Allen Pitts/CFL drug policy
Steven McCarrey
CFL's Calgary Stampeders, was arrested last month in Montana for
carrying 25 containers of steroids while driving to training camp.
Calgary radio station CHQR said Thursday he was arrested May 26
by U.S. border guards at Sweetgrass, Mont., and charged with
criminal possession of dangerous drugs.
Pitts, 31, of Claremont, Calif., went to court the same day and
another court appearance is scheduled for June 15 in Shelby, Mont.,
35 miles south of the Canadian border.
Pitts was fined $250. Stampeders coach Wally Buono said Pitts
likely won't attend the hearing and will plead no contest.
The CFL has no drug policy. Buono said he's uncertain what
disciplinary measures the team could take because the offense
occurred in another country during the offseason.
Pitts said he used the steroids to regain leg strength after
failing to fully recover from knee surgery.
``It's definitely something that was not smart on my part,'' he
told station CHQR. ``I definitely made a mistake. It's definitely
not worth what I'm going through now.''
Pitts, a five-year veteran, teamed with quarterback Doug Flutie
to set CFL records last year with 126 receptions for 2,036 yards
and 21 touchdowns.
****************************************************
I thought the CFL had a drug policy. Several years ago, former
Edmonton offensive lineman Hec Pothier was caught carrying hashish
at an airport and the commissioner at the time (who I think was
Doug Mitchell) suspended him.
Also, I thought the league put a drug policy in place after
another Edmonton lineman (whose name I can't recall) suffered a
steroid-related heart attack during training camp some years ago.
--
Steve McCarrey
Owner, GM, Head Coach, & Waterboy of the Hobart Tassie Devils
"Scavenge 'em raw"
Jon Claude Joseph Leblanc
Steven McCarrey <s.mcc...@zoo.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>I thought the CFL had a drug policy. Several years ago, former
>Edmonton offensive lineman Hec Pothier was caught carrying hashish
>at an airport and the commissioner at the time (who I think was
>Doug Mitchell) suspended him.
Stampeders Head Coach Wally Buono has commented that the CFL and
CFLPA have purposely let the issue slide due to the costliness of
a random testing regime. They feel that the league cannot afford
testing or rehab programs.
IMO, the CFL needs only the following drug policy: "If you are
caught using drugs, you are suspended without pay" (according to
a schedule to be put into any collective bargaining agreement).
Afterwards, the offender must register in a private rehab
program at their own expense. Two offences, and you're out of the
CFL forever.
--
Jon LeBlanc Or @ (University of Calgary)
leb...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca jcjl...@acs.ucalgary.ca
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Earth 51 04'48" North, 114 07'55" West
Terence Michael Labach
(Jon Claude Joseph Leblanc) writes:
> IMO, the CFL needs only the following drug policy: "If you are
> caught using drugs, you are suspended without pay" (according to
> a schedule to be put into any collective bargaining agreement).
> Afterwards, the offender must register in a private rehab
> program at their own expense. Two offences, and you're out of the
> CFL forever.
It seems to me that the proposed punishments of the drug testing crowd
are out of all proportion to the offense. Who is harmed by steroid use?
Largely, the person taking them (to be fair, they do derive some benefit
as well). The game of football is sufficiently complex that it is
doubtful that steroid use by a player would sway the outcome of a game.
At worst, the steroid user is "cheating". And in professional sports,
"cheaters" are penalized for offsides, or illegal procedure, or
clipping, or fighting...not banned for life.
Because drugs are involved, it seems that people are giving way to a
moral panic, as though steroid use in itself was somehow a moral
failing different than any other form of cheating in football. It is
not. I urge fans to resist the drug hysteria of our culture and, if it
is necessary to sanction the CFL steroid user, to make the sanction
appropriate to the minimal effect the steroid use has on the game.
(Note that I do not use the word "punish" above. Is punishment or aid
the appropriate response that should be made to the steroid user? I
suggest aid is not only more humane, but more in keeping with ordinary
common sense.)
- terry -
"Just say no to drug hysteria." - William S. Burroughs
Jon Claude Joseph Leblanc
Terence Michael Labach <lab...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>It seems to me that the proposed punishments of the drug testing crowd
>are out of all proportion to the offense. Who is harmed by steroid use?
>Largely, the person taking them (to be fair, they do derive some benefit
>as well). The game of football is sufficiently complex that it is
>doubtful that steroid use by a player would sway the outcome of a game.
Excellent point, Terry, in that there is nothing wrong with
steroids per se, provided that they are >prescribed.< I was
given a steroid inhaler when I damaged my lungs while skydiving.
(Anybody know what a "hard opening" is like at 130 m.p.h.
straight downward?) The steroids quickened my recovery, and
proved to me how beneficial they can be. I am simply against
the >illicit< use of performance enhancing drugs by CFL athletes.
Steroids are certinly performance enhancing drugs because they
hasten the buildup/recovery of muscle tissue. I would prefer
that athletes achieve their performance by natural means.
>At worst, the steroid user is "cheating". And in professional sports,
>"cheaters" are penalized for offsides, or illegal procedure, or
>clipping, or fighting...not banned for life.
Cheating with illicit drug use cannot be broken down as a
per-game offence. It is far beyond an infraction of a game-day
rule. Cheating has repercussions which can make or break a
career. Stamps owner Larry Ryckman may find himself banned for
life from a couple of stock exchanges if allegations of cheating
hold up. Such penalties reflect broader issues of society. Babe
Ruth would be run out of baseball today for all of his alcoholic,
perverted excesses. Bob Probert got what he deserved because he
continued to abuse drugs even as people like Jacques Demers tried
to save him from himself.
>Because drugs are involved, it seems that people are giving way to a
>moral panic, as though steroid use in itself was somehow a moral
>failing different than any other form of cheating in football. It is
>not.
The issue is cheating and not necessarily "drug hysteria."
Illicit drug use is certainly cheating by any definition. There
is no room for cheating, and so it must be penalized. I would
expect that any player(s) caught throwing a game would be drummed
out, as Marseilles was by FIFA in soccer after their game-fixing
scandal. Likewise, any players abusing drugs must be taken to task.
>I urge fans to resist the drug hysteria of our culture and, if it
>is necessary to sanction the CFL steroid user, to make the sanction
>appropriate to the minimal effect the steroid use has on the game.
"Drug Hysteria" is preferable to drug abuse any day of the week.
I cannot imagine how "drug hysteria" or even just deep concern
over the issue could ruin lives, careers, dreams, and families
the way that drug abuse does. Drug abuse is dangerous, and so
must be dissuaded at every opportunity.
>(Note that I do not use the word "punish" above. Is punishment or aid
>the appropriate response that should be made to the steroid user? I
>suggest aid is not only more humane, but more in keeping with ordinary
>common sense.)
>"Just say no to drug hysteria." - William S. Burroughs
Quoting Burroughs on drug issues is like appointing an arsonist as
fire chief. Stick with Chomsky, Terry! ;-)
I am not calling for the scalp of Allen Pitts. I believe that the
CFL could have a simple, cheap drug policy if it wanted: "Two
strikes and you're out."
Terence Michael Labach
(Jon Claude Joseph Leblanc) writes:
> >is necessary to sanction the CFL steroid user, to make the sanction
> >appropriate to the minimal effect the steroid use has on the game.
>
> "Drug Hysteria" is preferable to drug abuse any day of the week.
> I cannot imagine how "drug hysteria" or even just deep concern
> over the issue could ruin lives, careers, dreams, and families
> the way that drug abuse does. Drug abuse is dangerous, and so
> must be dissuaded at every opportunity.
Of course drug abuse is dangerous - but not all uses of anabolic
steroids (or even marijuana, hashish, cocaine, or "street drugs") are
abuse. I think there is a tendency to paint all use of drugs which
scandalize society as "abuse" even if they are not. (Of course, Jon,
you did point that out above in a section I cut for space reasons, so
I'm describing a more prevalent trend in society rather than claiming
this about your comments.)
Among my friends who have used anabolic steroids are two former
Olympians. They do not now use these drugs, and have had no lasting
physical, emotional, or career problems due to this use. This is one of
the reasons I don't take the dangers of drugs to be a black and white
issue.
> >"Just say no to drug hysteria." - William S. Burroughs
>
> Quoting Burroughs on drug issues is like appointing an arsonist as
> fire chief. Stick with Chomsky, Terry! ;-)
Well, I could, but most of his writings on durgs have to do with the
duplicity of draconian U.S. drug laws while U.S. aid goes to regimes who
encourage the drug trade in their jurisdictions. A little large-scale
for our purposes!
> I am not calling for the scalp of Allen Pitts. I believe that the
> CFL could have a simple, cheap drug policy if it wanted: "Two
> strikes and you're out."
I can't agree to such a policy because it denies the existence of any
mitigating factors. What those could be, I can't say - but even with
something as simple as an offside penalty the referee may decide that
the player was drawn offside. If that leeway is allowed for a minor
offense, it is even more important that reasonable examination of a
steroid use case be made, when a player's career is at stake.
If a drug policy is necessary, I would want it to follow due process and
consider the circumstances of use and be focused on helping a player,
rather than punishing him for a "crime" in which the only victim could
be the player himself.
Football, after all, is only a game.
- terry -
Dave Abbott
> Jon Claude Joseph Leblanc wrote:
> > I am not calling for the scalp of Allen Pitts. I believe that the
> > CFL could have a simple, cheap drug policy if it wanted: "Two
> > strikes and you're out."
> I can't agree to such a policy because it denies the existence of any
> mitigating factors. What those could be, I can't say - but even with
> something as simple as an offside penalty the referee may decide that
> the player was drawn offside. If that leeway is allowed for a minor
> offense, it is even more important that reasonable examination of a
> steroid use case be made, when a player's career is at stake.
That's right football is a game but it is also a profession for some
because others derive enjoyment from it like you and I. However, just
as I am expected to met certain standards at my work so do the
players. It might be society dictating the views on drugs but the
game needs society. For the survival of the CFL which is now moving
to other countries, it must have a drug policy just to be able to be
taken seriously. Why? Because American professional and amateur
sports have drug policies. Which means that if we are going to be
taken seriously in the US, the CFL is going to have to view as a
seriously professional league.
Since a drug policy is necessary, then what type of policy? Most
professional sports have a policy similar to Jon Claude Joseph
Leblanc's and with serious support of rehab, the policies seem to work
fairly well. This type of policy is forgiving of the athlete to a
certain point. I beleive in a policy that would see the player
suspended from the CFL eventually. The policy would go something like this:
For the first offence, the player would be required to enter a rehab
program that would be funded mainly by the player and subsidied by the
team and league. An offense would be defined as a criminal conviction
and possibly a positive drug test. (I'm not too keen on drug testing
but it might have to be done. If it were, it would have to be small
scale (only a handful a year) and at random (time and player).)
After the second offence, the player would be suspended for a year and
would have to reenter a rehab program at his own expense.
With a third offence, the player would be banned for life.
This type of policy gives the player chances to better himself but at
the same time punishing him. The punishment is to serve as a warning
to others who might be thinking of using drugs.
I don't believe drug use is rempant but it does detact from the game.
And it does affect the game. If you look at when teams win, true it
is a team effort but usually you'll find one guy who stands out
because of his consistantly big play either offensively or
defensively. If this is a player using performance enhancers, he'll
generally have better games then without. So what? Well, the other
teams and players have been cheated of possible wins, stats and even a
career as a result of injuries or lack of production.
Well, that's just one guys opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Abbott
Ottawa Rough Riders - Section DD, Row 28, Seat 27
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important
that you do it." - Mahatma Gandhi
Email address: dab...@chat.carleton.ca
bw...@freenet.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terence Michael Labach
(Dave Abbott) writes:
> Terence Michael Labach (lab...@acs.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
>
> > I can't agree to such a policy because it denies the existence of any
> > mitigating factors. What those could be, I can't say - but even with
> > something as simple as an offside penalty the referee may decide that
> > the player was drawn offside. If that leeway is allowed for a minor
> > offense, it is even more important that reasonable examination of a
> > steroid use case be made, when a player's career is at stake.
>
> That's right football is a game but it is also a profession for some
> because others derive enjoyment from it like you and I. However, just
> as I am expected to met certain standards at my work so do the
> players. It might be society dictating the views on drugs but the
> game needs society. For the survival of the CFL which is now moving
> to other countries, it must have a drug policy just to be able to be
> taken seriously. Why? Because American professional and amateur
> sports have drug policies. Which means that if we are going to be
> taken seriously in the US, the CFL is going to have to view as a
> seriously professional league.
Except that the drug policies in both professional and amateur sports in
the U.S. have come under fire for being selectively enforced - a drug
policy isn't particularly meaningful when warning is given of "random"
drug tests or coaches actively participate in forbidden drug use.
A harsh drug policy, besides its questionable ethics, suffers if it is
only window dressing for a "win-at-all-costs" mentality. And if we've
learned anything from the Dubin Inquiry, anabolic steroid use is
prevalent and seldom detected in sport.
Following the U.S. lead on sports drug abuse would just mean adopting a
fake morality with an understood "don't ask, don't tell" reality.
Their drug policies aren't worth a discarded hypodermic.
- terry -
Dr RMG
Use of anabolic/androgenic steroids to enhance performance was banned by
many sports authorities well before the drugs were criminalized. There
are sports authorities today which ban use of adrenergic drugs which are
legally available without prescription, and whose criminalization is not
contemplated (ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, adrenaline,
isoproterenol) -- cold, allergy, and asthma drugs. I also agree that,
since the advantage gained by use of steroids extends over a long period,
the analogy to an infraction such as offsides is flawed.
I oppose drug laws in general, but rules in this area by private sports
authorities don't seem too far out of line.
Robert Goodman
Terence Michael Labach
>
> There's a bit more to this than drug hysteria.
> Use of anabolic/androgenic steroids to enhance performance was banned by
> many sports authorities well before the drugs were criminalized.
After, of course, Dr. Ziegler (U.S. weightlifting team physician) and
the Ciba pharmaceutical company developed the anabolic steroid Dianobol
for use by athletes in 1958. Sports authorities used to be explicitly
in favour of their use - now many are suspected to tacitly allow their
use to prevent the embarrasment to national pride of losing in
competition.
> There
> are sports authorities today which ban use of adrenergic drugs which are
> legally available without prescription, and whose criminalization is not
> contemplated (ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, adrenaline,
> isoproterenol) -- cold, allergy, and asthma drugs.
I should just note that not all of these are prescription drugs in all
countries.
> I also agree that,
> since the advantage gained by use of steroids extends over a long period,
> the analogy to an infraction such as offsides is flawed.
Former anabolic steroid-crazed bodybuilder Sam Fussell wrote this in his
autobiography, Muscle, about the immediate effects of quitting drugs and
body-building:
"Over the following four months, I stopped eating and lost 50 pounds,
much of it muscle. As hard as it had been to pack on, it was that easy
to lose."
That doesn't sound like a particularly long time for the benefits of
steroids to continue. But drug use is so demonized in our society, that
they are imbued with impossible qualities and grandiose rumours of their
effects. (Some sample misconceptions: marijuana inevitably leads to
other drugs, crack is addictive after a single use, steroids obviate the
need for heavy workouts).
- terry -