The long-term effects of performance-enhancing drugs haven't been rigorously studied. And short-term benefits are tempered by many risks. Not to mention that doping is prohibited by most sports organizations.
No matter how you look at it, using performance-enhancing drugs is risky business.
They're f'king horrid. Wine gums or you're buying your own beer at the bar.Where do we classify jelly babies @Grayson ?
Euuuurgh. HP Sauce Clinic and I'm in.There's a link below from the Mayo Clinic
If anyone's got some, I'm game!Should referees be allowed to takes performance enhancing substances that players are not allowed to take?
Are non service referees required to do random drug testing once they get towards the top of the ladder?*Services refs have to be careful with energy gels as there are certain brands which make them fail their drugs tests. i was told this by a RAF ref I worked with.
Think this is a great question. Especially given that many referees already do use substances / products to attempt to enhance their performances. Energy gels have already been mentioned, caffeine drinks / tablets are another example. You could also go the complete opposite way and consider beta blockers to keep calm / reduce anxiety. So long as there was a level playing field for all officials then, assuming no health risks as above (BIG assumption ) then why not?Should referees be allowed to takes performance enhancing substances that players are not allowed to take?
But none of the things mentioned are banned, unless you got the beta blockers through dodgy channels e.g. they weren't prescribed for a genuine medical condition.Think this is a great question. Especially given that many referees already do use substances / products to attempt to enhance their performances. Energy gels have already been mentioned, caffeine drinks / tablets are another example. You could also go the complete opposite way and consider beta blockers to keep calm / reduce anxiety. So long as there was a level playing field for all officials then, assuming no health risks as above (BIG assumption ) then why not?
Down to the individual to take/ingest whatever they want to. Not the Nanny State to decree what should and shouldn't happen.
If you're a top ref and the organisation you work for has substance-related rules for the players then sure, you should fall within the same rule bracket I guess.
Outside of that though, it's absolutely nobody else's business what a person does with their body. Risk-related or not. I fail to see what substances a grass roots or even supply/contrib league referee could take that would enhance his performance as referee so that it made much of a difference (to anyone else).
Those members on here shunning the notion based on their perception that if substances are potentially harmful they shouldn't be "allowed" would do well to remember the effects of alcohol and smoking on the human body. We don't see them being banned by any government or organisation do we? I despise that whole hypocritical "duty-of-care-nanny-state" crap that everybody seems to have bought into over the years. The same crap that prevents a supermarket cashier from allowing you to purchase more than once packet/box of paracetamol or ibuprofen but it's quite alright to walk out with the 6 bottles of vodka and 60 Benson & Hedges that are in the same trolley.
Rant over.