And the more spectators paid at the gate, the higher the prizes could be and the greater was the incentive of riders to stay awake—or be kept awake—to ride the greatest distance. Their exhaustion was countered by soigneurs the French word for "carers" , helpers akin to seconds in boxing. Among the treatments they supplied was nitroglycerine , a drug used to stimulate the heart after cardiac attacks and which was credited with improving riders' breathing.
The American champion Major Taylor refused to continue the New York race, saying: "I cannot go on with safety, for there is a man chasing me around the ring with a knife in his hand. Public reaction turned against such trials, whether individual races or in teams of two. One report said:.
The father of anabolic steroids in the United States was John Ziegler — , a physician for the U. In , on his tour to Vienna with his team for the world championship, Ziegler learned from his Russian colleague that the Soviet weightlifting team's success was due to their use of testosterone as a performance-enhancing drug. Deciding that U. This resulted in the creation of methandrostenolone , which appeared on the market in During the Olympics that year, the Danish cyclist Knud Enemark Jensen collapsed and died while competing in the kilometer mile race.
An autopsy later revealed the presence of amphetamines and a drug called nicotinyl tartrate in his system. The American specialist in doping, Max M. Novich, wrote: "Trainers of the old school who supplied treatments which had cocaine as their base declared with assurance that a rider tired by a six-day race would get his second breath after absorbing these mixtures. Nevertheless, only 0. The whole Russian track and field team was banned from the Olympic Games, because the Russian State had sponsored their doping program.
Goldman's dilemma, or the Goldman dilemma, is a question that was posed to elite athletes by physician , osteopath and publicist Bob Goldman, asking whether they would take a drug that would guarantee them success in sport, but cause them to die after five years. In his research, as in previous research by Mirkin, approximately half the athletes responded that they would take the drug,  but modern research by James Connor and co-workers has yielded much lower numbers, with athletes having levels of acceptance of the dilemma that were similar to the general population of Australia.
- Bis ins Mark: Thriller (German Edition).
- Soap Making: 19 Unique Homemade Soap Recipes (DIY Soap Making, Soap Crafting) (Soap Making Books Book 2).
- Serial: An Examination of the Prosecution’s Evidence Against Adnan Syed!
- Wild Life in the Land of the Giants: A Tale of Two Brothers.
- Search BCCI.tv!
- Browse by Subject.
Over the last 20 years the appearance of steroids in sports has been seen as an epidemic. Research and limited tests have been conducted only to find short-term, reversible effects on athletes that are both physical and mental. These side effects would be alleviated if athletes were allowed the use of controlled substances under proper medical supervision.
These side-effects include Intramuscular abscesses and other microbial bacteria that can cause infections, from counterfeited products the user decides to purchase on the black market, high blood pressure and cholesterol, as well as infertility, and dermatological conditions like severe acne. Mental effects include increased aggression and depression, and in rare cases suicide has been seen as well. Most studies on the effects of steroids have shown to be improper and lacking credible tests as well as performing studies in a skewed fashion to predetermine the world's view on the use of steroids in sports.
Long-term effects have not been able to be pinpointed just yet due to the recency of testing these substances but would start show up as early steroid users reach the age of 50 and older. These "de facto experiments investigating the physiology of stress as well as the substances that might alleviate exhaustion" were not unknown outside cycling.
He crossed the line behind a fellow American Fred Lorz , who had been transported for 11 miles of the course by his trainer, leading to his disqualification. However, Hicks's trainer Charles Lucas, pulled out a syringe and came to his aid as his runner began to struggle. The use of strychnine, at the time, was thought necessary to survive demanding races, according to sports historians Alain Lunzenfichter  and historian of sports doping, Dr Jean-Pierre de Mondenard, who said:.
Hicks was, in the phrase of the time, "between life and death" but recovered, collected his gold medal a few days later, and lived until Nonetheless, he never again took part in athletics. Stimulants are drugs that usually act on the central nervous system to modulate mental function and behavior, increasing an individual's sense of excitement and decreasing the sensation of fatigue.
In the World Anti-Doping Agency list of prohibited substances, stimulants are the second largest class after the anabolic steroids. Benzedrine is a trade name for amphetamine. The Council of Europe says it first appeared in sport at the Berlin Olympics in Its perceived effects gave it the street name "speed". The drug was withdrawn but large stocks remained on the black market.
Lack of full disclosure by players a critical error
Amphetamine was also used legally as an aid to slimming and also as a thymoleptic before being phased out by the appearance of newer agents in the s. Everton , one of the top clubs in the English football league, were champions of the —63 season. And it was done, according to a national newspaper investigation, with the help of Benzedrine. Word spread after Everton's win that the drug had been involved. The newspaper investigated, cited where the reporter believed it had come from, and quoted the goalkeeper, Albert Dunlop, as saying:. The club agreed that drugs had been used but that they "could not possibly have had any harmful effect.
In November , the Italian cyclist Fausto Coppi took "seven packets of amphetamine" to beat the world hour record on the track. The autopsy showed he had taken amphetamine and another drug, Ronicol , which dilates the blood vessels. The chairman of the Dutch cycling federation, Piet van Dijk, said of Rome that "dope — whole cartloads — [were] used in such royal quantities. The s British cycling professional Jock Andrews would joke: "You need never go off-course chasing the peloton in a big race — just follow the trail of empty syringes and dope wrappers.
- Search BCCI.tv;
- Magdalene A.D: Part III - Dance of the Seventh Veil (Magdalene A.D. Book 3)?
- Tesori sepolti (Italian Edition)!
- The Chakras (Book 2) Chakras 2.
- Il punto di non ritorno (Italian Edition).
Currently modafinil is being used throughout the sporting world, with many high-profile cases attracting press coverage as prominent United States athletes have failed tests for this substance. Some athletes who were found to have used modafinil protested as the drug was not on the prohibited list at the time of their offence, however, the World Anti-Doping Agency WADA maintains it is a substance related to those already banned, so the decisions stand.
Modafinil was added to the list of prohibited substances on 3 August , ten days before the start of the Summer Olympics. One approach of athletes to get around regulations on stimulants is to use new designer stimulants, which have not previously been officially prohibited, but have similar chemical structures or biological effects. Designer stimulants that attracted media attention in included mephedrone , ephedrone , and fluoroamphetamines , which have chemical structures and effects similar to ephedrine and amphetamine.
Anabolic-androgenic steroids AAS were first isolated, identified and synthesized in the s, and are now used therapeutically in medicine to induce bone growth, stimulate appetite , induce male puberty , and treat chronic wasting conditions, such as cancer and AIDS. Anabolic steroids also increase muscle mass and physical strength, and are therefore used in sports and bodybuilding to enhance strength or physique. Known side effects include harmful changes in cholesterol levels increased Low density lipoprotein and decreased High density lipoprotein , acne , high blood pressure , and liver damage.
Some of these effects can be mitigated by taking supplemental drugs. AAS use in sports began in October when John Ziegler , a doctor who treated American athletes, went to Vienna with the American weightlifting team. There he met a Russian physician who, over "a few drinks", repeatedly asked "What are you giving your boys?
All gained more weight and strength than any training programme would produce but there were side-effects. The results were so impressive that lifters began taking more, and steroids spread to other sports. Paul Lowe, a former running back with the San Diego Chargers American football team, told a California legislative committee on drug abuse in "We had to take them [steroids] at lunchtime.
He [an official] would put them on a little saucer and prescribed them for us to take them and if not he would suggest there might be a fine. Olympic statistics show the weight of shot putters increased 14 percent between and , whereas steeplechasers weight increased 7. The gold medalist pentathlete Mary Peters said: "A medical research team in the United States attempted to set up extensive research into the effects of steroids on weightlifters and throwers, only to discover that there were so few who weren't taking them that they couldn't establish any worthwhile comparisons.
However, drug testing can be wildly inconsistent and, in some instances, has gone unenforced. A number of studies measuring anabolic steroid use in high school athletes found that out of all 12th grade students, 6. Of those students who acknowledged doping with anabolic—androgenic steroids, well over half participated in school-sponsored athletics, including football, wrestling, track and field, and baseball.
A second study showed 6. At the collegiate level, surveys show that AAS use among athletes range from 5 percent to 20 percent and continues to rise. The study found that skin changes were an early marker of steroid use in young athletes, and underscored the important role that dermatologists could play in the early detection and intervention in these athletes.
He later admitted to using the steroid as well as Dianabol , testosterone, Furazabol , and human growth hormone amongst other things. Johnson was stripped of his gold medal as well as his world-record performance. Carl Lewis was then promoted one place to take the Olympic gold title. Lewis had also run under the current world record time and was therefore recognized as the new record holder.
Lewis broke his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had failed tests for banned substances, but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans, concealed by the USOC. Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games. I knew this was going on, but there's absolutely nothing you can do as an athlete.
You have to believe governing bodies are doing what they are supposed to do. And it is obvious they did not," said former American sprinter and Olympic champion, Evelyn Ashford. In , one of East Germany's best sprinters, Renate Neufeld , fled to the West with the Bulgarian she later married. A year later she said that she had been told to take drugs supplied by coaches while training to represent East Germany in the Olympic Games.
She brought with her to the West grey tablets and green powder she said had been given to her, to members of her club, and to other athletes. The West German doping analyst Manfred Donike reportedly identified them as anabolic steroids. She said she stayed quiet for a year for the sake of her family. But when her father then lost his job and her sister was expelled from her handball club, she decided to tell her story. East Germany closed itself to the sporting world in May At the same time, the Kreischa testing laboratory near Dresden passed into government control, which was reputed to make around 12, tests a year on East German athletes but without any being penalised.
In the reverse of what the IAAF hoped, sending her home to East Germany meant she was free to train unchecked with anabolic steroids, if she wanted to, and then compete for another gold medal, which she won. After that, almost nothing emerged from the East German sports schools and laboratories. A rare exception was the visit by the sports writer and former athlete, Doug Gilbert of the Edmonton Sun , who said:. Other reports came from the occasional athlete who fled to the West. There were 15 between and One, the ski-jumper Hans-Georg Aschenbach , said: "Long-distance skiers start having injections to their knees from the age 14 because of their intensive training.
There are gymnasts among the girls who have to wear corsets from the age of 18 because their spine and their ligaments have become so worn After German reunification, on 26 August the records were opened and the evidence was there that the Stasi , the state secret police, supervised systematic doping of East German athletes from until reunification in Doping existed in other countries, says the expert Jean-Pierre de Mondenard, both communist and capitalist, but the difference with East Germany was that it was a state policy.
A special page on the internet was created by doping victims trying to gain justice and compensation, listing people involved in doping in the GDR. State-endorsed doping began with the Cold War when every Eastern Bloc gold was an ideological victory. From , Manfred Ewald, the head of East Germany's sports federation, imposed blanket doping.
Four years later the total was 20 and in it doubled again to It is estimated that around 10, former athletes bear the physical and mental scars of years of drug abuse,  one of them is Rica Reinisch , a triple Olympic champion and world record-setter at the Summer Olympics , has since suffered numerous miscarriages and recurring ovarian cysts. Two former Dynamo Berlin club doctors, Dieter Binus, chief of the national women's team from to , and Bernd Pansold , in charge of the sports medicine center in East Berlin , were committed for trial for allegedly supplying 19 teenagers with illegal substances.
Former Sport Club Dynamo athletes who publicly admitted to doping, accusing their coaches: . Based on the admission by Pollack, the United States Olympic Committee asked for the redistribution of gold medals won in the Summer Olympics. In rejecting the American petition on behalf of its women's medley relay team in Montreal and a similar petition from the British Olympic Association on behalf of Sharron Davies , the IOC made it clear that it wanted to discourage any such appeals in the future. According to British journalist Andrew Jennings , a KGB colonel stated that the agency's officers had posed as anti-doping authorities from the IOC to undermine doping tests and that Soviet athletes were "rescued with [these] tremendous efforts".
The Moscow Games might as well have been called the Chemists' Games. A member of the IOC Medical Commission, Manfred Donike, privately ran additional tests with a new technique for identifying abnormal levels of testosterone by measuring its ratio to epitestosterone in urine. Twenty percent of the specimens he tested, including those from sixteen gold medalists would have resulted in disciplinary proceedings had the tests been official.
Documents obtained in revealed the Soviet Union's plans for a statewide doping system in track and field in preparation for the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. Dated prior to the country's decision to boycott the Games, the document detailed the existing steroids operations of the program, along with suggestions for further enhancements. The communication, directed to the Soviet Union's head of track and field, was prepared by Dr. Sergey Portugalov of the Institute for Physical Culture. Portugalov was also one of the main figures involved in the implementation of the Russian doping program prior to the Summer Olympics.
There have been few incidents of doping in football, mainly due to FIFA 's belief that education and prevention with constant in and out-of-competition controls play a key role in making high-profile competitions free of performance-enhancing drugs. In , the biological passport was introduced in the FIFA World Cup ; blood and urine samples from all players before the competition and from two players per team and per match are analysed by the Swiss Laboratory for Doping Analyses.
As discussed later, this has direct implications for Canadian drug testing policy in the transportation sector. The private sector in Canada appears equally enthusiastic about workplace urinalysis. A recently-reported Arthur Anderson and Co. However, reliable numbers are not available on the number of Canadian firms which have actually adopted drug testing programs. The government of Canada, while initially showing great restraint in the face of drug testing pressures, now appears willing to embrace the process in a range of situations.
Urinalysis programs involving inmates, parolees, members of the Canadian Forces and indirectly athletes have been in operation for varying periods. Is the announcement in March of two new and broad-ranging testing programs by Transport Canada and the Department of National Defence a signal of the intention of the government to expand urinalysis programs dramatically?
This document argues that many elements of these present and expanded drug testing programs can be characterized as unnecessary "overkill". The growing pressures in society and government for drug testing programs and the intrusiveness of both testing procedures and their results on personal privacy led the Privacy Commissioner to undertake a review of federal government drug testing policy and practice. While there is no doubt that drug testing infringes personal privacy in a profound sense, one must not be blind to the need to protect the public interest.
The recommendations contained in this report are offered as a contribution to the ongoing debate and a guide to government. The development of drug testing policies and practices which respect the requirements of the Privacy Act and which keep in appropriate balance public and private rights will be a unique and difficult challenge. Seeking to find an appropriate balance, one might bear in mind a chilling comment eloquently stated by the editor of Harper's Magazine in a recent essay entitled: "A Political Opiate". Lewis Lapham analyzes a preoccupation with the problem of drugs in society as follows:.
For the sake of a vindictive policeman's dream of a quiet and orderly heaven, the country risks losing its constitutional right to its soul. Widespread drug testing is enormously attractive as a simple, quick fix to a complex social problem. Are the really tough issues—workplace stress, ignorance, inadequate employee counselling and the continuing failure to treat substance abuse as a health problem rather than a social deviance—so threatening that we must pursue a course which undermines many of our hard-won fundamental liberties?
Few would accept a "war on drugs" strategy which permitted employers or the state to intrude into our homes without reasonable suspicion, no matter how helpful such intrusions might be in addressing the drug problem. Yet governments, apparently with some public support, find drug testing so attractive that they propose to authorize intrusions into our bodies.
The burden of proof now rests on the shoulders of government to demonstrate that, in authorizing such intrusions, our "constitutional soul" has not been sacrificed. An informed understanding of the scientific limitations of the testing method and a careful delineation of the precise goals of the testing program are prerequisites to any decision as to the effectiveness of a drug testing program.
Legal considerations—including the Privacy Act , the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Charter —must also be incorporated into the analysis. For example, a testing program that does not confirm positive results from screening tests will be unacceptable because it generates many false positives. Urinalysis to confirm impairment would not be useful, even with the proper confirmatory tests, since urinalysis can show past use only. It cannot show either present use or present or past impairment. In what follows, several variables that may be involved in drug testing are explored in greater detail.
Proponents of drug testing advance any of several justifications. Footnote 6 Some are more relevant to certain environments the workplace, for example than others. Much of the following material describing the justifications for testing is based on an analysis of American literature and surveys, given the limited Canadian material and surveys on the subject. Testing reflects society's concern about the "pervasive" use of illicit drugs and reduces the demand for them. This is clearly an important, if not the most important, justification behind President Reagan's executive order.
Footnote 7. The executive order calls for a drug free federal workplace in the United States and focusses on illegal drugs. The threat of a drug test which might jeopardize one's livelihood may deter a person from using illegal drugs. Thus, it is argued, drug testing can reduce the demand for illicit drugs Footnote 8 and complement attempts to reduce the supply of drugs.
The interaction of criminal and disciplinary law in doping-related cases
Drug testing programs aimed at reducing demand would focus only on illicit drugs—those that are banned outright or that have been obtained through illegal acts such as the doctoring of prescriptions. Private employers may argue that, by testing for illicit drugs, they too are doing what they can to reduce the demand for illicit drugs. One recent American survey suggests that 10 per cent of one sample group of large American corporations with testing programs justified them as a means to curb illegal drug traffic.
Footnote 9 However, enhancing workplace performance through reducing accidents, protecting a safe work record and improving productivity , appears more often to be the goal of private sector testing. Footnote Almost any group—government, sporting or business—could rely on the justification of reducing drug demand for testing. That justification could in fact support testing an entire population. Protecting health and promoting safety are often put forth as objectives of testing programs. These objectives have four aspects:. The health and safety justification can be used to justify workplace testing and testing wholly apart from workplace considerations.
This type of testing program would not distinguish between licit and illicit drugs. Drug testing may be justified as a technique to develop more productive workers, reduce health care costs, verify employee honesty and reduce liability for damage caused by impaired workers. In the Canadian context, this justification for testing is especially important. The United States government and private sector have both strongly advocated testing for illicit drug use. American policy reaches into Canada through American transportation regulations and the imposition by American parent companies of testing programs on their Canadian subsidiaries.
Canadian owned and domiciled companies could decide to test their own employees to retain access to the U. The Canadian testing programs that may flow from these political and economic realities will be shaped in part by the nature of the testing programs in the United States. The drugs attacked by the United States Department of Transport regulations, for example, are those, we now know, for which Canada feels the pressure to test.
Similarly, pressures from international sports bodies—the International Olympic Committee and international sports federations—will shape Canadian athlete testing policies. Most drug testing programs are based on a hybrid justification. An employer's desire to have productive employees and at the same time to discourage illegal activity may both be used to justify one program. Vetting employee honesty and reducing unsafe work practices may be used to justify another.
President Reagan's executive order Footnote 13 offered several justifications for testing for the use of illegal drugs: to prevent lost productivity, to prevent the funding of organized crime through the drug trade, to promote public trust in federal employees, to increase reliability and good judgment and to prevent irresponsible behaviour which could pose a threat to national security.
The drug testing strategies announced in March, by Transport Canada and the Department of National Defence justify testing as a means to enhance safety, both public and "on-the-job". The Department of National Defence strategy also relies on other justifications—operational effectiveness and a substance abuse-free Canadian Forces among them. There is continuing debate, however, about the extent to which testing programs can contribute to accomplishing the goals identified above.
The drugs being tested for will vary with—the purpose of the test and with the bias of those calling for testing. If, for example, an organization wanted to identify drug use which could result in impairment, it should test for legal drugs alcohol and over-the-counter drugs , prescription drugs and illegal drugs that can cause impairment. If it wished only to identify illicit drug use, it obviously need not test for legal drugs.
The testing program instituted under President Reagan's executive order focusses on the use of illegal drugs only.
It appears only peripherally interested in impairment by illegal drugs. It does not address testing for the use of or impairment by legal drugs such as alcohol. Hundreds of drugs are included in those schedules. The Department of National Defence and Transport Canada testing policies, however, are not limited to testing for illegal drugs.
They include testing for alcohol. The Transport Canada policy also addresses the use of other legal drugs, for example, over-the-counter and prescription drugs which may impair. After deciding what drugs to test for, those testing must decide the level of concentration of the metabolized by-products "metabolites" of a drug in a person's urine that will lead to a "positive" test result.
The Drugs Won: The Case for Ending the Sports War on Doping - VICE
There is general agreement that a certain concentration of a substance—a metabolite of cocaine, for example—must be found before a test is declared ''positive". Threshold levels must be set for each drug. Any organization contemplating testing must consider who to test and what circumstances should trigger testing. An employer may want to test an employee after he or she is involved in an accident.
Another employer might test simply on suspicion of drug use. Still another might test only where an employee has been involved in an accident and where drug use and impairment are suspected as a cause of the accident. Employers must decide whether to test all employees, senior management, unionized employees, employees whose duties could affect safety, or some combination of these.
When coupled with the range of drugs that can be tested for, this creates an enormous and complex array of testing options. Note: The definition of "with cause" could be designed to include any of the following situations:. Testing programs for government clients parolees or inmates, for example or members of the general public public assistance applicants, students on scholarship, athletes might take any of the following forms:.
Added to the range of options listed above are several relating to the mechanics of testing. Among the types of drug tests now available or contemplated are urinalysis, breathalyzer, blood, hair and psychological profile. In Canada the most commonly used test for drugs other than alcohol is urinalysis. Subjects are required to give a urine sample.
The test seeks to locate in the urine the drug or metabolites of the drug being tested for. Apart from breathalyzer and blood testing for blood alcohol levels, urinalysis appears to be the sole drug testing method used by the federal government. Urinalysis will also be a key component of the testing strategies announced by Transport Canada and the Department of National Defence. All these programs are explained in Appendix A. Urinalysis itself, however, does not consist of a single, well-defined process. It may involve any of several different "screening" and "confirmatory" tests. The type of drug being sought will often determine which method of urinalysis is to be used.
Some are better at identifying certain drugs than others. Other factors affecting the testing method are the relative costs of various methods of urinalysis and the degree of expertise needed to conduct a given test procedure. The Criminal Code breathalyzer test detects the presence and concentration of alcohol in the breath, which can be correlated with blood alcohol levels.
A level of impairment is legislatively presumed from this information. When a breath sample cannot be obtained, the Code sometimes permits taking a blood sample. Breathalyzer testing cannot identify the use of or impairment by other drugs. Some proponents of testing have explored psychological testing to determine the propensity to use illicit drugs. This method, however, fares poorly as a device to identify present or future drug users. Another test analyses hair strands. Like the rings on a tree, strands of hair can record past events—in this case, drug use.
A five-centimeter strand of hair might allow the tester to identify what drugs its owner had ingested over the last three months. This test, however, could not detect recent use within the last three to five days. Still, it could be combined with other tests urinalysis, for example to develop a complete picture of drug use in the immediate and more distant past. Hair analysis has not yet been shown to be a viable means of identifying past drug use.
Even so, it has the potential to become a valid testing procedure. In one sense, obtaining a hair strand is less intrusive than getting a urine sample; a strand can simply be snipped from a person's head. In another sense, it may be much more intrusive, allowing the tester to probe much deeper into the subject's past. This paper does not deal with the mechanics of all possible forms of drug testing.
For example, it does not discuss saliva testing. Instead, it concentrates on the. Much of the analysis contained here, however, could apply to other testing methods. Urinalysis can indicate only that a person has consumed a drug within the recent past how far into the recent past will vary according to the drug being tested for. It cannot tell whether a person who has been tested is now using the drug.
At best, a person who tests "positive" for drug use may have been impaired at some past time. One cannot, however, confirm that the person was impaired. Nor can a positive urinalysis confirm that a person was impaired when the test was taken. Urinalysis cannot determine precisely when the drug was used, although it can generally tell that it has been used within the last few days. Footnote 16 Nor can it identify the quantity of the drug ingested. Accordingly, the limited information provided by urinalysis is in fact of little use in many situations where employers and others are anxious to test.
At best, testing may deter drug use, but this effect has not been conclusively shown. A positive test result means that the test has detected the drug or a metabolite of the drug being tested for. There may be any of several explanations for the positive result. It may mean that the person being tested:. False positives do occur, most often after screening tests, and to a much lesser extent after confirmatory testing. Some licit substances poppy seeds, some asthma inhalants, for example may produce positive test results.
Urinalysis technology, if administered properly screening tests coupled with appropriate confirmatory testing and the elimination of other possible substances that may cause a false positive , is acceptably accurate. Human error, however, may cause unacceptable levels of false results. Test results can be used for a range of purposes. Employers testing job applicants might refuse to hire those who test positive although federal and provincial human rights codes may prohibit this.
Current employees may be dismissed, denied promotion, ordered to undertake treatment or relieved of certain job duties. A positive test result may interest investigative bodies which perform security clearances for federal government agencies. A positive test result may prevent a person from obtaining positions of trust in the future. Outside the workplace, the uses made of results may be equally varied. Athletes who test positive may lose their funding, be stripped of awards or records and banned from competition. Parolees who test positive may see their parole revoked. Inmates who test positive may face discipline.
We are aware of no cases where positive test results have been reported to law enforcement authorities except for breathalyzer or blood tests administered by or through the police. In any event, criminal charges would not result simply from a positive urinalysis. Existing criminal law does not punish the simple use of a drug. Footnote 21 It focusses instead on possession, manufacturing and trafficking, none of which can be proved in law by a positive test result. Part I outlined several justifications for drug testing and discussed the variables involved in the process.
Part II addresses privacy issues arising from drug testing. It argues that drug testing is intrusive and should be strictly circumscribed. Privacy considerations, however, are not the only arguments favouring limits on drug testing. Several general arguments some interwoven with privacy arguments are also set out here. Testing imports an aura of oppression and Big-Brotherhood. Some forms of testing—breathalyzer tests to detect impaired driving or operation of vessels or aircraft, for example—have broad public support.
But would a knowledgeable public accept testing in circumstances that may do little to enhance public safety? Testing supposes an employer's or government agency's right to exercise substantial control over individuals and to intrude into some of the deepest recesses of their lives.
The technology of drug testing is being allowed to shape the limits of human privacy and dignity. The situation should be the other way around. Notions of respect for individual privacy and autonomy should place limits on the intrusions which technology will be permitted to make into personal lives. In other words, the uses of technology should not limit human rights; human rights should limit the uses of technology.
The Privacy Act was enacted in , setting out principles of "fair information practices". Among other obligations, it requires government institutions to:. The Act defines "government institution" as any department, ministry of state, body or office of the Government of Canada listed in the schedule to the Act. Currently, the Act covers some institutions. It does not apply to the private sector. An institution wanting to test cannot, by simply creating a testing program, comply with section 4. Implicit in section 4 is the requirement that no such information is to be collected unless 1 the collection is part of an activity or program falling within the statutory mandate of the institution and 2 the collection is a necessary element of a mandated program or activity.
Even if the test subject consents, the collection of information by testing will not be valid unless it meets these two conditions. Specific statutory authority for an institution to conduct drug testing of employees or clients will, of course, ensure compliance with section 4. Despite the fact that section 4 does not require specific statutory authority for any form of information collection, the additional safeguard of Parliamentary approval is highly desirable for highly intrusive forms, such as urinalysis.
Indeed, it is our view that elected officials should be given the opportunity to carefully weigh the evidence as to whether the public interest in detecting drug use through mandatory drug testing outweighs, in specific cases, individual privacy rights. Without specific statutory authority to collect personal information through drug testing, determining compliance with section 4 becomes more difficult.
It involves assessing the necessity principle and weighing the public interest in collection against the privacy intrusion involved. The principal privacy issue flowing from drug testing is not whether testing is intrusive. It is. Urinalysis is particularly intrusive, requiring as it may either a pre-test physical search, the direct observation of an intimate bodily function, or both.
Footnote 34 The principal issue is in what circumstances the intrusions occasioned by testing are justified. Despite the limited inferences that can be drawn from test results and despite the intrusiveness of drug testing, the Privacy Act does not prohibit all drug testing. However, we have concluded—as did the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare—that only in exceptional cases in which drug use constitutes a real risk to safety is drug testing justifiable.
The following justifications alone are not sufficient under section 4 of the Privacy Act to legitimize drug testing: the desire to promote efficiency, economy and honesty, the desire to reduce the demand for illicit drugs and the desire to comply with foreign testing requirements. Footnote 35 Although specific legislation could permit or require testing in these circumstances, such legislation would not be appropriate.
Nor would it likely comply with the Charter. Collecting personal information by mandatory drug testing, without cause to suspect drug use by or impairment of a person or within a group, and with no evidence to suggest that drug use or impairment poses a threat to public safety, would infringe section 4 of the Privacy Act. Such testing would violate the privacy of everyone in the group ordered to take the test.
It presumes guilt without setting any threshold standard of reasonable belief or suspicion before the test is taken. It subjects the majority who are not using drugs to invasive procedures designed to single out the minority. Such testing is a fishing expedition, not a justifiable search. Moreover, few meaningful conclusions can be drawn from the test results. Yet those testing positive can suffer significant detriment. At the other end of the continuum is testing where there is reason or "cause" to believe that a person is impaired by legal or illegal drugs, the impairment poses a threat to public safety and there is no other effective means of reducing the threat for example, it may not be possible to supervise the person closely.
This testing is the easiest to justify although urinalysis is still deficient, since it cannot measure present drug use or impairment. It is not a fishing expedition. It is aimed at a person whose behaviour suggests impairment. It therefore does not subject large numbers of people to testing. Instead, it relies on specific evidence to identify a limited number of persons. Testing programs at this end of the continuum could more easily be brought into accord with section 4 of the Privacy Act.
Under the following circumstances, drug testing would be justifiable under the Privacy Act :. A reliable survey or other method of monitoring may have identified that a given group police officers, pilots or inmates, for example has a drug-related problem. It may be impractical to counter the problem through a testing program based on reasonable suspicion about an individual perhaps because individual activities cannot be adequately supervised or because the visible impairment caused by the drug use in question is too subtle to observe.
In this case, the only and still imperfect course of action may be to test randomly. The collection of personal information through random mandatory testing of group members on the basis of the behaviour patterns of the group as a whole may be justifiable, but only if the following conditions are met:.
Message sent successfully
Most groups will not exhibit drug-related safety problems to the extent that would warrant random testing of group members. However, individual group members may still pose a safety risk if they are impaired by drugs. In such cases, it should be possible to collect personal information through mandatory testing when there is reasonable suspicion. A person might appropriately be tested if the following conditions are met:.
Government institutions should seek Parliamentary authority before collecting personal information through mandatory testing. The collection of personal information through random mandatory testing of members of a group on the basis of the behaviour patterns of the group as a whole may be justifiable only if the following conditions are met:. A person who is not a member of a group which exhibits drug-related problem behaviour might appropriately be tested if the following conditions are met:.
Since drug testing programs designed primarily to promote efficiency, economy or honesty, or to reduce the demand for illicit drugs, would not satisfy recommendations 2 or 3, such programs would violate the Privacy Act. Because public safety should be the principal consideration behind drug testing, tests should not distinguish between legal and illegal drugs. The focus instead should be on the harm caused by any substance that impairs. Direct collection and the duty to inform: section 5: Section 4 of the Act permits government institutions to collect personal information in defined circumstances only.
Section 5 imposes additional limits on collection. These are the duty to collect information directly and to inform about the purpose of the collection. The duty to collect directly in subsection 5 1 is not absolute. There are four exceptions. Subsection 5 1 permits indirect collection when direct collection is not possible or when the person to whom the information relates authorizes another form of collection. As well, the collection need not be direct if the personal information being sought may be disclosed to the institution under subsection 8 2.
That subsection sets out several circumstances where a government institution holding personal information may disclose the information, including disclosure to another institution. Finally, the collection need not be direct if it would result in the collection of inaccurate information or would defeat the purpose or prejudice the use for which the information is collected subsection 5 3. Using information "for an administrative purpose" simply means using the information in a decision making process that directly affects the individual section 3.
Thus, a government institution relying on information about a person's drug use to decide a person's suitability for employment would be using the information for an administrative purpose. Subsection 5 1 is, in our view, a legalistic way of saying, "If you want to learn something about a person, ask the person", unless the law authorizes another mode of collection.
The section clearly contemplates having the individual volunteer his or her personal information to the fullest extent possible. The collection of information through drug testing would only be considered direct collection under subsection 5 1 if the test subject truly volunteered to be tested. Mandatory drug testing therefore would be considered an indirect collection and would only comply with section 5 if it fell within one of the exceptions identified by the section.
Government institutions must wherever possible collect personal information used for an administrative purpose and relating to drug use or impairment directly from the individual that is, if the person volunteers. Collection may be indirect that is, from other sources or without the person's consent in the following circumstances:. Informing about the purpose of the collection: Subsection 5 2 of the Act imposes the duty to inform a person from whom personal information is being collected of the purpose of the collection:.
The institution is required to inform of the purpose only where the information is collected directly voluntarily, in the case of drug tests from that individual. If the personal information is not collected directly, subsection 5 2 imposes no duty to inform. Nor is it necessary to inform a person from whom information is collected of the purpose if informing might result in the collection of inaccurate information or defeat the purpose or prejudice the use for which information is collected subsection 5 3.
We recommend as a matter of policy, however, that even when information is collected indirectly, test subjects be informed of the purpose of the collection unless it would result in the collection of inaccurate information or defeat the purpose or prejudice the use for which the information is collected. Even when subsection 5 2 of the Privacy Act imposes no duty on a government institution to inform about the purpose of the collection, test subjects should as a matter of policy be informed.
Only if informing the test subject would result in the collection of inaccurate information or defeat the purpose or prejudice the use for which the information is collected should the purpose of the collection be withheld from the person. When personal information is used for an administrative purpose, the Act sets out retention requirements.
Once a urine, hair or other sample is taken from a person and identified as belonging to that person normally by labelling a container holding the substance it becomes personal information. Accordingly, the sample and other personal information used for an administrative purpose must be retained for a specified period. Subsection 6 1 reads:. Subsection 4 1 of the Privacy Regulations Footnote 36 states:.
Consequently, a two year minimum applies for the retention of urine samples and the information relating to the samples. A more troubling issue is the maximum period of retention. The appropriate maximum period may vary from case to case. However, positive test results retained by government should not be allowed to haunt persons many years after the test.
It would be inappropriate for a government institution even to speculate that a person is a current drug user because of a positive test result from several years past. If the conditions for testing set out in Recommendations 2 and 3 are met, the person could be retested to determine current use. If the conditions are not met, the person should not be retested. Body samples and the personal information derived from those samples should be retained for the period prescribed by the Privacy Regulations , and be disposed of as soon as possible after the retention period has expired.
Some personal information is more sensitive than other such information. A diagnosis of AIDS, for example, could have catastrophic consequences for the person affected if the information were released to the community. Information about a person's drug using habits, while perhaps not as sensitive as AIDS-related personal information, still merits strict safeguards. The release of the information could seriously impair a person's chance to obtain or hold employment.
It could affect his relationship with co-workers or others in the general community. Given contemporary attitudes about drug use, discrimination is bound to flow from disclosure. Even peripheral information—other "legitimate" drug use associated with a medical condition that had to be reported to clarify the results of a drug test, for example—could harm a person if released improperly.
At the very least, it would be an entirely unwarranted disclosure of information which the person has a right to keep private. Handling and disposal procedures should take into account the sensitivity of information related to drug testing. The Security Policy and Standards of the Government of Canada recognizes the sensitivity of personal information collected under the Privacy Act.
Such information is considered "designated information" warranting enhanced protection. Under section 5. Included is information concerning medical, psychiatric or psychological descriptions and information concerning a person's lifestyle. To identify particularly sensitive personal information, the Security Policy establishes an "injury" test. The information will be considered particularly sensitive if its disclosure, removal, modification or loss could reasonably be presumed to cause an invasion of privacy.
Using this injury test, information from drug tests or information suggesting drug use could easily be seen as particularly sensitive personal information. Among the special security measures that must apply to such information are those dealing with storage, processing, transmittal and destruction. Those responsible for the handling and disposal of such information must comply with the Security Policy and Standards of the Government of Canada.
Procedures for the handling and disposal of personal information collected under the Privacy Act should reflect the sensitivity of the information.
Doping in sport
At a minimum, personal information relating to drug tests should be accorded physical protection at level B, as defined in the Security Policy and Standards of the Government of Canada. The Privacy Act imposes quality control standards on the personal information used by government institutions. Subsection 6 2 states:. Note that subsection 6 2 does not require perfection. The obligation is to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the information collected is as accurate, up-to-date and complete as possible.
As accurate as possible : Ensuring that information relating to drug testing is as accurate as possible has two dimensions. First, the testing procedure should correctly identify those who have or have not used drugs in the "window of detection" period to which the test applies. Second, urinalysis results should be understood to refer to past use only, not present use or past or present impairment.
Nor can urinalysis results be used to measure the quantity of the drug consumed. Over time, drug tests will improve with changes in technology. Whatever the technology, drug testing should aim for the following:. In practice, there is a tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity.
A highly sensitive test may result in a large number of false positives. The methods of proving said violations and the sanctions entrenched for them are close to the methods and sanctions those of criminal justice. Consequently, it is stated that the more serious allegation is made, the stricter sanction is entrenched, the stricter proving standard is to be applied. From the theoretical point of view it is conveyed that disciplinary sanctions undoubtedly inflict suffering and are both deterrent as well as retributive.
Such clauses pave the way for judicial discretion and, therefore, it is still an open question whether the anti-doping policy will turn itself into punitive one or, vice versa, to the policy which carefully takes into consideration each separate case with its own peculiarities. Postdoctoral research concerns the issues on cheating in sports. Hubert Radke's doctoral thesis concerns the problem of fighting sport abuses with the use of criminal law means.
Skip to main content. Advertisement Hide. The interaction of criminal and disciplinary law in doping-related cases. Article First Online: 17 May This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access. Accessed 28 February Accessed 25 February Australian Sports Commission and Cycling Australia. Accessed 20 February Accessed 18 February