Greenie, answering Michael, 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...
>
Actually, I wonder if that is true.  I doubt there is a standard "mega test"
for all banned substances and one could easily eliminate steroids from the
batch if you wanted to.  But let me rant on about the broader issues here:
 
Soapbox mode ON:
 
In a perfect world filled with perfect people there would be no need for
drug testing.  But many adults consistently make poor choices when it comes
to recreational drugs.  Even knowing the consequences of abuse, some people
still choose to use alcohol heavily, or begin smoking, or experiment with
cocaine, etc.  We have an irrational drug policy in this country in which
penalties and efforts to prevent use bear little relationship to the actual
harm a drug can or will do to the individual or to society.  Still, the
stated rationale behind those laws is that people must be protected to doing
harm to themselves or others.
 
Steroids are not recreational drugs, of course.  They will provide a
short-cut to the athelete trying to bulk up - an unhealthy shortcut.  In the
end, they are banned because of both a health risk to the athlete and
because they provide an unfair advantage in amateur sports.  The latter
rationale would not work in the NHL, but the former would.  In the NCAA you
could use the unfair advantage argument, but no one does.  They are banned
for health reasons.
 
Now, as to how all this discussion started with face shields, etc., it
should be clear that governing bodies do and should set standards for
equipment as that equipment relates to the game involved, and that safety of
the players is a major part of that.  At the moment we appear to have two
(perhaps more) camps on the face shield issue.  I cannot speak as a player
as I have never played competitive hockey.  But I can well imagine there are
a number of players who, given a choice between comfort and/or competitive
edge over safety would choose unwisely.  That is when the governing body
should step in and mandate for safety.  Being adult enough to choose for
oneself really isn't the point here.
 
And as long as I am on my soapbox, let me also state the arguments in favor
of doing away with full shields because that will make players play with
more respect for their opponent's faces does not persuade me.  Even if it
did make them play with less reckless abandon (and I do not concede it
would) it seems to me there is still a liklihood of more serious injuries
without them than if you kept them.  Hence, like banning steroids for health
reasons, it seems logical to require face shields, too.
 
 
 
Tom Rowe, Orator, Provocateur, and Hockey Enthusiast Extraordinaire.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.