovanni
Italy
Thomas Dehn
"Gordon Rainsford" <r...@gordonrainsford.co.uk> wrote:
> Thomas Dehn <thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> > There exist drugs which can increase bridge performance.
> > Get very nervous because you will have to play in the vugraph
> > against Meckwell? A beta blocker might help.
>
> Are they banned? I take them for migraines. Others take them for high
> blood pressure, and I think some take them for PMT, aside from anxiety.
I am quite sure that some beta blockers are
on the IOC's list. There have been cases
where athletes lost their medal because
the drug tests showed that they used beta blockers.
Thomas
David Stevenson
Fortunately, this isn't.
This was a WBF tournament with WBF rules, which are nothing to do with
NAmerica, except insofar as they are one of eight Zones with input.
Where the event was staged is irrelevant.
However, drug testing in other sports exists *even* in NAmerica.
=========================
Thomas Dehn wrote (Thomas Dehn <thomas...@arcor.de>)
>"Mike Vaughn" <mtva...@neu.REMOVE.edu> wrote:
>> This is (North) America after all.
>You might have missed the subtle point that the
>WBF is not a "(North) American" organisation,
>but an international organization.
Subtle? Hehehehehehe!!!!!!
Perhaps certain of our readers should write the following out 100
times:
"There is life outside the USA"
or, if you prefer:
"There is life outside North America"
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @
<bri...@blakjak.com> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )=
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~
Bill Ahrens
Inger Miller of the US, who won the bronze medal at the 1999 Indoor World
Championships, was stripped of her 60 meters medal because she failed a
caffeine test.
http://www.runnersworld.com/dailynew/archives/2001/October/011017.html
Bill Ahrens
"Gordon Rainsford" <r...@gordonrainsford.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1fhzzn7.13gm6991ojlw4yN%r...@gordonrainsford.co.uk...
David Burn
news:al39oa$1m9sk5$1...@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de...
> "Mike Preston" <mbpatpas...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 22:27:18 +0200, "Thomas Dehn"
> > <thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Douglas Newlands" <do...@Deakin.Edu.Au> wrote:
> > >> Age article names Disa Eythorsdottir,
> > >> characterised as an American professional,
> > >> as refusing test. Claims it is a diet drug
> > >> for a back condition and that it is
> > >> on prescription but she does not have a certificate to cover
it.
> > >
> > >Being on a diet drug is no reason to refuse the drug test.
> > >She could easily have taken the drug test
> > >and then let them sort out later whether her
> > >diet drug is allowed or not. Refusing the
> > >drug test was dumb.
> >
> > Not if the diet drug was not the only drug in her system at the
time.
>
> And thus, by refusing the drug test, she created
> the false impression that she might have used
> other drugs. Even more dumb.
Much has been made of the fact that most of the drugs on the IOC
banned list would do nothing to enhance performance at bridge, and no
doubt this is so.
But it is not necessarily so in the case of "diet drugs". If, for
example, you use a drug such as dexedrine as an appetite suppressant,
you are likely to know that because it is an amphetamine, it will
almost certainly be on the proscribed list. Because amphetamines
"induce exhilarating feelings of power, strength, energy,
self-assertion, focus and enhanced motivation" (extract from
http://amphetamines.com/meth.html), they would correctly be regarded
as performance-enhancing drugs as far as bridge is concerned.
Being on "a diet drug" may therefore constitute a very good reason for
not wanting to take a dope test.
David Burn
London, England
Asya Kamsky
David Burn <dal...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>But it is not necessarily so in the case of "diet drugs". If, for
>example, you use a drug such as dexedrine as an appetite suppressant,
>you are likely to know that because it is an amphetamine, it will
>almost certainly be on the proscribed list. Because amphetamines
>"induce exhilarating feelings of power, strength, energy,
>self-assertion, focus and enhanced motivation" (extract from
>http://amphetamines.com/meth.html), they would correctly be regarded
>as performance-enhancing drugs as far as bridge is concerned.
Two points:
1) modern diet drugs are NOT speed or amphetamines. They are
more often of the seratonin reuptake inhibitors, same as
anti-depressant families of drugs.
2) exhilarating feelings of ...energy ... focus" don't actually
mean you _have_ more energy or focus. Ask any college student
who did speed to finish some homework project what it looked
like in the morning :)
Oh and I understand that a lawyer has been retained and I predict
that Disa's medal will be reinstated.
--
Asya Kamsky
"To forgive is an act of compassion. It is not done because
people deserve it, it's done because they need it." -- Rupert Giles.
Thomas Andrews
news:undaig1...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Oh and I understand that a lawyer has been retained and I predict
> that Disa's medal will be reinstated.
> --
> Asya Kamsky
>
> "To forgive is an act of compassion. It is not done because
> people deserve it, it's done because they need it." -- Rupert Giles.
But her failure was not to fail the drug test, but in refusing to take a
drug test.
If the condition of contest included the possibility of a random drug test,
then she should have taken it and fought if some medical drug caused her to
fail it. By not taking the drug test, she does not preclude various other
possible drugs in her system.
Yeah, drug tests for bridge players is silly, and hopefully they'll stop the
nonsense, but if it was part of the condition of contest, she should have
submitted to the test.
--
Thomas Andrews (tho...@best.com) http://thomaso.best.vwh.net/
Dale, you giblet-head, we live in Texas. It's already 110 in
the summer, and if it gets one degree hotter, I'm gonna kick
your ass. = Hank Hill, on global warming
Asya Kamsky
Thomas Andrews <tho...@best.com> wrote:
>> Oh and I understand that a lawyer has been retained and I predict
>> that Disa's medal will be reinstated.
>drug test.
You're assuming that we have all the available facts.
There may be other issues in submitting to testing that you may
believe will not be correctly administered or handled post-fact.
Mike Preston
wrote:
>Yeah, drug tests for bridge players is silly, and hopefully they'll stop the
>nonsense, but if it was part of the condition of contest, she should have
>submitted to the test.
Can somebody explain to me exactly why drug tests for bridge players
is silly? Sure, at the sectional level. Maybe even at the national
level. But at the world level? Projecting things out to where there
is significant interest in a true world championship, isn't the
concept that people will push the envelope to get whatever advantage
they possibly can? So to avoid having to implement things after
people have complained, you just bite the bullet and implement things
in advance.
I think the concept is appropriate. That is, the true world champion
should be one that is not artificially enhanced. Maybe we would find
that bridge is very much an athletic endeavor if the extended matches
associated with a world championship were required to be void of
performance enhancers? Maybe the people who would rise to the
occasion would be markedly different? I don't know.
But the thought that the individual or team that wins such a
championship be devoid of advantages gained by artificial means
doesn't bother me at all.
I guess it depends on what people consider performance enhancers. If
I don't drink coffee, am I put at a disadvantage with respect to those
that drink a cappucino between each and every 2-board round? Or am I
forced to pop caffiene pills to compete on an "even" basis?
mike
Mike Preston
wrote:
>In article <Qyyd9.106381$Yb1....@sea-read.news.verio.net>,
>Thomas Andrews <tho...@best.com> wrote:
>>> Oh and I understand that a lawyer has been retained and I predict
>>> that Disa's medal will be reinstated.
>>But her failure was not to fail the drug test, but in refusing to take a
>>drug test.
>
>You're assuming that we have all the available facts.
>
>There may be other issues in submitting to testing that you may
>believe will not be correctly administered or handled post-fact.
But if it was part of the conditions of contest, wouldn't that be
something that should be decided before entering?
mike
Asya Kamsky
Mike Preston <mbpatpas...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>There may be other issues in submitting to testing that you may
>>believe will not be correctly administered or handled post-fact.
>But if it was part of the conditions of contest, wouldn't that be
>something that should be decided before entering?
My understanding is that the contestants in Montreal apparently agreed,
as a condition of contest, to random drug testing of medal winners.
There was no specification of which drugs would be tested, but the
assumption was they would follow IOC policy, as they had in Salt Lake.
There were no proscribed penalties or follow-up procedures.
In addition, there was no procedure for what to do in the
event of a refusal, so the disqualification of Disa, but not her
teammates, was an impromptu decision.
Not to mention the fact that the person whose name was first
out of the "random draw" box was not tested, but one of her
teammates was tested instead...
Ken Kaufman
>On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 01:36:48 GMT, "Thomas Andrews" <tho...@best.com>
>wrote:
>>Yeah, drug tests for bridge players is silly, and hopefully they'll stop the
>>nonsense, but if it was part of the condition of contest, she should have
>>submitted to the test.
>Can somebody explain to me exactly why drug tests for bridge players
>is silly?
The same reason it is for any game player. It's none of anyone's
business, and a person's basic rights of privacy and free choice should far
outweigh any perceived minor shift in the balance of competition.
>I think the concept is appropriate. That is, the true world champion
>should be one that is not artificially enhanced. Maybe we would find
>that bridge is very much an athletic endeavor if the extended matches
>associated with a world championship were required to be void of
>performance enhancers?
>But the thought that the individual or team that wins such a
>championship be devoid of advantages gained by artificial means
>doesn't bother me at all.
Has the person who read <insert name of favorite bridge book> been
artificially enhanced over the person who hasn't? How about the one who
could afford a pricier hotel room, so got a better night's sleep on a
more comfortable bed? How about the player who received laser eye
surgery, so (s)he doesn't fatigue so easily? Or the one who hired a top
pro for lessons? Unless you're going to restrict these events to people
who've been raised in identical sterile rooms and provided with no
contact with the outside world other than the Laws of Duplicate Bridge,
you've already got an uneven playing field, one that will not be
unbalanced further by any coffee, pills, or whatever else your personal
prejudices feel are artificial enhancers in contrast to all the other
ones out there.
==Ken
DavJFlower
The problem with many drugs is that they are dangerous to the competitor's
health. If they were permitted, many athletes would suffer long-term health
problems.
In this case, the whole US team should, of course, have been disqualified
Dave Flower
Richard Willey
Preston) wrote:
>Can somebody explain to me exactly why drug tests for bridge players
>is silly? Sure, at the sectional level. Maybe even at the national
>level. But at the world level? Projecting things out to where there
>is significant interest in a true world championship, isn't the
>concept that people will push the envelope to get whatever advantage
>they possibly can? So to avoid having to implement things after
>people have complained, you just bite the bullet and implement things
>in advance.
I don't think that I would have chosen the word "silly". Personally,
I prefer the expressions "ill-advised" and/or "stupid".
At its core, the criticisms of drug testing can almost all be reduced
to the assertion that the costs of mandatory drug testing far outweigh
the gains. At the end of the day, it is impractical for the WBF to
implement a rigid drug testing regime of the type you suggest. Too
many players and or/sponsors place too much value on caffeine and
nicotine consumption to adhere to the same substance abuse policies
that govern true sporting events. Consider the following: Do you
want to create a system in which individual teams have a vested
interest in banning Nicotine as to hurt the chances of other players?
Regardless of whether or not nicotine enhances cognitive performance,
I can guarantee that depriving a nicotine addict of their "fix" will
degrade their level of play. Imagine a system in which I have an
incentive to use legislation to prevent Meckstroth from taking a
smoking break. Instead, the WBF will be forced to implement a system
in which rules are implemented in a radically inconsistent manner.
Players will be banned for using cannabis and other mind altering
substances that have no effect on the level of play while exceptions
are made for socially acceptable drugs such as caffeine. The most
interesting cases will clearly revolve around "sponsors" who are
willing to pay large amounts of money for their Olympic medals. In
part, their financial resources are used to hire teams of pros.
However, they will also extend to hiring teams of lawyers. Many
players have already noted the inconsistency in stripping a medal from
an individual member of a team while not sanctioning the team as a
whole. The most logical explanation for this decision centers on fear
of litigation.
At one point in time, it was possible to argue that there were
potential external benefits from adopting a drug testing program. In
particular, drug test was required for Olympic recognition with the
subsequent possibility of monetary subsidy from various government
organizations. With the [welcome] collapse of this effort, this last
argument is removed.
In short, drug testing competitive bridge players will produce very
few direct benefits. At the same time, there are significant costs
associated with this effort. In some cases, the critics of drug
testing restrict themselves to arguing over purely financial costs.
Even if it were possible to administer drug tests to players for free
(a doubtful assertion), there are still very substantial
administrative and legal costs associated with implementing such a
system. Many individuals find it galling when the President of the
WBF is simultaneous complaining over lack of funds and arguing that
the WBF needs greater subsidies while wasting large amounts of money
on various pet projects ranging from the usual bribery associated with
any Olympic activities to the 20 page color "glossies" promoting WBF
officialdom that were handed out to all participants in Montreal.
From my perspective, I do not believe that it the cost/benefit
analysis should be restricted to purely financial terms. Instead, it
seems appropriate to consider a wide variety of other cost factors.
Other individuals have already commented regarding how offensive it is
to have the organizing bodies interfere with what should rightful be
matters of personal preference. From my own perspective, I think that
the most significant is the amount of political capital that the WBF
has wasted on this effort. There are a limited number of projects
that organizational leaders can simultaneously pursue. From my
perspective, drug testing represents an annoying distraction away from
more pressing priorities.
Mike Preston
Can't the same arguments be made for other competitions, like the
Olympics? I don't hear you making any cogent arguments about why
bridge should be treated differently. Just that you want it to be.
That's fine.
But it doesn't convince me.
mike
Mike Preston
>The rules against drugs are to protect the honest competitor.
I think it is more to it than that. Are you saying that if someone
were to volunteer and therefore be honest enough to admit that they
had 10 cups of coffee before a competition that there would be no need
for the rules?
>The problem with many drugs is that they are dangerous to the competitor's
>health. If they were permitted, many athletes would suffer long-term health
>problems.
I'm sure that is part of it. But there are many substances on the
list and caffiene is surely one of them that are not harmful. So I
don't think it is the entire story.
> In this case, the whole US team should, of course, have been disqualified
I don't disagree completely. However, if there were good reasons, as
implied by Asya, and the competitor was within her rights to refuse,
then no disqualification should have resulted. However, for that to
happen, the charges against the adminstrators should have been made
public, IMO. I agree with Asya that if the rules state that the tests
will be administered in a certain manner (random?), and the
administrators choose a different path (targeted, favoritism?), the
whole concept is voided.
mike
Steve Grant
>
> Not to mention the fact that the person whose name was first
> out of the "random draw" box was not tested, but one of her
> teammates was tested instead...
Specifics, please? And a source?
Giovanni Bobbio
> Not to mention the fact that the person whose name was first
> out of the "random draw" box was not tested, but one of her
> teammates was tested instead...
I am not prepared to believe that the WBF did something so incredibly stupid
_and_ let it leak.
--
Giovanni
Italy
Ken Kaufman
>On 5 Sep 2002 13:57:21 GMT, kau...@osf1.gmu.edu (Ken Kaufman) wrote:
>
>>In article <3d7705ca....@news.CIS.DFN.DE> mbpatpas...@pacbell.net (Mike Preston) writes:
>>>On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 01:36:48 GMT, "Thomas Andrews" <tho...@best.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Yeah, drug tests for bridge players is silly, and hopefully they'll stop the
>>>>nonsense, but if it was part of the condition of contest, she should have
>>>>submitted to the test.
>>
>>>Can somebody explain to me exactly why drug tests for bridge players
>>>is silly?
>>
>>The same reason it is for any game player. It's none of anyone's
>>business, and a person's basic rights of privacy and free choice should far
>>outweigh any perceived minor shift in the balance of competition.
[my commentary mostly omitted]
>Can't the same arguments be made for other competitions, like the
>Olympics?
Give the man a cigar :-)
>I don't hear you making any cogent arguments about why
>bridge should be treated differently. Just that you want it to be.
As I implied above, my opinions apply as well to other competitions.
The issue is not whether bridge should be treated differently, but
rather, what is the proper treatment (specifically) for bridge.
==Ken
Ken Kaufman
>> Not to mention the fact that the person whose name was first
>> out of the "random draw" box was not tested, but one of her
>> teammates was tested instead...
>
>I am not prepared to believe that the WBF did something so incredibly stupid
>_and_ let it leak.
^^^^
^^^^
We are talking about piss-testing here.
Gordon Rainsford
> The rules against drugs are to protect the honest competitor.
>
> The problem with many drugs is that they are dangerous to the competitor's
> health.
As are obesity and lack of exercise, but they aren't legislated against.
> If they were permitted, many athletes would suffer long-term health
> problems.
This doesn't sound like "The rules against drugs are to protect the
honest competitor."
>
> In this case, the whole US team should, of course, have been disqualified
>
> Dave Flower
Chris Pisarra
"Giovanni Bobbio"wrote
> I am not prepared to believe that the WBF did something so incredibly
stupid
> _and_ let it leak.
Your faith in the WBF is touching. Mis-placed, but touching
nonetheless.
And **everything** leaks in a small community like the
world of top bridge. Take a couple of hundred incredibly intelligent
people with time and money to burn, and the concept of keeping a secret
just doesn't fly. Everyone travels with a laptop and a cell phone: the
world has shrunk to the size of everyone's traveling case. News flies
faster than it does on CNN.
Chris
Thomas Dehn
"DavJFlower" <davjf...@aol.com> wrote:
> The rules against drugs are to protect the honest competitor.
>
> The problem with many drugs is that they are dangerous
> to the competitor's health. If they were permitted,
> many athletes would suffer long-term health
> problems.
It can be worse. There have been incidents where
athletes died live on TV because they
took performance enhancing drugs.
Thomas
Thomas Dehn
"Asya Kamsky" <as...@bayarea.net> wrote:
> Oh and I understand that a lawyer has been retained
> and I predict that Disa's medal will be reinstated.
Presumably, your prediction will be correct,
but only because inevitably some US court
which has no jurisdiction whatsoever about
a WBF event which took place in Canada
will accept a ridiculous lawsuit.
Thomas
Thomas Dehn
"Ken Kaufman" <kau...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
> In article <3d7705ca....@news.CIS.DFN.DE>
mbpatpas...@pacbell.net (Mike Preston) writes:
> >On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 01:36:48 GMT, "Thomas Andrews" <tho...@best.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>Yeah, drug tests for bridge players is silly,
> >>and hopefully they'll stop the
> >>nonsense, but if it was part of the
> >>condition of contest, she should have
> >>submitted to the test.
>
> >Can somebody explain to me exactly
> >why drug tests for bridge players is silly?
>
> The same reason it is for any game player. It's none of anyone's
> business, and a person's basic rights
> of privacy and free choice should far
> outweigh any perceived minor shift in the balance of competition.
Bridge is a competition, not a 'game'.
Winning a world championship in bridge can
be worth a buck or two (or a more) for
a bridge professional. Sell more books, get
a bonus from the sponsor or client, charge
higher fees for future sessions
Thomas
Thomas Dehn
"Gordon Rainsford" <r...@gordonrainsford.co.uk> wrote:
> DavJFlower <davjf...@aol.com> wrote:
> > If they were permitted, many athletes would suffer long-term health
> > problems.
>
> This doesn't sound like "The rules against drugs are to protect the
> honest competitor."
What is difficult to understand here?
If the cheaters take unhealthy performance enhancement
drugs which improve their performance by a
few percent, then the other competitors will
have to take unhealthy performance enhancement
drugs, too, to get a reasonable chance of
winning the event.
Ben Johnson is a good example how drugs
can increase performance. He probably
never would have run under 10 seconds
without doping.
Thomas
Dave
> I am not prepared to believe that the WBF did something so incredibly
stupid
> _and_ let it leak.
>
Gordon Rainsford
> "Gordon Rainsford" <r...@gordonrainsford.co.uk> wrote:
> > DavJFlower <davjf...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > If they were permitted, many athletes would suffer long-term health
> > > problems.
> >
> > This doesn't sound like "The rules against drugs are to protect the
> > honest competitor."
>
> What is difficult to understand here?
> If the cheaters take unhealthy performance enhancement
> drugs which improve their performance by a
> few percent, then the other competitors will
> have to take unhealthy performance enhancement
> drugs, too, to get a reasonable chance of
> winning the event.
>
And they'd still be considered "honest competitors" as compared with the
others who are "cheaters"?
Asya Kamsky
Steve Grant <ACE...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> Not to mention the fact that the person whose name was first
>> out of the "random draw" box was not tested, but one of her
>> teammates was tested instead...
>Specifics, please? And a source?
Fine, I'll give you specifics:
Names were drawn while the finals were in progress. First
name for the Womens' was Lynn Deas. Then came Jill
Meyers of the same team, then Disa, the only one selected
from her team. I have no information about the details of the
random drawing method.
The US officials protested the selection of Lynn, arguing that
she takes an extraordinary number of different pharmeceuticals.
Somehow those objections prevailed, and a substitute name was
drawn: Beth Palmer.
Since I've heard this from three different sources so far (all
were present at the event), I don't feel the need to give out
their names.
Steve Grant
> In article <al83io$m...@dispatch.concentric.net>,
> Steve Grant <ACE...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >> Not to mention the fact that the person whose name was first
> >> out of the "random draw" box was not tested, but one of her
> >> teammates was tested instead...
> >Specifics, please? And a source?
>
> Fine, I'll give you specifics:
>
> Names were drawn while the finals were in progress. First
> name for the Womens' was Lynn Deas. Then came Jill
> Meyers of the same team, then Disa, the only one selected
> from her team. I have no information about the details of the
> random drawing method.
>
> The US officials protested the selection of Lynn, arguing that
> she takes an extraordinary number of different pharmeceuticals.
> Somehow those objections prevailed, and a substitute name was
> drawn: Beth Palmer.
>
> Since I've heard this from three different sources so far (all
> were present at the event), I don't feel the need to give out
> their names.
Fine. In that case, I don't feel the need to believe you.
Gordon Rainsford
Which doesn't prevent it from sounding plausible to some of us.
Georgiana Gates
>
> In article <al83io$m...@dispatch.concentric.net>,
> Steve Grant <ACE...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >> Not to mention the fact that the person whose name was first
> >> out of the "random draw" box was not tested, but one of her
> >> teammates was tested instead...
> >Specifics, please? And a source?
>
> Fine, I'll give you specifics:
>
> Names were drawn while the finals were in progress. First
> name for the Womens' was Lynn Deas. Then came Jill
> Meyers of the same team, then Disa, the only one selected
> from her team. I have no information about the details of the
> random drawing method.
>
> The US officials protested the selection of Lynn, arguing that
> she takes an extraordinary number of different pharmeceuticals.
> Somehow those objections prevailed, and a substitute name was
> drawn: Beth Palmer.
>
> Since I've heard this from three different sources so far (all
> were present at the event), I don't feel the need to give out
> their names.
>
> --
> Asya Kamsky
completely the reverse of the typical IOC athlete. Of course she takes
a lot of medications.
jimf...@cox.net
news:al8u0o$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Lynn told me she was drawn for the test. Although we didn't discuss anything
about a substitute, due to the medications she has to take, it seems
unlikely she could pass a test.
She also told me that the reason the entire "silver medal" team was not
disqualified was that the drug testing process was so vaguely defined to the
players in principle and was so disorganized in practice.
Mmbridge
Steve Grant
news:1fi2g2q.1r4u8ip1vl0m8N%r...@gordonrainsford.co.uk...
I don't dispute that it's plausible. A lot of unsubstantiated gossip is
plausible.
Thomas Dehn
Without drug tests after a while
the cheaters will be winning almost
all important events, and the remaining
honest competitors will hardly have a change to qualify for
the final stages of the competitions. The "honest competitors"
only have a choice between not being able to
compete, and taking performance increasing drugs, too.
Have a look at women's tennis. How did
the girls get all these muscles in such a short time?
The only question is whether the drugs they used to build up
muscles are allowed or not.
Thomas
Mike Preston
Willey) wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 07:30:44 GMT, mbpatpas...@pacbell.net (Mike
>Preston) wrote:
>
>>Can somebody explain to me exactly why drug tests for bridge players
>>is silly? Sure, at the sectional level. Maybe even at the national
>>level. But at the world level? Projecting things out to where there
>>is significant interest in a true world championship, isn't the
>>concept that people will push the envelope to get whatever advantage
>>they possibly can? So to avoid having to implement things after
>>people have complained, you just bite the bullet and implement things
>>in advance.
>
>I don't think that I would have chosen the word "silly". Personally,
>I prefer the expressions "ill-advised" and/or "stupid".
Thanks for the reply.
I think the strongest argument against drug testing would be that the
only drugs that might give a significant advantage would be those that
are not viewed as inappropriate. Specifically, caffiene and nicotene.
The second one is resource utilization.
Personally, I wouldn't care if Meckwell was eliminated because of a
need for nicotene. If such an "enhancer" was required for top-level
performance, maybe in a world championship they just aren't qualified?
>At its core, the criticisms of drug testing can almost all be reduced
>to the assertion that the costs of mandatory drug testing far outweigh
>the gains.
I'm not sure the cost is particularly relevant, so I think I disagree.
I don't know. I'll have to think on it more.
> At the end of the day, it is impractical for the WBF to
>implement a rigid drug testing regime of the type you suggest. Too
>many players and or/sponsors place too much value on caffeine and
>nicotine consumption to adhere to the same substance abuse policies
>that govern true sporting events. Consider the following: Do you
>want to create a system in which individual teams have a vested
>interest in banning Nicotine as to hurt the chances of other players?
I don't view it that way. I think that it is nearly impossible to
tell which are good drugs and which aren't. I think they should all
be banned. If the result is that the older competitors who need
pills, etc. to function and/or survive are all disqualified, so be it.
The championship should be won by those who are not enhanced. Period.
That may not sit well because there are so many of the elite that are
in need of assistance. But it wouldn't bother me at all to have them
disengaged from a true world championship.
>Regardless of whether or not nicotine enhances cognitive performance,
>I can guarantee that depriving a nicotine addict of their "fix" will
>degrade their level of play. Imagine a system in which I have an
>incentive to use legislation to prevent Meckstroth from taking a
>smoking break.
It doesn't matter who it is.
> Instead, the WBF will be forced to implement a system
>in which rules are implemented in a radically inconsistent manner.
Nah. Test 'em all.
>Players will be banned for using cannabis and other mind altering
>substances that have no effect on the level of play while exceptions
>are made for socially acceptable drugs such as caffeine. The most
>interesting cases will clearly revolve around "sponsors" who are
>willing to pay large amounts of money for their Olympic medals. In
>part, their financial resources are used to hire teams of pros.
>However, they will also extend to hiring teams of lawyers. Many
>players have already noted the inconsistency in stripping a medal from
>an individual member of a team while not sanctioning the team as a
>whole. The most logical explanation for this decision centers on fear
>of litigation.
That is a cop out. If the conditions are stated in advance, then let
the litigation follow.
>At one point in time, it was possible to argue that there were
>potential external benefits from adopting a drug testing program. In
>particular, drug test was required for Olympic recognition with the
>subsequent possibility of monetary subsidy from various government
>organizations. With the [welcome] collapse of this effort, this last
>argument is removed.
Well, I don't think the Olympics mean much to the argument. Either
one favors even competition, or one doesn't.
>In short, drug testing competitive bridge players will produce very
>few direct benefits.
Short term, I imagine it would be somewhat detrimental. Long term,
however, I would like to think it would be beneficial.
At the same time, there are significant costs
>associated with this effort. In some cases, the critics of drug
>testing restrict themselves to arguing over purely financial costs.
>Even if it were possible to administer drug tests to players for free
>(a doubtful assertion), there are still very substantial
>administrative and legal costs associated with implementing such a
>system. Many individuals find it galling when the President of the
>WBF is simultaneous complaining over lack of funds and arguing that
>the WBF needs greater subsidies while wasting large amounts of money
>on various pet projects ranging from the usual bribery associated with
>any Olympic activities to the 20 page color "glossies" promoting WBF
>officialdom that were handed out to all participants in Montreal.
Entry fees are increased in the specific events.
>From my perspective, I do not believe that it the cost/benefit
>analysis should be restricted to purely financial terms. Instead, it
>seems appropriate to consider a wide variety of other cost factors.
>Other individuals have already commented regarding how offensive it is
>to have the organizing bodies interfere with what should rightful be
>matters of personal preference.
Huh? Terribly subjective, don't you think?
> From my own perspective, I think that
>the most significant is the amount of political capital that the WBF
>has wasted on this effort. There are a limited number of projects
>that organizational leaders can simultaneously pursue. From my
>perspective, drug testing represents an annoying distraction away from
>more pressing priorities.
Depends on whether the organization is interested in a level playing
field or not.
mike
DavJFlower
OK, also short-term health problems with extreme prejudice
Dave Flower
Giovanni Bobbio
> "Giovanni Bobbio" wrote
>
>> I am not prepared to believe that the WBF did something so incredibly
>> stupid _and_ let it leak.
> Your faith in the WBF is touching. Mis-placed, but touching nonetheless.
They have enough experience in running high-profile, world-class events, to
understand that when you mock your own rules any credibility is lost.
Oh well, I will not miss the drug testing.
--
Giovanni
Italy
Gordon Rainsford
I thought we were talking about bridge.
It doesn't seem as though, in your scenario, the rules are doing the job
you're claiming for them.
Tim Goodwin
>Lynn told me she was drawn for the test. Although we didn't discuss anything
>about a substitute, due to the medications she has to take, it seems
>unlikely she could pass a test.
I understand that Lynn is on many medication. But, I don't understand
how that fact should exempt her from drug testing. Isn't the whole
point of drug testing to make sure the players CAN pass a test. Not
testing those who you know will fail seems counter to the whole
program.
Tim
John Cox
> "Thomas Dehn" <thomas...@arcor.de> wrote in message
> news:al39oa$1m9sk5$1...@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > "Mike Preston" <mbpatpas...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 22:27:18 +0200, "Thomas Dehn"
> > > <thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Douglas Newlands" <do...@Deakin.Edu.Au> wrote:
> > > >> Age article names Disa Eythorsdottir,
> > > >> characterised as an American professional,
> > > >> as refusing test. Claims it is a diet drug
> > > >> for a back condition and that it is
> > > >> on prescription but she does not have a certificate to cover
> it.
> > > >
> > > >Being on a diet drug is no reason to refuse the drug test.
> > > >She could easily have taken the drug test
> > > >and then let them sort out later whether her
> > > >diet drug is allowed or not. Refusing the
> > > >drug test was dumb.
> > >
> > > Not if the diet drug was not the only drug in her system at the
> time.
> >
> > And thus, by refusing the drug test, she created
> > the false impression that she might have used
> > other drugs. Even more dumb.
>
> Much has been made of the fact that most of the drugs on the IOC
> banned list would do nothing to enhance performance at bridge, and no
> doubt this is so.
>
> But it is not necessarily so in the case of "diet drugs". If, for
> example, you use a drug such as dexedrine as an appetite suppressant,
> you are likely to know that because it is an amphetamine, it will
> almost certainly be on the proscribed list. Because amphetamines
> "induce exhilarating feelings of power, strength, energy,
> self-assertion, focus and enhanced motivation" (extract from
> http://amphetamines.com/meth.html), they would correctly be regarded
> as performance-enhancing drugs as far as bridge is concerned.
You reckon, David? Have you ever tried playing bridge on speed? Doesn't work.
>
> Being on "a diet drug" may therefore constitute a very good reason for
> not wanting to take a dope test.
>
> David Burn
> London, England
Mmbridge
news:3d78ab78.4466672@nntp...
> On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 02:38:43 GMT, <jimf...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Lynn told me she was drawn for the test. Although we didn't discuss
anything
> >about a substitute, due to the medications she has to take, it seems
> >unlikely she could pass a test.
>
> I understand that Lynn is on many medication. But, I don't understand
> how that fact should exempt her from drug testing. Isn't the whole
> point of drug testing to make sure the players CAN pass a test. Not
> testing those who you know will fail seems counter to the whole
> program.
>
> Tim
I do not advocate exempting anybody from whatever tests are prescribed and
did not say nor imply otherwise. However, I may disagree with testing for
some or all of the substances on the list.
Mmbridge
Tim Goodwin
I understand it was not your decision to exempt Lynn. But, I thought
the gist of your message is that she was passed over because the
multitude of medications she takes would have guaranteed a failure.
Does anyone know why she was not tested?
Tim
Thomas Dehn
"Gordon Rainsford" <r...@gordonrainsford.co.uk> wrote:
> Thomas Dehn <thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> > "Gordon Rainsford" <r...@gordonrainsford.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > If the cheaters take unhealthy performance enhancement
> > > > drugs which improve their performance by a
> > > > few percent, then the other competitors will
> > > > have to take unhealthy performance enhancement
> > > > drugs, too, to get a reasonable chance of
> > > > winning the event.
> > > >
> > > And they'd still be considered "honest competitors"
> > > as compared with the
> > > others who are "cheaters"?
> >
> > Without drug tests after a while
> > the cheaters will be winning almost
> > all important events, and the remaining
> > honest competitors will hardly have a change to qualify for
> > the final stages of the competitions. The "honest competitors"
> > only have a choice between not being able to
> > compete, and taking performance increasing drugs, too.
> >
> > Have a look at women's tennis. How did
> > the girls get all these muscles in such a short time?
> > The only question is whether the drugs they used to build up
> > muscles are allowed or not.
>
We are, but thus far there has not been
much drug testing in bridge competitions, hence
any substantial experience with drug testing
has to come from other activities, rather
than from bridge events.
> It doesn't seem as though, in your scenario,
> the rules are doing the job
> you're claiming for them.
There currently is no 'out-of-competition-testing'
in women's tennis. It even seems that 15 years ago,
when there was not yet that much money
in the women's tennis circuit, drug testing
was not necessary. But it is necessary now.
Thomas
Mike Vaughn
<Jqgd9.51272$Ke2.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Nat
Silver" <mat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Mike Vaughn wrote:
>
> >...but who are these officious people who think they should
> > go around testing for drugs at a bridge contest? It isn't an
> > Olympic sport, for crying out loud ;-)
>
> Several of you are either missing the point or do not want to
> address the point. Conditions of contest were set to conform
> to Winter Olympic Games standards. The idea, now dead,
> was to show that international Bridge could be an Olympic
> event.
I was quite aware of that [note the ;-)]
And despite the WBF officialdom's willingness to kowtow to the
Olympic demands for 'drug testing', the Olympic people (quite
rightly) decided that bridge was not an Olympic sport. Silly
peple who thought it was in the first place.
Mike Vaughn
<bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Mike Vaughn wrote (Mike Vaughn <mtva...@neu.REMOVE.edu>)
> >In article <al35hs$1n5qrp$1...@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de>, "Thomas Dehn"
> ><thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
> >
> >> "Douglas Newlands" <do...@Deakin.Edu.Au> wrote:
> >> > Age article names Disa Eythorsdottir,
> >> > characterised as an American professional,
> >> > as refusing test. Claims it is a diet drug
> >> > for a back condition and that it is
> >> > on prescription but she does not have a certificate to cover it.
> >>
> >> Being on a diet drug is no reason to refuse the drug test.
> >> She coulkd easily have taken the drug test
> >> and then let them sort out later whether her
> >> diet drug is allowed or not. Refusing the
> >> drug test was dumb.
> >
> >Out of context, but who are these officious people who think they should
> >go around testing for drugs at a bridge contest? It isn't an Olympic
> >sport, for crying out loud ;-)
> >
> >This is (North) America after all.
>
> Fortunately, this isn't.
>
> This was a WBF tournament with WBF rules, which are nothing to do with
> NAmerica, except insofar as they are one of eight Zones with input.
> Where the event was staged is irrelevant.
Yes, and the WBF introduced this silliness because they had the idea
that bridge might be an Olympic sport, if only they adopted 'drug
testing'.
> However, drug testing in other sports exists *even* in NAmerica.
It exists in sports in America, mainly at the professional level where
serious money is involved.
> =========================
>
> Thomas Dehn wrote (Thomas Dehn <thomas...@arcor.de>)
> >"Mike Vaughn" <mtva...@neu.REMOVE.edu> wrote:
>
> >> This is (North) America after all.
>
> >You might have missed the subtle point that the
> >WBF is not a "(North) American" organisation,
> >but an international organization.
>
> Subtle? Hehehehehehe!!!!!!
>
> Perhaps certain of our readers should write the following out 100
> times:
>
> "There is life outside the USA"
>
> or, if you prefer:
>
> "There is life outside North America"
Having just returned from a very enjoyable month in England, and further
time in Amsterdam and Hamburg, I am quite aware of that.
However, it seems to be only Europeans (including Brits), who take
the idea of drug testing in bridge at all seriously.
Thomas Dehn
"Mike Vaughn" <mtva...@neu.REMOVE.edu> wrote:
> In article <77JAukIs...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson
> <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > However, drug testing in other sports exists *even* in NAmerica.
>
> It exists in sports in America,
> mainly at the professional level where
> serious money is involved.
Do you think that there is no serious money involved
in ACBLland bridge at the professional level ?
How much do Meckwell get from their client/sponsor
for winning the Bermuda Bowl?
Thomas
Tim Goodwin
Didn't the Italian team that won the Rosenblum include a client?
There were plenty of other European teams with clients in the
Rosenblum. I don't believe the client/sponsor thing is unique to ACBL
events.
Tim
Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)
> Didn't the Italian team that won the Rosenblum include a client?
Yes and no. Maria-Theresa Lavazza was listed as a team member but she
(and partner Guido Ferraro) didn't play one single board in the KO stage
and, IIRC, only a few in the round-robin stage _after_ the team had
already qualified for the next round.
> There were plenty of other European teams with clients in the
> Rosenblum. I don't believe the client/sponsor thing is unique to ACBL
> events.
Not unique, but it happens far less than in ACBL land. At lower levels,
hiring is a pro is considered normal in ACBL-land, on this side of the
continent it is seen more as a variation on prostitution.
Henk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.ui...@ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
NOTE: My email address (and a hole in our mailing list software) is being
abused by a spammer. We are working on fixing this hole and tracking
the spammer down. If you receive mail from "he...@ripe.net" that is
obviously spam, please send me a copy of the mail including ALL headers.
I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused by this.
Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)
> Having just returned from a very enjoyable month in England, and further
> time in Amsterdam and Hamburg, I am quite aware of that.
>
> However, it seems to be only Europeans (including Brits), who take
> the idea of drug testing in bridge at all seriously.
There is a good reason for this: money. Governments heavily subsidize
sports, but in order to qualify for the subsidy, local organizations have
to follow drug testing rules from the international body of that sport.
So, if the WBF requires drug testing, the NBB will do so (and in their
location, they even have a special room for it).
Asya Kamsky
Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) <he...@ripe.net> wrote:
>Not unique, but it happens far less than in ACBL land. At lower levels,
>hiring is a pro is considered normal in ACBL-land, on this side of the
>continent it is seen more as a variation on prostitution.
Is that why top Europeans come to the US to play pro?
I always assumed it was because there were more clients/sponsors
available here, not because of the stigma associated with it
over there...
Do professionals over there ever teach playing lessons?
Giovanni Bobbio
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.020907...@cow.ripe.net>,
> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) <he...@ripe.net> wrote:
>>Not unique, but it happens far less than in ACBL land. At lower levels,
>>hiring is a pro is considered normal in ACBL-land, on this side of the
>>continent it is seen more as a variation on prostitution.
>
> Is that why top Europeans come to the US to play pro?
>
> I always assumed it was because there were more clients/sponsors
> available here, not because of the stigma associated with it
> over there...
As far as Italy goes:
You are right. The number of sponsors with deep enough pockets can be
counted on one hand, and you can spare a finger or two. Plus, the events
are fewer and less important - in general - than American nationals.
> Do professionals over there ever teach playing lessons?
No. And, they don't write books on their systems.
--
Giovanni
Italy
Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.020907...@cow.ripe.net>,
> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) <he...@ripe.net> wrote:
> >Not unique, but it happens far less than in ACBL land. At lower levels,
> >hiring is a pro is considered normal in ACBL-land, on this side of the
> >continent it is seen more as a variation on prostitution.
>
> Is that why top Europeans come to the US to play pro?
>
> I always assumed it was because there were more clients/sponsors
> available here, not because of the stigma associated with it
> over there...
I was talking about the clients.
> Do professionals over there ever teach playing lessons?
Very few.
Craig Gordon
Define "serious!" In contrast to what a Michael Jordan or an Alex Rodriguez
earns, Meckwell's incomes are a joke. On a comparative basis (since the only
valid comparison would be to professional athletes here), they earn a drop
in the bucket.
Most bridge professionals earn under $50k from bridge (why they have to work
other jobs usually). A few earn over $100k, I have a very good friend who is
a professional (Ranked in top 20 in US and one of the top 200 point earners
of all time) and he told me he earns under $30k from bridge (he had no
reason to lie).
Tim Goodwin
<craig....@attbi.com> wrote:
>A few earn over $100k, I have a very good friend who is
>a professional (Ranked in top 20 in US and one of the top 200 point earners
>of all time)
Where is this list of rankings?
Tim
Brian Baresch
>earns, Meckwell's incomes are a joke. On a comparative basis (since the only
>valid comparison would be to professional athletes here), they earn a drop
>in the bucket.
Maybe, but try a more relevant (IMHO) comparison: Meckwell earn a
*lot* more than I do, or than most of the people they play against. In
bridge terms they're positively raking it in, I'm sure.
Oh, and not all professional athletes make seven-figure salaries. Ask
any minor-league baseball or hockey player, or a pro basketball player
outside the NBA. The average bridge pro might even out-earn the
average non-marquee-league pro athlete.
--
Brian P. Baresch
Fort Worth, Texas, USA
Professional editing and proofreading
If you're going through hell, keep going. --Winston Churchill
Mike Vaughn
<thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
I have no idea. How much?
Not to be too pedantic, but is the Bermuda Bowl in ACBLand?)
Mike Vaughn
"Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" <he...@ripe.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Tim Goodwin wrote:
>
> > Didn't the Italian team that won the Rosenblum include a client?
>
> Yes and no. Maria-Theresa Lavazza was listed as a team member but she
> (and partner Guido Ferraro) didn't play one single board in the KO stage
> and, IIRC, only a few in the round-robin stage _after_ the team had
> already qualified for the next round.
>
>
> > There were plenty of other European teams with clients in the
> > Rosenblum. I don't believe the client/sponsor thing is unique to ACBL
> > events.
>
> Not unique, but it happens far less than in ACBL land. At lower levels,
> hiring is a pro is considered normal in ACBL-land, on this side of the
> continent it is seen more as a variation on prostitution.
Of course in Europe, prostitution is tolerated more widely than in the
US ;-) Not to mention drugs.
> Henk
Mike Vaughn
<bar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Define "serious!" In contrast to what a Michael Jordan or an Alex Rodriguez
> >earns, Meckwell's incomes are a joke. On a comparative basis (since the only
> >valid comparison would be to professional athletes here), they earn a drop
> >in the bucket.
>
> Maybe, but try a more relevant (IMHO) comparison: Meckwell earn a
> *lot* more than I do, or than most of the people they play against. In
> bridge terms they're positively raking it in, I'm sure.
I have no idea about you, but I suspect most of the people thay play
against have reasonably good incomes. I haven't seen many blue-collar
folks at bridge clubs, let alone at tournaments. ON the other hand,
you do see folks like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett playing bridge.
And Jimmy Cayne earns a whole lot more than you or I do.
On the other hand, I supspect that the top people in _your_ profession
also earn a *lot* more than you do.
> Oh, and not all professional athletes make seven-figure salaries. Ask
> any minor-league baseball or hockey player, or a pro basketball player
> outside the NBA. The average bridge pro might even out-earn the
> average non-marquee-league pro athlete.
The operative word here is *might*. There is very little information
available on the earnings of 'bridge pros', but as others have
suggested, it isn't that much. More data would be welcome.
Thomas Dehn
"Craig Gordon" <craig....@attbi.com> schrieb:
> "Thomas Dehn" <thomas...@arcor.de> wrote in message
> news:alc4ub$1p32iq$3...@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Mike Vaughn" <mtva...@neu.REMOVE.edu> wrote:
> > > In article <77JAukIs...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson
> > > <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > However, drug testing in other sports exists *even* in NAmerica.
> > >
> > > It exists in sports in America,
> > > mainly at the professional level where
> > > serious money is involved.
> >
> > Do you think that there is no serious money involved
> > in ACBLland bridge at the professional level ?
> > How much do Meckwell get from their client/sponsor
> > for winning the Bermuda Bowl?
>
Enough money to make some good players cheat to get the money,
especially if it never is controlled whether they cheat,
and there is no penalty for cheating.
Thomas
Thomas Dehn
"Mike Vaughn" <mtva...@neu.REMOVE.edu> wrote:
> In article <alc4ub$1p32iq$3...@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de>, "Thomas Dehn"
> <thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> > "Mike Vaughn" <mtva...@neu.REMOVE.edu> wrote:
> > > In article <77JAukIs...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson
> > > <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > However, drug testing in other sports exists *even* in NAmerica.
> > >
> > > It exists in sports in America,
> > > mainly at the professional level where
> > > serious money is involved.
> >
> > Do you think that there is no serious money involved
> > in ACBLland bridge at the professional level ?
> > How much do Meckwell get from their client/sponsor
> > for winning the Bermuda Bowl?
>
>
> I have no idea. How much?
I read something about $100 000 each (including all
bonuses), but I am not sure whether that was
Meckwell or Hamman-Wolff. Of course,
the number might be completely wrong.
> Not to be too pedantic, but is the Bermuda Bowl in ACBLand?)
Meckwell is a US pair.
Thomas
Brian Baresch
>against have reasonably good incomes. I haven't seen many blue-collar
>folks at bridge clubs, let alone at tournaments. ON the other hand,
>you do see folks like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett playing bridge.
>And Jimmy Cayne earns a whole lot more than you or I do.
True, but those folks are not representative. I may be projecting from
the people I've been playing against lately, in middle KO brackets and
local bridge clubs, but I haven't seen many I know to be millionaires.
When I lived in his area I used to play occasionally against Gerald
Michaud, who made a bundle from his law practice and occasionally
sponsors teams of local experts, but I pretty much encounter only
players who (or whose spouses) have or are retired from regular old
day jobs.
>On the other hand, I supspect that the top people in _your_ profession
>also earn a *lot* more than you do.
Also true.
Craig Gordon
"Brian Baresch" <bar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ikolnuoil03fi9psk...@4ax.com...
> >Define "serious!" In contrast to what a Michael Jordan or an Alex
Rodriguez
> >earns, Meckwell's incomes are a joke. On a comparative basis (since the
only
> >valid comparison would be to professional athletes here), they earn a
drop
> >in the bucket.
>
> Maybe, but try a more relevant (IMHO) comparison: Meckwell earn a
> *lot* more than I do, or than most of the people they play against. In
> bridge terms they're positively raking it in, I'm sure.
>
> Oh, and not all professional athletes make seven-figure salaries. Ask
> any minor-league baseball or hockey player, or a pro basketball player
> outside the NBA. The average bridge pro might even out-earn the
> average non-marquee-league pro athlete.
I find that argument disingenuous-- we are talking about TOP RANKED
professionals. Do you really want to make a comparison between minor league
ball players and Rodwell? The only real comparison should be amongst equals
in their professions, and I restate, what a professional bridge pro makes is
a drop in the bucket to what a professional athlete makes.
As to the poster who asked where rankings are, go to the ACBL web site.
There are several lists of rankings there.
t...@cix.compulink.co.uk
joh...@dewarhogan.co.uk (John Cox) wrote:
> > Because amphetamines
> > "induce exhilarating feelings of power, strength, energy,
> > self-assertion, focus and enhanced motivation" (extract from
> > http://amphetamines.com/meth.html), they would correctly be regarded
> > as performance-enhancing drugs as far as bridge is concerned.
>
> You reckon, David? Have you ever tried playing bridge on speed? Doesn't
> work.
It works well if you give it to your opponents. They will confidently bid
their slams, confidently redouble and confidently chalk up the -1000 while
saying that the split was unlucky and they will recover next time.
Tim
Thomas Dehn
"Asya Kamsky" <as...@bayarea.net> wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.020907...@cow.ripe.net>,
> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) <he...@ripe.net> wrote:
> >Not unique, but it happens far less than in ACBL land.
> >At lower levels, hiring is a pro is considered
> >normal in ACBL-land, on this side of the
> >continent it is seen more as a variation on prostitution.
>
> Is that why top Europeans come to the US to play pro?
Probably not.
> I always assumed it was because there were
> more clients/sponsors available here,
> not because of the stigma associated with it
> over there...
There are not many clients in Germany. I would
be challenged to name just one successful
German pro/client bridge partnership.
> Do professionals over there ever teach playing lessons?
Yes, they do. But typically giving bridge lessons
is just additional income for good players who
give a few bridge lessons every week.
Thomas
Paul Brewer
"Douglas Newlands" <do...@Deakin.Edu.Au> wrote in message
news:ZZgd9.22$af.1...@news.deakin.edu.au...
> In article <030920022348527059%mtva...@neu.REMOVE.edu> Mike Vaughn
<mtva...@neu.REMOVE.edu> writes:
> :In article <al35hs$1n5qrp$1...@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de>, "Thomas Dehn"
> :<thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
> :
> :> "Douglas Newlands" <do...@Deakin.Edu.Au> wrote:
> :> > Age article names Disa Eythorsdottir,
> :> > characterised as an American professional,
> :> > as refusing test. Claims it is a diet drug
> :> > for a back condition and that it is
> :> > on prescription but she does not have a certificate to cover it.
> :>
> :> Being on a diet drug is no reason to refuse the drug test.
> :> She coulkd easily have taken the drug test
> :> and then let them sort out later whether her
> :> diet drug is allowed or not. Refusing the
> :> drug test was dumb.
> :
> :Out of context, but who are these officious people who think they should
> :go around testing for drugs at a bridge contest? It isn't an Olympic
> :sport, for crying out loud ;-)
> :
> :This is (North) America after all.
>
> :)
> Douglas
> --
> Dr. Douglas A. Newlands, School of Computing & Mathematics,
> Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria 3217, Australia,
> Tel +61(03)52271165 [Fax 52272028]
> email: do...@deakin.edu.au http://www.deakin.edu.au/~doug
I always thought North America meant the U.S.A. and Canada?
Paul
Paul Brewer
"John Cox" <joh...@dewarhogan.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7a971b2f.02090...@posting.google.com...
> "David Burn" <dal...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<al66hk$bj$1...@venus.btinternet.com>...> > news:al39oa$1m9sk5$1...@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > > "Mike Preston" <mbpatpas...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 22:27:18 +0200, "Thomas Dehn"
> > > > <thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"Douglas Newlands" <do...@Deakin.Edu.Au> wrote:
> > > > >> Age article names Disa Eythorsdottir,
> > > > >> characterised as an American professional,
> > > > >> as refusing test. Claims it is a diet drug
> > > > >> for a back condition and that it is
> > > > >> on prescription but she does not have a certificate to cover
> > it.
> > > > >
> > > > >Being on a diet drug is no reason to refuse the drug test.
> > > > >and then let them sort out later whether her
> > > > >diet drug is allowed or not. Refusing the
> > > > >drug test was dumb.
> > > >
> > time.
> > >
> > > And thus, by refusing the drug test, she created
> > > the false impression that she might have used
> > > other drugs. Even more dumb.
> >
> > Much has been made of the fact that most of the drugs on the IOC
> > banned list would do nothing to enhance performance at bridge, and no
> > doubt this is so.
> >
> > But it is not necessarily so in the case of "diet drugs". If, for
> > example, you use a drug such as dexedrine as an appetite suppressant,
> > you are likely to know that because it is an amphetamine, it will
> > almost certainly be on the proscribed list. Because amphetamines
> > "induce exhilarating feelings of power, strength, energy,
> > self-assertion, focus and enhanced motivation" (extract from
> > http://amphetamines.com/meth.html), they would correctly be regarded
> > as performance-enhancing drugs as far as bridge is concerned.
>
> You reckon, David? Have you ever tried playing bridge on speed? Doesn't
work.
>
>
> >
> > not wanting to take a dope test.
> >
> > David Burn
> > London, England
You mean you'd play like a Junior, then? ;-)
Paul
Thomas Dehn
"Craig Gordon" <craig....@attbi.com> wrote:
> "Brian Baresch" <bar...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > any minor-league baseball or hockey player, or a pro basketball player
> > outside the NBA. The average bridge pro might even out-earn the
> > average non-marquee-league pro athlete.
>
> I find that argument disingenuous-- we are talking about TOP RANKED
> professionals. Do you really want to make
> a comparison between minor league
> ball players and Rodwell?
Yes, why not? In many sports, the top professional
atheletes do not make more than Meckwell and other
US top bridge pros make.
Do you want to claim that professional
weight lifters will not take steroids because they make
just a few thousand per month, rather than a million?
Thomas
Tim Goodwin
<craig....@attbi.com> wrote:
>As to the poster who asked where rankings are, go to the ACBL web site.
>There are several lists of rankings there.
There are several masterpoint lists. But, I don't see any rankings,
unless you are talking about Silver, Gold, Bronze, etc. Life Master.
Tim
Craig Gordon
"Tim Goodwin" <ne...@oakhill.com> wrote in message
news:3d7b9cf8.22401822@nntp...
Yes thats what i was referring to-- he's ranked highly on the gold list,
but I won't reveal his name here. It is not my place to reveal who he is,
but he is a well-known player who plays professionally, and that was my only
point.
Craig Gordon
I guess you win the nitpick contest-- if that's the approach you want to
take then I concede to you.
Thomas Dehn
"Craig Gordon" <craig....@attbi.com> schrieb:
> "Thomas Dehn" <thomas...@arcor.de> wrote in message
> news:alg4dp$1k2ann$3...@ID-57266.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Craig Gordon" <craig....@attbi.com> wrote:
> > > "Brian Baresch" <bar...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > > > Oh, and not all professional athletes
> > > > make seven-figure salaries. Ask
> > > > any minor-league baseball or
> > > > hockey player, or a pro basketball player
> > > > outside the NBA. The average bridge pro might even out-earn the
> > > > average non-marquee-league pro athlete.
> > >
> > > I find that argument disingenuous-- we are talking about TOP RANKED
> > > professionals. Do you really want to make
> > > a comparison between minor league
> > > ball players and Rodwell?
> >
> > Yes, why not? In many sports, the top professional
> > atheletes do not make more than Meckwell and other
> > US top bridge pros make.
> > Do you want to claim that professional
> > weight lifters will not take steroids because they make
> > just a few thousand per month, rather than a million?
>
> if that's the approach you want to
> take then I concede to you.
It is not nitpicking. Putting Meckwell into the
same league with celebrities such as top
NBA players is ridiculous. Meckwell are
not "TOP-RANKED" professionals.
They are one of the world's top bridge
partnerships, and they are professional
bridge players, but that doesn't make
them "TOP-RANKED" professional athletes.
Birgit Fischer won olympic Gold in 1980, 1988,
1992, 1996, and 2000. She is pretty much the only
athlete ever to win olympic gold
on five different summer olympiads, at least
I can't think of another one. The only reason she didn't win
in 1984, too, was the boycott. She also won 27
world championship titles. Did you ever
hear that name? ;-)
Thomas
Craig Gordon
I think you missed the point of where this thread started-- that drug
testing in bridge was (supposedly) needed because there was big money at
stake for professionals.
Now, you have indeed managed to convince me that there are athletes who earn
less than Meckwell, etc. and I have conceded that. But, since the point of
my original post was that there WAS NOT big money when compared to
athletics, you have managed to go to a lower denominator than the point I
was originally trying to make-- and so I agree, but you did indeed do it by
nitpicking, don't care how much you want to defend your position.
Go back and start reading where I made my first post...
Thomas Dehn
You continue to miss the point that $100K is
big money for a professional bridge player.
The fact that a top NBA player makes a few millions
does not earn the top professional bridge players
a single buck. You would only have a point if
the bonuses and other additional income generated
by winning top bridge events would not lead to
substantially increased income for a bridge professional,
i.e.
- no increased book sales (geez, people are not
likely to buy a bridge book because it says "written
by five time Bermuda Bowl winner Benito Hamman" :->>>)
- no bonuses (sure, the clients/sponsors would never agree that
they would have to pay a bonus if the team
qualifies for the Bermuda Bowl, and they
certainly would never be willing to pay a bonus
if they succeed in winning a world championship :->>>)
- bridge professionals generally have the same income
as top NBA players :->>>
- when giving bridge lessons, or playing with clients, world championship
winners can not charge more than the local club professional. :->>>
BTW, there exist athletes who did take
illegal performance enhancing drugs just to
qualify for a world championship
or an olympiad, without any chance of winning
a medal
Thomas
John Vega
Brewer" <pa...@paul.brewers.org.uk> wrote:
> I always thought North America meant the U.S.A. and Canada?
and Mexico
-John Vega
DavJFlower
>
>and Mexico
>
>-John Vega
>
>
Don't forget Bermuda
Dave Flower
Asya Kamsky
DavJFlower <davjf...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> I always thought North America meant the U.S.A. and Canada?
>>and Mexico
Not to mention all of Central American countries.
(there are, after all, only two continents in the Americas).
--
Asya Kamsky
"To forgive is an act of compassion. It is not done because
people deserve it, it's done because they need it." -- Rupert Giles.
Mike Vaughn
Kamsky) wrote:
Yes, but is Central Americal part of North America, or of South America?
Are there any Central Americans here to help us out?
Nick Wedd
<mtva...@neu.REMOVE.edu> writes
>Yes, but is Central Americal part of North America, or of South America?
North America, mostly.
Conventionally, the division between North and South America is the
border between Panama and Costa Rica. This goes back to the days (99
years ago) when Panama was a province of Colombia.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
John Crinnion
There is North America, Central America and South America.
All are part of America, and if one wishes to abbreviate "United
States of America" (without using initials) one should say "United
States", not "America".
I once heard a US citizen refer to the Southern States of the USA as
"South America"!
Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)
> Nick Wedd <ni...@maproom.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<dxkeVcGE...@maproom.demon.co.uk>...
> > In article <100920020901444566%mtva...@neu.REMOVE.edu>, Mike Vaughn
> > <mtva...@neu.REMOVE.edu> writes
> >
> > >Yes, but is Central Americal part of North America, or of South America?
> >
> > North America, mostly.
> >
> > Conventionally, the division between North and South America is the
> > border between Panama and Costa Rica. This goes back to the days (99
> > years ago) when Panama was a province of Colombia.
> >
> > Nick
>
> There is North America, Central America and South America.
>
> All are part of America, and if one wishes to abbreviate "United
> States of America" (without using initials) one should say "United
> States", not "America".
Yes, though in a lot of countries, "America" is used to indicate both the
continent and the USA depending on context, and "US" as abbreviation is
unknown. There are more examples of this: before 1990, "Germany" in most
western European countries referred to the BRD, even though there were 2
Germany's at the time. And in Holland, "Engeland" is equivalent for the
UK.
> I once heard a US citizen refer to the Southern States of the USA as
> "South America"!
Since the average southerner believes that the world ends at the Mexican
border, that does not suprise me.
Henk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.ui...@ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
NOTE: My email address (and a hole in our mailing list software) is being
abused by a spammer. We are working on fixing this hole and tracking
the spammer down. If you receive mail from "he...@ripe.net" that is
obviously spam, please send me a copy of the mail including ALL headers.
I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused by this.
Nick Wedd
Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) <he...@ripe.net> writes
> And in Holland, "Engeland" is equivalent for the
>UK.
And in the UK, "Holland" refers to The Netherlands. As far as I know,
this does not offend people from other Dutch provinces. However, use of
"England" to refer to the UK does offend some Scots, Welsh, and Northern
Irish.
Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.020911...@cow.ripe.net>, Henk
> Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) <he...@ripe.net> writes
>
> > And in Holland, "Engeland" is equivalent for the
> >UK.
>
> And in the UK, "Holland" refers to The Netherlands. As far as I know,
> this does not offend people from other Dutch provinces.
Holland can refer to both the 2 provinces near the north-sea (North and
South Holland) as well as the group of 7 provinces that started the
80-year independence war against the Spanish in 1568.
People from (south) Limburg, the province in the South-East, next to
Germany and sometimes Noord Brabant (south, just above Belgium, and it is
called North because there is also a Brabant in Belgium), usually don't
like to be called Hollanders. These 2 also wanted to remain with the
Spanish kingdom.
Henk
> However, use of "England" to refer to the UK does offend some Scots,
> Welsh, and Northern Irish.
>
> Nick
> --
> Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lex Spoon
Fine, but, is it enough that people will wreck their health over it?
In the Olympics I can see it. In big-name sports like basketball and
football, I can see it. In bridge? How many people will even be
tempted? (Even if we should come to identify a drug that makes much
of a difference?)
Lex
Lex Spoon
> "Gordon Rainsford" <r...@gordonrainsford.co.uk> wrote:
> > DavJFlower <davjf...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > If they were permitted, many athletes would suffer long-term health
> > > problems.
> >
> > This doesn't sound like "The rules against drugs are to protect the
> > honest competitor."
>
> What is difficult to understand here?
> If the cheaters take unhealthy performance enhancement
> drugs which improve their performance by a
> few percent, then the other competitors will
> have to take unhealthy performance enhancement
> drugs, too, to get a reasonable chance of
> winning the event.
Well, does it count to destroy your social and family life and to
wreck your career because you spend all your time playing and studying
bridge? If we want to protect people from themselves--an abhorrent
concept by itself--then drug rules aren't even the way to do it.
Start by limiting how much time people spend on the game, and we can
really improve some lives. (And really irritate those same people
while we're at it!)
In the end, the definition of an "honest" competitor is pretty
arbitrary. What drugs do we want to disallow? Or do we want to get
into the business at all? I hope the bridge associations decide to
just ignore the issue, now that the Olympics idea has past.
Lex