"The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport isn't through with this country’s dirty football players.Oy. So-called journalism written in such a tone is halfway-to-hell hilarious at any time, let alone during the same week that confessed steroid user Alex Rodríguez hit his 600th home run. Most right-thinking people long and ago realized it's silly and subjective to say A-Rod records shouldn't be counted, and throw around adjectives like dirty. It's called shades of gray.
"On Tuesday, the centre will reveal the latest results from the 50 or so unannounced doping tests conducted on football players across Canada in the wake of a drug scandal that sidelined the University of Waterloo Warriors.
"The announcement of additional flunked drug tests in a sport already riddled with performance-enhancing drugs paints an ugly portrait of a doping-control policy in serious need of an overhaul.
"Canadian university football's drug habit landed under the centre's microscope in March when a police investigation uncovered a suspected trafficking ring inside the Warriors’ locker room.
"... Additional anti-doping measures targeting Canadian university football players will also be announced at Tuesday’s news conference in Ottawa." — Waterloo Region Record
Perhaps there is an issue, but cool it with the "dirty football players" and "Canadian university football's drug habit." No one in the old media wrote about it prior to March 2010, so no one gets to use those loaded phrases.
Did you also notice the leap from "latest results from the 50 or so unannounced doping tests" to "additional flunked drug tests?" Talk about prejudging. So did everyone test positive?
The point of all this isn't to be vituperative (OK, maybe a little). It is mind-boggling how the CCES sportocrats are willing to use Canadian university football in order to squeeze a little more money from the federal government.
That goes double if you take the time to read Steroids, Other 'Drugs' and Baseball, which spells it out for the 1,007th time there is a huge double standard with 21st-century PED madness. There
"The bottom line seems to be clear: One, by consensus medical and jurisprudential knowledge, these substances should not be illegal; two, regardless of legal questions, their use would not be considered by any sane person to be a medical 'risk' &mdash users would routinely be monitored by medical personnel for possible onset of atypical reactions. Even in the present artificial status, in which legitimate medical personnel are precluded from participating, symptoms above the mildly annoying level are rare and almost always reversible. To present steroid use as a major medical risk &mdash or, worse, as a sure ticket to catastrophic consequences &mdash is to invite cynicism or worse in users and, as has been seen with so many other illegal substances, a marked tendency in the user community to disregard all cautions as lies."Take your time to read the entire mainpage of that website. Pay particular close attention to the passage that "everyday Tylenol is a substantially more serious liver risk than any steroid."
Is Waterloo banning Tylenol, along with the Internet? We're just asking for a consistency in concerns about student health.
The point of all this is ours is a society where you can have morality and ethics without the need to resort to draconian punishments. Playing along with the CCES' agenda as well as the Waterlosers', is self-serving and shameful. It's enabler behaviour with a different label — and the pun is intended.