Labour minister: Sports stars shouldn't be banned for social drug use

Tory sports spokesman Hugh Robertson has called on Tessa Jowell to disown remarks made by Labour sports minister Richard Caborn.  According to BBC Online Mr Caborn said that sports people should not be banned for using "social" drugs.

Mr Robertson:

“Richard Caborn's comments are wrong and appear directly to contradict UK sport's very clear stance on drug taking by elite athletes. The performance of an elite athlete in any sport will be affected by taking recreational drugs and top sportsmen and women act as role models for many young people. I hope that Tessa Jowell will disown these illogical and damaging comments.”

Comments

[David Boothroyd]

Huge Robertson?

[George Hinton]

Methinks that Caborn is off message. I thought that the social use of drugs was frowned upon by NuLab, particularly by personalities who may be sending the wrong message to our youth.
But, NuLab are not exactly joined up in their approach to drug management. The fact that Pete Doherty seems to live a charmed life in the courts, with all his troubles would not be reflected in the way a similar male from a London sink estate would be treated.
Similarly the recent report that a number of prisoners offered cold turkey in prison had their human rights infringed and should have been given drugs, shows that after 10 years of NuLab they cannot get it right, or orgainse policy or pass the right legislation.

[Out From Under]

I completely agree with Caborn:

Blog post

[Andrew]

He's completely right. They are subject to police sanctions, and likely contract implications (ie Wendell Sailor got sacked). Why should sports bodies have a third input to this?

It's especially ludicrous considering that legal drugs like tobacco are vastly more damaging to sporting performance than most "recreational drugs", and each year kill the same percentage of their userbase as heroin.

[TomTom]

I wonder how you distinguish the 'social' urine from the 'contest' urine when looking for narcotics or doping ?

Clearly Caborn just takes his drugs "socially" whilst commenting to newspapers

[Editor]

Thank you David - 'Huge' has now become 'Hugh'!

[wasp]

This would actually mean that you could be excluded for drinking a beechams but not for snorting coke off a hooker.

[Yet Another Anon]

The business of government is deciding whether there should be punishments for use of certain drugs, which drugs should be legal and how they should be legal - so far as sports go the government's interest should go no further than this and government should not waste it's time and resources on what is a bad for private sports bodies so long as they are within Criminal Law.

[Ted]

Can we abolish the Minster for Sport? I don't think we have a Minster for Courting Couples, Minister for X-Box & Platstations, Minister of Board Games or Minister of Gardening.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Actually, I agree with the Minster. People do take recreational drugs from time to time – be it cocaine or cannabis, drugs, like everything else, are harmless if taken in moderation. If I had children, I’d much prefer it if they smoked the odd joint of snorted the odd line of coke rather than take up alcohol. In ten years time, the third biggest killer in the UK (after heart disease and cancer) will probably be liver failure (I need to take note myself!). As IDS pointed out in his recent report, alcoholism plays a big part in the breakdown of family life. It is linked to high crime and hospital A+E admissions. In fact there’s a strong case for degrading some drugs like cocaine and turning alcohol into a Class A drug.

Many people forget that if Aspirin had been discovered today, it would be a Class A drug, yet alcohol is free for all. Make you think…

I think Hugh Robertson is jumping on a bandwagon here hoping the catch a headline or two in the Daily Hate, sorry, Mail.

[malcolm]

I very much doubt if you'll express sentiments like that if you ever do have children. Your point about aspirin is ludicrous!

[Esbonio]

Justin Hinchcliffe agrees with the minister. Now there is a surprise. And if he'd children he'd much prefer it "if they smoked the odd joint of snorted the odd line of coke rather than take up alcohol". Is this self-parody?

[pregethwr]

Should Dutch athletes be banned for the presence of cannabis in their bodies?

[Sean Fear]

The point about the dangers of alchohol is a valid one though Malcolm (and I write as someone who drinks too much.)

Alchohol is not a free for all though. It is in fact very heavily taxed.

[Esbonio]

I agree alcohol can be a dangerous drug although when it is its lead time is usually much longer. Nor does it, I believe, lead to as much crime and harm. I know the latter is a debatable point. However, how many times when you hear of despicable crime is it revealed it was committed to feed a usually class a drug habit.

[malcolm]

I know far too much about the dangers of alchohol Sean.I grew up in a single parent family as a result of it. But as a father I'm absolutely terrified of drugs. I've seen two friends lives ruined as a result of them. I'm sure even someone like Justin Hinchcliffe would not mean what he said if he had engaged his brain first.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Malcolm, do you ever cease to be insulting? I was exaggerating to prove a point.

[TomTom]

I'm sure even someone like Justin Hinchcliffe would not mean what he said if he had engaged his brain first.

In view of the psychotic properties of cannabis I very much doubt even that step would improve matters

[malcolm]

What point were you trying to prove Justin? I really don't see the humour in 'if I had children I'd much prefer it if they ....snorted the odd line of coke...' To be honest, as you are a Chairman of one of our Constituency Associations I think some of your posts are an absolute disgrace.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I'll take that as a compliment!

[Tory Loyalist]

I'm sure even someone like Justin Hinchcliffe would not mean what he said if he had engaged his brain first.
_________________________________________________________________

I get the impression that the drug Justin has been busy applying to his brain is Viagra.

Well said Malcolm. It is an utter disgrace that the Chairman of a Conservative Association (presumably two men and a dog changing places every year) comes out with such appalling tripe.

But in Justin's case, hardly surprising.

[Paul Kennedy]

If I had children, I’d much prefer it if they smoked the odd joint of snorted the odd line of coke rather than take up alcohol. 17:14

Maybe best not to have children Justin.

[Ex candidate]

"If I had children, I’d much prefer it if they smoked the odd joint of snorted the odd line of coke rather than take up alcohol".

Planning a sex change, Justin? I hope that your executive in Tottenham supports your preference for illegal substances. The Candidates Committee will not so forget a Parliamentary career.

[Jake]

I think we are poorly placed to take the high (!) ground on drugs like cocaine. Best keep mum on this. I still fear there is a smoking gun out there on this, and we should be very tactful and discrete.

[Serf]

As Andrew says, the minister is actually right. There are laws against taking these drugs, and sports men and woman should be subject to them in the same way as the rest of us.

Treating them as if they have cheated as well is illogical and unfair.

As for Coke being better than Alcohol, I hope my kids stay well away from coke, but will be happy to share a pint with them in the future.

[Liver Function Tests]

I hope this doesn't get me into trouble but I would like to make a point about some of the debate above, and for once will post anonymously because I work in the industry. Justin was (nearly) completely correct: the analogy he is reaching for is that, were paracetemol to be under development by pharma today, it would not pass the safety laws with respect to parameters such as liver enzyme elevation, and would not become a marketed product. In the case of paracetemol, the human database (post launch) is sufficiently ginormous that it hasn't been banned, but this was at the root of the daft NewLab gimmick of suppressing the total number of paracetemol one is allowed to purchase at any one time (I think it's a gimmick, not because I don't care about the people who die from overdose - and they do, every year - it's really important to read the dosage instructions on things like Lemsip carefully - but because I prefer to treat people as adults, and don't believe that such a restriction would have any impact on a determined would-be suicide - though I admit I have no empirical basis for this so perhaps the law was worthwhile). Novel chemical entities intended for therapeutic usage today have become subject to much stricter pre-launch evaluation since we were blessed with the arrival of paracetemol.

On the topic, who cares what some Labour android said about some other Labour android about some sort of sport thing? I couldn't follow who said what about whom from one end of the piece to the other.