----- Original Message -----
From: "greenie" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Michael Neal" <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: oh lord, now we're onto the drug debate...
 
 
> At 06:41 PM 12/23/99 -0600, Michael Neal wrote:
> >Why do they test for non-performance
> >enhancement drugs like marijuana and cocaine?
>
> Because it's all part of the same drug test. It's much more cost effective
> to have a lab report results based on a standard list of
> banned/controlled/illegal substances rather than have them test for only
> specific portions. And as long as the reports reveal the existence of
> illegal substances...
 
So when should we expect the NCAA to start testing for, say, larceny, and
suspending people on that basis?  It's illegal, and easily tested for.
>
>
> >This is also irrelevant to the point.  Taking steroids would be the
choice
> >of the athlete and he or she is the one that would face the consequences
of
> >their debilitating effects.  So, by the logic presented, why should the
NCAA
> >be banning them?  Are players any less adults on the subject of drugs
than
> >face shields?
>
> This is a stupid argument. Please don't drag the list down this road
 
Why is it stupid?  I'm not the person that claimed that, since college
athletes are adults, they should be able to make their own choices.  You'll
have to give specifics on why this is a bad analogy rather than simply
blowing the whole thing off.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.