XRe Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Since I have been on Atenolol which is a Beta Blocker since my heart attack in 1999 Again, working from memory, I think you can get an exemption from the "get permission from mommy first" policy if the condition existed before you started shooting the game or, (as would probably pertain in your case, Bob) before the doping policy took effect.... Well that's not completely true, it has keep me from having another heart attack. Does that count as an unfair advantage? Oh most definitely!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Is this issue related to those performance enhancing drugs that make you strong as a horse? Will I get tested just for having a face like a horse? What if one is a horse's ass? This could get real ugly, real quick.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 And to quote Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that." I just knew that this was not true I agree that testing is a bad idea.I was just giving my thoughts on the one drug that I know has been used in a similar sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 And to quote Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that." I just knew that this was not true I agree that testing is a bad idea.I was just giving my thoughts on the one drug that I know has been used in a similar sport. There is ALWAYS someone to hold you accountable!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Grube Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 The cost is going to stop this from ever being a concern. The day they start paying out real money for winning maybe......this is another case of somebody with too damn much time on their hands trying to make this sport something it is not. Hey they test in the Olympics so why not in IPSC? The Olympics and drug testing aint happening for IPSC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j2fast Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 (edited) According to what is being said on the GV the whole point is to gain acceptance into the GAISF which I assume is related to trying to get a stamp of approval from the Olympics, etc. VP also said that this policy was approved unanimously by a vote of the Regional Directors and also approved by the General Assembly. I'm afraid that doesn't really matter to me..... Gotta agree with Chris, I doubt IPSC will ever be an Olympic sport. I also don't see the point, not that I'll be winning any majors any time soon but I'll be damned if I'm going to not take Sudafed (the real stuff not that PE crap) just because pseudoephedrine is on the WADA ban list. The Tour de France an IPSC match definitely isn't, give me a friggin break. Edited February 23, 2007 by j2fast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markcic Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I can promise you that "Beta Blockers" would be a performance enhancing drug in our sport!!!I will say no more, but they have been used in similar other sports effectively. NUF said!! I'd be all over a delta and mike blocker if someone made one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Anyone want to explain to me how a slightly lower heart rate will give you an advantage for 10 seconds out of every hour you are on a range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 The drug policy is not about a single drug and the advantage or disadvantage that it offers. They have a single list of drugs, some provide a benefit and some would harm a competitor in this particular sport but be a benefit in another sport. The problem with the policy is this; It was designed for the big money, high sponsorship type sporting events. Professional atheletes (and that includes Olympic competitors) have to be restricted in what they can or cannot take. Our sport is exceptional in that ordinary people compete alongside the best in the world. This is like your next door neighbour competing against Tiger Woods in the PGA Championship. Some of the drugs on the list are available in cough medicines etc. that can be bought over the counter, professional athletes have coaches, managers etc. (and lawyers) that steer them away from those compounds. The rest of us don't have access to that kind of information. Some banned substances are tiny parts of some over the counter drugs and may not even be listed in the ingredients on the packaging. IPSC should pander to these organisations, we have no chance of getting into the Olympics and even if we did then that organisation would insist that the guiding principles of our sport be so watered down that we would resemble bullseye shooting at the end of the day. Just another bad IPSC decision, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSeevers Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 (edited) Anyone want to explain to me how a slightly lower heart rate will give you an advantage for 10 seconds out of every hour you are on a range? Beta-blockers in a way counteract the "panic" or match nerves that some people have effecting their performance. If your heart zoomed to say 140 BPM on the Load and make ready command that would maybe mess with your trigger control. The beta blockers could help moderate this. Saul talks about the Degree of Panic all shooters experience. Funny wording I think. Some Drs will prescribe a beta-blocker before say a Benzo, like Valium/Xanex, to a patient with panic disorder. I don't get it either but I guess it could be an advantage to some individuals. I have bradycardia or a lower than normal heart rate so a beta-blocker would make me pass out. Our sport is unique in that we use gross motor skills like burst running and then at the same time use fine motor skills like trigger control so I don't think any drug would benefit the average IPSC shooter. Edited February 24, 2007 by BSeevers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Grube Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Alcohol seems to help George!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 From IPSC's point of view, the more recognition they get as a 'sport', the better off they are-- a lot of places in this world if you aren't a sport, you don't get guns, simple as that. So far the US isn't like that, so there's no point for us (I think the whole thing is a waste of $ unless they suspect something), but who knows what time might exhume... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I dont think we have to worry..who would pay the $200.00 for each test!! But in the off chance some day if they ask me to pee in a bottle....I will pee on thier shoes I know that they may exist..But I have never seen any person shooting USPSA that would cheat..much less take drugs to do it!!! Just my 2c worth Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 IPSC seems to be on a path to implode purely out of it's own volition without outside intervention. Why not just sit back and let it happen- then send out the USPSA membership applications when the time comes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlamoShooter Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Most of my shooting that is not USPSA is about control, and shots that require the shooter to control his heart rate to make a consistent shot. I can think of maybe 10 times in the past five years that that is helpfull in USPSA shooting. Or I may just be doing it every time I shoot good Oh and the PyoTe is chewed - not smoked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 As already pointed out.. for many of us "dang furriners" the "Sport" aspect is the ONLY justification for the existence of Practical shooting events (ANY shooting events actually) - and the corresponding governmental permission to own the "tools of the trade".. in this case - Handguns. Yes.. "permission". Firearm ownership (particularly of handguns) is a "conditional priviledge" Down Under...... not a "right" of any kind. I can see the advantage IPSC hopes to gain by further International recognition.... whilst on a PERSONAL level thinking drug tests et al are not such a great idea. (False positives anyone???) As a 45 year old not (currently) on ANY medications I could say "Not a problem".. but who knows what I may need (pharmeceutically that is) in 1, 5 or 10 years time? Extra recognition - particularly Olympic - sure wouldn't hurt here!!! (Not that it's at all likely) Semi auto pistols are Numero uno on the Aussie gun-grabbers list of "NEXT TARGET!!!" Our ONLY defences ARE the competitive aspects of our shooting sports...... and that's the reality of the situation for us.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 True, for the half of the world's "pratical" shooters who are not in America I wish people...especially secretaries that belittle and joke about other's well-founded concerns with the WADA rules as written and then make statements 180 degrees removed from the truth...would accurately quote those WADA rules and honestly discuss the full and complete ramifications of said rules. http://www.wada-ama.org/ This isn't rocket science. Read the list of "banned" substances and count how many you have taken in the last year. Took some over the counter medications for the sniffles while on the road at a match? Guilty. Didn't ask "mother may I" (with your doctor's signature and statement of "medical necessity") for permission 21 days prior to to the match for that insulin shot or your blood pressure medication? Guilty. Think that just having the bottle or the scripts for your drugs shows that you are complying with the policy? Uninformed AND guilty. Interesting times. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mminmm Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I wish people...especially secretaries that belittle and joke about other's well-founded concerns with the WADA rules as written and then make statements 180 degrees removed from the truth...would accurately quote those WADA rules and honestly discuss the full and complete ramifications of said rules. So now you're calling Vince Pinto a liar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeInNePa Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Wait, stop. I'm going to go make popcorn and get a beer. This ^^^ is gonna get good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 21 days prior to to the match for that insulin shot or your blood pressure ... or asthma inhaler. B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 The facts speak for themselves. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry White Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I dont think we have to worry..who would pay the $200.00 for each test!!But in the off chance some day if they ask me to pee in a bottle....I will pee on thier shoes I know that they may exist..But I have never seen any person shooting USPSA that would cheat..much less take drugs to do it!!! Just my 2c worth Jim Shoes? I can get higher than that!-------Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mminmm Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 The facts speak for themselves. The facts are that all you ever do is complain about and criticize everything to do with IPSC, and you have a huge bug up your a$$ about VP. Really pitiful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Moderators, please note the direct and personal attacks by this poster posing behind a fake name. As this is not the Global Villiage, I do not expect vulgar personal attacks here on THIS forum, only rational and open discussion about the shooting sports. Lies and vularities from people hiding behind fake names have no place here. I commented on the facts, as noted and added to by our friendly Area 1 Director (and rules guy ), BGary. Discussion of facts, or opinion about facts, is welcome. Childish insults from a keyboard cowboy is not. Thanks, Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Ellis Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 (edited) Several years ago, the president of the IPC (International Parachuting Commission) got this notion that skydiving should be an Olympic sport. It was a circus. The names of the events was changed. One example was from relative work, which was what it was called from its very beginning, to formation skydiving. Rule proposals were thrown up that would have totally changed competiton as we had known it. All this was to make the sport more appealing to the spectator and be television friendly. The name change stuck but the rules change proposal started a global uproar. The attitude was, it's our sport, either the Olympics take it as it is or we won't play. The Olympic people backed down a bit. We went through the hurdles. Got to the major first step. Remember the skydivers that formed the Olympic rings in freefall at the 1998 Seoul games? This link, 5th photo down. That wasn't some demo that the Olympic organizers paid for to entertain the crowd. It was actually a requirement for the sport to be demonstrated in front of the organizing committee prior to possibly being allowed to become a demonstration sport at a future games. BTW: Each of the participants had to pay for the jumpsuit, canopies, container, airfare, and all other expenses out of their own pockets. Most of the gear hit the used market within 3 months of the games so the participants could recoup some of the expenses. What did all this get us? Sorry but we're not interested. Bottom line is that, and quoting from this FAI press release, "The Olympic Programme Commission pointed out that any changes in the structure of the Olympic Programme should result in increased value and appeal of the Olympic Games, that global public and media interest should be considered as key elements in the analyses of sports, and that sports should give special emphasis to youth and development." With that statement in mind, IPSC will never be an Olympic sport. We're not politically correct enough, and although we enjoy seeing it on the tube, it's not really a spectator sport. So quit worrying. Edited February 25, 2007 by Hank Ellis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts