Zero Tolerance Debate

For those of you who don’t follow racing, A.J. Allmendinger of the Penske Racing #22 was suspended from competition when his urine sample tested positive for a banned substance.  Allmendinger’s B sample is scheduled to be tested shortly.  NASCAR has a Zero Tolerance policy regarding drivers, officials or crews participating in events while under the influence of banned substances.  Therein the controversy.

It is important that the organization that runs a sporting event have rules and levels of expected behaviours of its’ participants.  We’ve got no beef with NASCAR not wanting some driver all messed up on substances driving a 3500 pound stock car in competition.  If Famous Driver A sees his late grandmother climbing up his Nomex-clad leg with a knife in her teeth, growling in Elvish, while arcing into Turn 3 at Talladega on lap 52, we could expect some ramifications in the competitive situation.  There would be headlines.  Very Bad Headlines. 

In the Good Ol’Days of NASCAR there were certain drivers and crew chiefs who would do serious damage to a case of beer during a race.  They most likely would have blown .08 or more had there been testing.  There were others who were known to indulge in those substances that would allow you to stay awake for four days straight.  Neither is good for the human or the company they keep.

The issue is the confluence of science that can detect chemicals in the parts per billion and the knee-jerk reaction of Zero Tolerance.

One area I’m familiar with is commercial aviation.  It is completely understandable that we don’t want a commercial pilot under any kind of drug influence.  It’s too important that their judgement be as good as human judgement can be in the event of an emergency.  That’s why the threshold for self-disqualification for commercial pilots is very, very low. 

As an example, NyQuil, an over the counter cough and cold remedy, will disqualify you from being pilot in command, if consumed within 12 hours of duty.  Why?  NyQuil contains alcohol, acetaminophen, dextromethorphan, doxylamine succinate and pseudoephedrine, all of which have side effects that can cloud ones judgement for a period of time after use.  How long, is the question, as some say 12 hours, other say a week until there is no sign of it in your bloodstream.  That’s where the science falls on its ass: They can’t tell us how long are the side effects ongoing.  I can tell you from personal experience that pseudoephedrine makes me five-coffee-jittery for two or three days, but that’s just me. 

Poppy Seeds?  Yes, a bagel with poppy seeds can get you in trouble, as all poppy seeds contain trace amounts of opiates.  The science can’t tell if the opiates in your blood are from a toasted bagel with cream cheese and smoked salmon with red onions and capers, or from blazing up a bowl-full of Afghanistan’s Finest.  All the science says is there are opiates.  Parole officers routinely tell their charges that a positive piss test for any opiates puts you back in the Crowbar Hotel, so do not eat poppy seeds, end of discussion. 

Ross Rebagliati, the 1988 Winter Olympics Snowboarding Gold Medalist was found to have THC in his circulatory system and had his medal yanked.  Big surprise that a snowboarder had been in the vicinity of someone smoking dope.  However, his medal was reinstated, as THC was not a banned substance at the time.  Frankly, I see no unfair advantage to competing in any sport with a brain-full of BC Bud unless the sport is competitive Dorito eating.

Which brings us back to A.J. Allmendinger.  Could his positive test, rumoured to be from a ‘stimulant’ be the result of something as benign as Claritin?  Or does he have a serious penchant for Brown Betty Long-Distance Truck Drivin’ pills?  From our side of the screen, we’re not convinced The Dinger is keen to stay up for three days straight, shaking and puking.  The only unfair advantage he could gain from a ‘stimulant’ is the ability to get the mindless post-race interviews over and done with in 32 seconds flat. 

Common sense says that if the test did find a stimulant, but the stimulant is in such miniscule amounts as to have no advantageous, or deleterious effects, then the issue is over.  Same if the source of the stimulant is something common and benign, like cold medication, or a new sports drink.  But that would mean someone would have to make a decision.

This flies in the face of Zero Tolerance.  The assumption is that if you have any substance in your bloodstream then you are obviously a full-blown maniac-addict-thief-crazy person, just a hair-breadth away from raping and pillaging to get your next fix.  Zero Tolerance precludes thinking in these situations, when there are significant gradations from black to white. 

Agreed, we don’t want people with messed up judgement piloting our aircraft, or racing our stock cars for that matter.  Where we’re falling down is letting science make all the decisions, including penalties that could end a career.