Smoke Up - WADA adds a 10-fold increase in the threshold level for marijuana

Cocaine? Any change?

Danny Harris banned for life for testing positive for cocaine. A shame, and perhaps needlessly punitive on the part of IAAF.

recreational drugs should not matter. how can tripping balls the week before a meet convey an unfair advantage?

Now, losers can be even bigger losers without getting busted?

do we wanna talk about El Pibe De Oro?

But with cocaine makes more sense, cocaine is a real drug, and has much more potential for addiction and health problems. It would go against the sport spirit.

Marijuana has never done any damage to people.

This is great, I applaud WADA for this move. I love getting stoned before going on a trail run. As long as I'm not smoking right before a race it really shouldn't be an issue. When you get the right high, smoking before a race can be very beneficial though and I think it's good that they set a limit that can be used to test in competition.

man, going for an easy run stoned is amazing. do you use a vape?

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

Cocaine? Any change?

Danny Harris banned for life for testing positive for cocaine. A shame, and perhaps needlessly punitive on the part of IAAF.

recreational drugs should not matter. how can tripping balls the week before a meet convey an unfair advantage?

You are seeing Marijuana the old way. The night time, party drug, an expression of reckless abandon. The new marijuana is a life enhancement substance, like your cup of coffee. Reducing stress and supporting well-being. I'm not making this up, by the way. I'm just calling what I see in an increasingly MJ tolerant society.

jonazitz wrote:

But with cocaine makes more sense, cocaine is a real drug, and has much more potential for addiction and health problems. It would go against the sport spirit.

By this logic, alcohol should be banned before any other recreational drug. It is far and away the most harmful.

Runner, Stoner, Gentleman wrote:

You are seeing Marijuana the old way. The night time, party drug, an expression of reckless abandon. The new marijuana is a life enhancement substance, like your cup of coffee. Reducing stress and supporting well-being. I'm not making this up, by the way. I'm just calling what I see in an increasingly MJ tolerant society.

As long as these drugs do not give an advantage, why should IAAF care? These are personal decisions.

LetsRun.com wrote:

Anyone remember when Chris Lukezic famously was banned for refusing to take an out of competition drug test on 4/20:

That was probably because he was retired and didn't want to face the tester to pee in a cup.

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

jonazitz wrote:

But with cocaine makes more sense, cocaine is a real drug, and has much more potential for addiction and health problems. It would go against the sport spirit.

By this logic, alcohol should be banned before any other recreational drug. It is far and away the most harmful.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

I don't know about that, I've always been a moderate drinker, so have been my friends/family (I'm from Italy). The relationship that people around me has with alcohol has always been very balanced.

I live in the USA now and I see that there is definitely more abuse, and the substance is seen under another light.

Anyway, the pull that I've felt the 2/3 times I tried cocaine is VERY different from alcohol, is like a slap to your brain. When I finished my first beer I've never wanted another one as much as I wanted my second line of coke.

and honestly this table of harm doesn't make any sense.

Benzodiazepenes are less harmful than weed?

take a look at this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDbPnAQ-c1o

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

Cocaine? Any change?

Danny Harris banned for life for testing positive for cocaine. A shame, and perhaps needlessly punitive on the part of IAAF.

recreational drugs should not matter. how can tripping balls the week before a meet convey an unfair advantage?

Cocaine is an upper. Isn't is a PED for events like pole vault and high jump? Maybe sprints as well.

We always thought it was absurd that non PED drugs were tested for in the first place. The good news is WADA now will only be testing for a level of marijuana that will show up if you were actually using it in competition.Apparently, and we didn't know this, marijuana has never prohibited out of competition - just in competition. A lot of people besides ourselves didn't know it as well. Anyone remember when Chris Lukezic famously was banned for refusing to take an out of competition drug test on 4/20:http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3691363Now, don't take the new rules too far and be an utter moron.See below:

Inside the games said:

WADA told insidethegames, nonetheless, that there was no guarantee that an athlete who used marijuana shortly before a competition would not test positive, since it might remain in their system for a longer period.

More here:

sounds like a good time to me, rojo

without coca the mass harvests of corn that we know of today, would never have taken place, nor would have any large sprawling civilizations... aztecs, they were on the coca and they set the standard for modern times

If the WADA is against mass harvests of corn and sprawling civilizations, more power to them.

But the Aztecs were partial to caffeine, not cocaine. And the sprawling old world civilizations didn't have cocaine, coffee or nicotine, except possibly the Egyptians for a while.

They did have qat, which they still use, and is restricted in competition unlike caffeine, its western equivalent. Bit of a cultural bias.

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

By this logic, alcohol should be banned before any other recreational drug. It is far and away the most harmful.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

I would like to actually read the study. It seems to be purely subjective. How does one determine "harm to others"

vs. "harm to users"?

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

By this logic, alcohol should be banned before any other recreational drug. It is far and away the most harmful.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

The Real Slim Shady wrote:

I would like to actually read the study. It seems to be purely subjective. How does one determine "harm to others"

vs. "harm to users"?

This was a proper study

It was conducted by a scientist w/ a career in the field. The Lancet is a serious journal. This is not a politically motivated study.

Testing for performance-enhancing drugs/methods has its own issues, but if you're going to test for recreational drugs you have to begin testing everyone in sport. You can't legitimately make "spirit of sport" claims if the only stakeholders you're policing are athletes.