Pick'em Leagues: THE BIG SHOW CASUAL BEST OF THE REST Single Event PvP: FANTASY POOLS Betting Leagues: THE BIG SHOW BEST OF THE REST

Keith Kizer: NSAC may have to take drug testing procedures a step further

Print  
Posted By Message

pmoney

P$ Pimpin'

pmoney Avatar
8
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,921
Career:1,491-903
Joined:Oct 2010
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
1,265
It won't be pretty, but changes soon may be in store for the Nevada State Athletic Commission's drug-testing protocols.

Shortly after the discovery of an allegedly bogus urine sample submitted by UFC 125 competitor Thiago Silva, NSAC Executive Director Keith Kizer informed his commission inspectors that they might have to, well, take a closer look in the locker room.

If allegations against Silva prove true, Kizer said, the adjustments made following the NSAC's first case of sample tampering – which came in 2006 – may need to be revised again.

Article

Post #1   3/29/11 11:09:18PM   

ncordless

MODulation

ncordless Avatar
12
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:4,844
Career:1,873-1,070
Joined:Apr 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
1,098
I think non-criminal monitered urinalysis tests by federal or state government officals (i.e. the NSAC) is an unconstitutional violation of privacy under the 4th amendment. In this case, I think the violation of privacy for the fighters (i.e. having someone stare at their penis while they urinate) outweighs the benefits of having even more certainty that fighters are not using banned substances (especially since the current testing standards caught the attempted urine forgery) and whatever benefits to society that certainty would confer.

In general, I don't believe that government belongs in the bedroom, or in someone's pants. Some places already do urine tests in high school athletics, do we really want to make showing your penis to an old dude a requirement to play varsity football or wrestle in school?

_______________________________________
Flame Not, Lest Ye Be Flamed Yourself.

Post #2   3/30/11 12:13:37AM   

pmoney

P$ Pimpin'

pmoney Avatar
8
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,921
Career:1,491-903
Joined:Oct 2010
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
1,265

Posted by ncordless

I think non-criminal monitered urinalysis tests by federal or state government officals (i.e. the NSAC) is an unconstitutional violation of privacy under the 4th amendment. In this case, I think the violation of privacy for the fighters (i.e. having someone stare at their penis while they urinate) outweighs the benefits of having even more certainty that fighters are not using banned substances (especially since the current testing standards caught the attempted urine forgery) and whatever benefits to society that certainty would confer.

In general, I don't believe that government belongs in the bedroom, or in someone's pants. Some places already do urine tests in high school athletics, do we really want to make showing your penis to an old dude a requirement to play varsity football or wrestle in school?



You must be mistaken sir. Last time I checked the Fourth Amendment is the power of limitless, unwarranted search and seizure by all levels of government

All kidding aside, you bring up a fantastic point. I consider myself a sports enthusiast. I wish with all my heart that I could know that all professional athletes are drug free. I want my pro athletes to be where they are without the help of performance enhancing drugs. I find more entertainment out of the every day, Joe Blow guys competing at the highest levels as opposed to a bunch of HGH, EBE, horse steroid taking freaks. Who can do the most with their God given talents?

Some would say if you choose to be a pro athlete, having people's face in your **** while you piss is something you should get used to. I don't believe they should be tested for drugs of abuse, however. Cocaine, Marijuana, Ecstacy, etc, none of these things will make you a better athlete. Society wants to condemn them by making them illegal. Drugs make you stupid, and a loser they say. Yet when Nick Diaz beat Gomi with a Gogoplata, the weed gave him a competitive edge. Get real. I say screen for PED's, that's it.

The last place we need such stringent drug testing, however, is in our public schools and pee wee leagues. If you are an athlete on a college scholarship, or a pro athlete, you need to make some concessions. I would let people stare at my dick every day if I made what a pro athlete makes. Or to get out of a 4 year school with a degree and without $100,000+ of debt.

However, I will say this.... The government is out of control. Have you been through a Fourth of July DUI checkpoint? As far as I am concerned, that is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. Because you are driving on a certain day, you are subject to search and seizure? I say BS. Or how about the constant video monitoring of our streets, towns, and every facet of our life that is conducted every day by lord knows what nameless three letter organization? The man is everywhere, and their reach gets deeper and deeper by the day. And while the US government does some good things for it's citizens, the government mostly subverts and violates the will of the people. And craps on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Post #3   3/30/11 12:48:14AM   

jgtribbett

MMA Sensei

jgtribbett Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,118
Career:553-358
Joined:Mar 2007
Camp: Team BloodLoss
Chips:
43

Posted by ncordless

I think non-criminal monitered urinalysis tests by federal or state government officals (i.e. the NSAC) is an unconstitutional violation of privacy under the 4th amendment. In this case, I think the violation of privacy for the fighters (i.e. having someone stare at their penis while they urinate) outweighs the benefits of having even more certainty that fighters are not using banned substances (especially since the current testing standards caught the attempted urine forgery) and whatever benefits to society that certainty would confer.

In general, I don't believe that government belongs in the bedroom, or in someone's pants. Some places already do urine tests in high school athletics, do we really want to make showing your penis to an old dude a requirement to play varsity football or wrestle in school?



I have to disagree. It seems to me that privacy can only be invaded when unsolicited or unacknowleged. If a guy is willing to get punched in the face or kicked for a living, he should be ok with another guy watching over his shoulder as he pees. Ok, if that doesn't suit everyone, how about the fact that with being a professional comes rules, regulations and otherwise uncoventional requirements. Long hours, travel away from family, unresonable dedication. I've pissed in front of many people while in the military and don't have a problem with it. These larger than life MMA fighters know full well what they are getting into. If they don't like it, they don't have to sign the contract. I'm sure at some point they are informed that they will be subject to observed urinalysis testing.

Post #4   3/30/11 1:59:28AM   

ncordless

MODulation

ncordless Avatar
12
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:4,844
Career:1,873-1,070
Joined:Apr 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
1,098

Posted by jgtribbett


Posted by ncordless

I think non-criminal monitered urinalysis tests by federal or state government officals (i.e. the NSAC) is an unconstitutional violation of privacy under the 4th amendment. In this case, I think the violation of privacy for the fighters (i.e. having someone stare at their penis while they urinate) outweighs the benefits of having even more certainty that fighters are not using banned substances (especially since the current testing standards caught the attempted urine forgery) and whatever benefits to society that certainty would confer.

In general, I don't believe that government belongs in the bedroom, or in someone's pants. Some places already do urine tests in high school athletics, do we really want to make showing your penis to an old dude a requirement to play varsity football or wrestle in school?



I have to disagree. It seems to me that privacy can only be invaded when unsolicited or unacknowleged. If a guy is willing to get punched in the face or kicked for a living, he should be ok with another guy watching over his shoulder as he pees. Ok, if that doesn't suit everyone, how about the fact that with being a professional comes rules, regulations and otherwise uncoventional requirements. Long hours, travel away from family, unresonable dedication. I've pissed in front of many people while in the military and don't have a problem with it. These larger than life MMA fighters know full well what they are getting into. If they don't like it, they don't have to sign the contract. I'm sure at some point they are informed that they will be subject to observed urinalysis testing.



I think there is a difference between an observed urinealysis as prerequisite for employment (either private, which is not covered by the 4th, or public, which is, but meets the "reasonable" requirement of the 4th in many cases due to public safety and/or national security concerns) and an observed urinealysis mandated as regulation of a private industry, especially one that does not involve an element of public safety.

The relevant part of the 4th amendment is "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Accordingly, whether the search (in this case, watching them pee) violates the constitution depends on whether the search was reasonable. The question then becomes whether it is reasonable to require fighters to urinate while someone is staring at their penis in order to provide for the extra protection against fighters using banned substances.

To decide, it seems to me that you would first need to evaluate the severity of the search, the benefit gained by the search, and then decidde whether the benefit outweighs the harm. People have vastly different feelings about exposing themselves. While some are nudists, others believe their religion forbids them from exposing themselves to others. The majority of people fall somewhere in between those two extremes. I think though that in general there is a general societal norm that pissing is a private activity, as evidenced by the man-laws of public restrooms as well as laws against public urination and the fact that even public restrooms have walls without windows. I am not saying that it is the worst violation of privacy to watch someone piss, but it is indeed invasive, and that it is more invasive than just submitting a sample.

Where I think it really fails is the benefit gained. They caught Thiago Silva, and they caught Kevin Randleman. In fact, if they have any evidence that a fighter has ever gotten away with switching samples, they have not mentioned it. There is just nothing that says that the benefit gained by watching the fighters pee is anything at all. In my opinion, the little extra bit of accuracy in the testing does not outweigh the invasion of observed urinealysis.

_______________________________________
Flame Not, Lest Ye Be Flamed Yourself.

Post #5   3/30/11 5:02:02AM   

ncordless

MODulation

ncordless Avatar
12
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:4,844
Career:1,873-1,070
Joined:Apr 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
1,098

Posted by pmoney


Posted by ncordless

I think non-criminal monitered urinalysis tests by federal or state government officals (i.e. the NSAC) is an unconstitutional violation of privacy under the 4th amendment. In this case, I think the violation of privacy for the fighters (i.e. having someone stare at their penis while they urinate) outweighs the benefits of having even more certainty that fighters are not using banned substances (especially since the current testing standards caught the attempted urine forgery) and whatever benefits to society that certainty would confer.

In general, I don't believe that government belongs in the bedroom, or in someone's pants. Some places already do urine tests in high school athletics, do we really want to make showing your penis to an old dude a requirement to play varsity football or wrestle in school?



You must be mistaken sir. Last time I checked the Fourth Amendment is the power of limitless, unwarranted search and seizure by all levels of government

All kidding aside, you bring up a fantastic point. I consider myself a sports enthusiast. I wish with all my heart that I could know that all professional athletes are drug free. I want my pro athletes to be where they are without the help of performance enhancing drugs. I find more entertainment out of the every day, Joe Blow guys competing at the highest levels as opposed to a bunch of HGH, EBE, horse steroid taking freaks. Who can do the most with their God given talents?

Some would say if you choose to be a pro athlete, having people's face in your **** while you piss is something you should get used to. I don't believe they should be tested for drugs of abuse, however. Cocaine, Marijuana, Ecstacy, etc, none of these things will make you a better athlete. Society wants to condemn them by making them illegal. Drugs make you stupid, and a loser they say. Yet when Nick Diaz beat Gomi with a Gogoplata, the weed gave him a competitive edge. Get real. I say screen for PED's, that's it.

The last place we need such stringent drug testing, however, is in our public schools and pee wee leagues. If you are an athlete on a college scholarship, or a pro athlete, you need to make some concessions. I would let people stare at my dick every day if I made what a pro athlete makes. Or to get out of a 4 year school with a degree and without $100,000+ of debt.

However, I will say this.... The government is out of control. Have you been through a Fourth of July DUI checkpoint? As far as I am concerned, that is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. Because you are driving on a certain day, you are subject to search and seizure? I say BS. Or how about the constant video monitoring of our streets, towns, and every facet of our life that is conducted every day by lord knows what nameless three letter organization? The man is everywhere, and their reach gets deeper and deeper by the day. And while the US government does some good things for it's citizens, the government mostly subverts and violates the will of the people. And craps on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.



Bringing up checkpoints, they are an example of what might be reasonable vs unreasonable. SCOTUS has said that checkpoints for DUI are reasonable because of the immediate risk to safey that drunk drivers pose to everyone on the road. On the other hand, they have also said that checkpoints for drivers license and registration are unreasonable because the benefit does not outweigh the intrusion. I am not saying I agree with either one of those decisions, but it shows that similar searches might be reasonable or unreasonable depending on their purpose/benefit.

Also, whether a search is reasonable depends on the level of the intrusion. Getting patted down at the airport is one thing, and is arguably defensible as a legitimate response to the dangers of terrorism, but compulsory cavity searches would be a whole other story. Similarly, while there would be a road safety benefit from forcing everyone who gets a driver's license to give a urine sample, the intrusion would be too great for the benefit.

_______________________________________
Flame Not, Lest Ye Be Flamed Yourself.

Post #6   3/30/11 5:23:33AM   

Pookie

Remember Paul Herrera

Pookie Avatar
8
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:9,594
Career:1,867-1,038
Joined:Apr 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
1,782
I have read this thread and become a smarter person.

_______________________________________
BJ Penn beat Frankie Edgar more times than Benson Henderson beat Frankie Edgar.

Post #7   3/30/11 8:43:48AM   

icantthinkofanything

MMA Sensei

icantthinkofanything Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,040
Career:911-636
Joined:Jan 2009
Camp: 360 Mafia
Chips:
67
It sucks that this happened, Silva is or was one of my favorite fighters.

Post #8   3/30/11 8:48:40AM   

cowcatcher

Steady MODdin'

cowcatcher Avatar
6





 
 
 


 
 
Posts:7,725
Career:2,522-1,450
Joined:Jan 2007
Camp: Project Mayhem
Chips:
1,688

Posted by ncordless.

do we really want to make showing your penis to an old dude a requirement to play varsity football or wrestle in school?



_______________________________________

Post #9   3/30/11 8:50:19AM   

emfleek

FA-Q

emfleek Avatar
11
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:18,762
Career:2,284-1,206
Joined:Nov 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,253

Posted by ncordless

do we really want to make showing your penis to an old dude a requirement to play varsity football or wrestle in school?



I thought it was strange that I had to take so many physical exams! Son of a...



_______________________________________
"I'm like the superhero coming in with the anti-bullsh*t." - Nick Diaz

Post #10   3/30/11 8:50:50AM   

icantthinkofanything

MMA Sensei

icantthinkofanything Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,040
Career:911-636
Joined:Jan 2009
Camp: 360 Mafia
Chips:
67
I wish it was Fitch

Last edited 3/30/11 10:06AM server time by icantthinkofanything
Edit note/reason: n/a

Post #11   3/30/11 10:05:03AM   

gartface

Heavyweight Champ

gartface Avatar
3


 
 
 


 
 
Posts:4,335
Career:1,406-898
Joined:Jul 2007
Camp: Hand Grenade Hillbillies
Chips:
542
Blood test them instead.

Post #12   3/30/11 11:49:02AM   

jgtribbett

MMA Sensei

jgtribbett Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,118
Career:553-358
Joined:Mar 2007
Camp: Team BloodLoss
Chips:
43

Posted by ncordless


Posted by jgtribbett


Posted by ncordless

I think non-criminal monitered urinalysis tests by federal or state government officals (i.e. the NSAC) is an unconstitutional violation of privacy under the 4th amendment. In this case, I think the violation of privacy for the fighters (i.e. having someone stare at their penis while they urinate) outweighs the benefits of having even more certainty that fighters are not using banned substances (especially since the current testing standards caught the attempted urine forgery) and whatever benefits to society that certainty would confer.

In general, I don't believe that government belongs in the bedroom, or in someone's pants. Some places already do urine tests in high school athletics, do we really want to make showing your penis to an old dude a requirement to play varsity football or wrestle in school?



I have to disagree. It seems to me that privacy can only be invaded when unsolicited or unacknowleged. If a guy is willing to get punched in the face or kicked for a living, he should be ok with another guy watching over his shoulder as he pees. Ok, if that doesn't suit everyone, how about the fact that with being a professional comes rules, regulations and otherwise uncoventional requirements. Long hours, travel away from family, unresonable dedication. I've pissed in front of many people while in the military and don't have a problem with it. These larger than life MMA fighters know full well what they are getting into. If they don't like it, they don't have to sign the contract. I'm sure at some point they are informed that they will be subject to observed urinalysis testing.



I think there is a difference between an observed urinealysis as prerequisite for employment (either private, which is not covered by the 4th, or public, which is, but meets the "reasonable" requirement of the 4th in many cases due to public safety and/or national security concerns) and an observed urinealysis mandated as regulation of a private industry, especially one that does not involve an element of public safety.

The relevant part of the 4th amendment is "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Accordingly, whether the search (in this case, watching them pee) violates the constitution depends on whether the search was reasonable. The question then becomes whether it is reasonable to require fighters to urinate while someone is staring at their penis in order to provide for the extra protection against fighters using banned substances.

To decide, it seems to me that you would first need to evaluate the severity of the search, the benefit gained by the search, and then decidde whether the benefit outweighs the harm. People have vastly different feelings about exposing themselves. While some are nudists, others believe their religion forbids them from exposing themselves to others. The majority of people fall somewhere in between those two extremes. I think though that in general there is a general societal norm that pissing is a private activity, as evidenced by the man-laws of public restrooms as well as laws against public urination and the fact that even public restrooms have walls without windows. I am not saying that it is the worst violation of privacy to watch someone piss, but it is indeed invasive, and that it is more invasive than just submitting a sample.

Where I think it really fails is the benefit gained. They caught Thiago Silva, and they caught Kevin Randleman. In fact, if they have any evidence that a fighter has ever gotten away with switching samples, they have not mentioned it. There is just nothing that says that the benefit gained by watching the fighters pee is anything at all. In my opinion, the little extra bit of accuracy in the testing does not outweigh the invasion of observed urinealysis.




Do you agree with substance abuse testing as a general idea to prevent cheating?

If yes, would you have more support for blood testing?

Aside from its potential negative impact on the fighter's perfromance, I'd say that or hair sampling would be the way to avoid Privacy issues. Although, I'm sure both are expensive.

Post #13   3/30/11 12:31:03PM   

mrsmiley

Heavyweight Champ

mrsmiley Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:4,298
Career:1,478-860
Joined:Apr 2007
Camp: Nutthuggers Suck
Chips:
638
I know my views have been met with quiet a few question marks on this subject but.........Hear I go again.

Personally I don't care who's taking steroids are not. It's just not a big issue to me or has any weight on how I look at a fighter,but I guess my opinion doesn't matter or carry warrent against that of the NSAC.

Post #14   3/30/11 12:41:59PM   

ncordless

MODulation

ncordless Avatar
12
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:4,844
Career:1,873-1,070
Joined:Apr 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
1,098

Posted by jgtribbett


Posted by ncordless


Posted by jgtribbett


Posted by ncordless

I think non-criminal monitered urinalysis tests by federal or state government officals (i.e. the NSAC) is an unconstitutional violation of privacy under the 4th amendment. In this case, I think the violation of privacy for the fighters (i.e. having someone stare at their penis while they urinate) outweighs the benefits of having even more certainty that fighters are not using banned substances (especially since the current testing standards caught the attempted urine forgery) and whatever benefits to society that certainty would confer.

In general, I don't believe that government belongs in the bedroom, or in someone's pants. Some places already do urine tests in high school athletics, do we really want to make showing your penis to an old dude a requirement to play varsity football or wrestle in school?



I have to disagree. It seems to me that privacy can only be invaded when unsolicited or unacknowleged. If a guy is willing to get punched in the face or kicked for a living, he should be ok with another guy watching over his shoulder as he pees. Ok, if that doesn't suit everyone, how about the fact that with being a professional comes rules, regulations and otherwise uncoventional requirements. Long hours, travel away from family, unresonable dedication. I've pissed in front of many people while in the military and don't have a problem with it. These larger than life MMA fighters know full well what they are getting into. If they don't like it, they don't have to sign the contract. I'm sure at some point they are informed that they will be subject to observed urinalysis testing.



I think there is a difference between an observed urinealysis as prerequisite for employment (either private, which is not covered by the 4th, or public, which is, but meets the "reasonable" requirement of the 4th in many cases due to public safety and/or national security concerns) and an observed urinealysis mandated as regulation of a private industry, especially one that does not involve an element of public safety.

The relevant part of the 4th amendment is "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Accordingly, whether the search (in this case, watching them pee) violates the constitution depends on whether the search was reasonable. The question then becomes whether it is reasonable to require fighters to urinate while someone is staring at their penis in order to provide for the extra protection against fighters using banned substances.

To decide, it seems to me that you would first need to evaluate the severity of the search, the benefit gained by the search, and then decidde whether the benefit outweighs the harm. People have vastly different feelings about exposing themselves. While some are nudists, others believe their religion forbids them from exposing themselves to others. The majority of people fall somewhere in between those two extremes. I think though that in general there is a general societal norm that pissing is a private activity, as evidenced by the man-laws of public restrooms as well as laws against public urination and the fact that even public restrooms have walls without windows. I am not saying that it is the worst violation of privacy to watch someone piss, but it is indeed invasive, and that it is more invasive than just submitting a sample.

Where I think it really fails is the benefit gained. They caught Thiago Silva, and they caught Kevin Randleman. In fact, if they have any evidence that a fighter has ever gotten away with switching samples, they have not mentioned it. There is just nothing that says that the benefit gained by watching the fighters pee is anything at all. In my opinion, the little extra bit of accuracy in the testing does not outweigh the invasion of observed urinealysis.




Do you agree with substance abuse testing as a general idea to prevent cheating?

If yes, would you have more support for blood testing?

Aside from its potential negative impact on the fighter's perfromance, I'd say that or hair sampling would be the way to avoid Privacy issues. Although, I'm sure both are expensive.



While I do think that in 30 years or so we will look back on today's obsession with what people are putting into their bodies as simple-minded, I don't have a problem with MMA fighters being tested for performance-enhancing drugs as a prerequisite for competing in a licensed competition. I think a blood test would be a better way of going about it, and that it is a lot harder to fake.

_______________________________________
Flame Not, Lest Ye Be Flamed Yourself.

Post #15   3/30/11 4:19:46PM